Photographing People

Steven001

Steven001

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,531
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

I was showing my mum some of my pictures last night. She said I was to watch what I was doing and not take any pictures with people in them. She said I could get accused of being a paedophile (pedophile?) - Not sure how it's spelled - and be taken to court? (if the subjects are young).

Now, I've only had my camera for 1 week, and I haven't taken any pictures with people in them yet. This is making me a little worried though, does she speak the truth? I said that it was not true, and she fell out with me. :nono:

I know a lot of people take pictures of candidates with them knowing to get a ‘natural’ looking picture and post. Just wanted to know what is actually allowed.

Cheers,
Steven
 
there is no rule against photographing anyone (including kids) in a public place. Obviously if you were to use these images commercially you would however require a model release. If you are just just wandering around public areas you should generally be fine though (depending on local laws).

There are many discussions on forums relating to "Photographer's Rights" and it can be a bit of a minefield.

It's heartbreaking when you hear of people who have been acused of being something other than just a photographer engaging in their hobby. The best thing you can do is just be careful of where you use your camera and be awae of what is acceptable conduct.

Stretching over a wall to peer into private property is obviously not on, but shooting in the street or in a public park is generally ok.

If you are shooting portraits (of kids or adults), a model release is certainly helpful.
 
Earlier this year at a local park I was in a situation where I wanted to sneak a shot of a young girl feeding ducks. Was a great photo opportunity.
I decided to ask her parents who were stood nearby if it was ok to take the shots.
They were fine with it :)
 
You should be fine if you apply a little common sense, avoid hding in the sand dunes with a 500mm lens taking pictures of kiddies getting changed etc.
 
I echo whats been said already. Just to add one more thing. Try going to the zoo or a local attraction on a warm summers day. You'll be very lucky if you can manage to take photos without people in them.
 
Confidence is a big factor, i dont try and hide the fact im taking pics when on the street and people normally assume im some kind of pro doing work and have never had any problems with people, if you do get someone who wants to know what your up too, offer to send them copies, you will be amazed at how many people will be happy with that!
 
Steven001 said:
Hi everyone,

I was showing my mum some of my pictures last night. She said I was to watch what I was doing and not take any pictures with people in them. She said I could get accused of being a paedophile (pedophile?) - Not sure how it's spelled - and be taken to court? (if the subjects are young).
Click to expand...

Steven,

Accusing is easy. Anybody can accuse anyone of anything! That doesn't mean it is 1) true, or that 2) you would be convicted for it. That's a whole different thing.
Meanwhile any idiot can try and haul you or me into court for a 'frivolous' lawsuit (a case without merit), wasting his time, my time, and the judge's time, generally stirring up trouble in the populace, costing the taxpayer unneccessary expense, and with a strong possibility of destroying the accused's public image for the rest of his life.

So, your mum is correct that you could be accused. Of course you could. Anybody could. Your mum is wrong, however, when she insinuates that you will be convicted. That depends on an actual law and on the judge.

In public you can shoot anything and anybody you like*. But what you do next with those photos is what's important: you often cannot publish or sell those shots as you like.

*Of course civil behavior suggests you ask before you take someone's explicit picture. But there is no law that forbids it.
 
W.Smith said:
Steven,

Accusing is easy. Anybody can accuse anyone of anything! That doesn't mean it is 1) true, or that 2) you would be convicted for it. That's a whole different thing.
Meanwhile any idiot can try and haul you or me into court for a 'frivolous' lawsuit (a case without merit), wasting his time, my time, and the judge's time, generally stirring up trouble in the populace, costing the taxpayer unneccessary expense, and with a strong possibility of destroying the accused's public image for the rest of his life.

So, your mum is correct that you could be accused. Of course you could. Anybody could. Your mum is wrong, however, when she insinuates that you will be convicted. That depends on an actual law and on the judge.

In public you can shoot anything and anybody you like*. But what you do next with those photos is what's important: you often cannot publish or sell those shots as you like.

*Of course civil behavior suggests you ask before you take someone's explicit picture. But there is no law that forbids it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing that up. I did some reading up about the subject yesterday and found out that we can shoot nearly anything and anybody we like.

I also read this:

The lack of coherent law of privacy in the UK means that photographers are not only free to take photography of people in public places, but they can use those photos as they wish, including for commercial gain.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure in the UK you don't actually need a model release form to sell photos of people, as the second quote by Steven001 seems to allude to?
 
Amp34 said:
I'm sure in the UK you don't actually need a model release form to sell photos of people, as the second quote by Steven001 seems to allude to?
Click to expand...

I don't know it, but I think you do need a model release in the UK too for publishing or selling, just like in most western countries.
So that would not pertain to people appearing in e.g. general street scenes, or other obviously public places. It would pertain to obvious portraits. Also portraits in general street scenes, or other obviously public places! In case of doubt or differing opinions the judge decides which it is.
 
A model release isnt actually required in the UK, contrary to popular belief.

However, not many would 'buy' a photo without one, due to international publications / clients etc.
 
My understanding of the law is that you can sell any picture taken of any individual if the picture is taken in a public place. The intended use of the purchase is where the situation becomes difficult. For example, if you were to sell prints for purchasers own use and pleasure, or publish a book, there is no problem. However, were the picture to be used in advertising then a release is required.

As a street shooter I have always steered clear of children, however I am currently experimenting with including them in my pictures since the interaction between children or children and their parents can produce some fantastic "decisive moments". Personally, unless I am interacting with the subject I always shoot from the hip, this leads to a more candid style of picture and where children are involved you are less likely to get concerned (and rightly so in the current climate) parents interrogating you.

Interestingly, I was photographing a building last year and was asked to move on by the property manager because paedophiles had been in the area with cameras.

Cheers, Lol
 
Lol999 said:
Interestingly, I was photographing a building last year and was asked to move on by the property manager because paedophiles had been in the area with cameras.
Click to expand...

Interesting indeed!
That must have been a very young building . . . :bang:
 
No it was like me, old and tattered ;) I wouldn't mind but there was no-one around, never mind any kids :bang:
 
Lol999 said:
Interestingly, I was photographing a building last year and was asked to move on by the property manager because paedophiles had been in the area with cameras.
Click to expand...
I can't help wondering whether were really paedophiles (how did he know?), or whether they were ordinary people with cameras who he just assumed were paedophiles...

It also makes me wonder why this building in particular should be targeted by paedophiles, plural? Is it some sort of regular hang-out for them? Why woud that be, especially if the property manager is so obviously on the ball?

:thinking:
 
It was actually the outside of a shabby 70's built nightclub! It had a large paved area that would have attracted kids with skateboards, but the propertty manager would have moved them off anyway! i think he was just generalising. He was actually a pretty nice guy, his reasoning was just way off. Not that it mattered, the pictures were in the camera by the time he appeared :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top