Zellers Resturant

[chaman]

A restaurant IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE. Better recheck your definitions on that subject. So because someone dont have the resources to follow such a thing it is therefore RIGHT to do it. I think you just shot your foot.



Also not everyone in a pic with the face blurred are crying....thats a generalization and poor attempt to explain that.

Security cameras have another purpose....security....so....your point? Not relevant at all and again just forcing an argument.

Its funny as to I tried to discuss this here and words like "soap opera", "candid" are suddenly brought forward. No solid argument has been brought yet and the use of such adjectives makes me think I may be not that wrong.

EVERY person has a right to their privacy, everyone. If to you thats silly, good, legal? Not necessarily.

Check this article:http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html

From that article:

Most states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of privacy. The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude or seclusion, and against those who publicly disclose private facts. Unless you have permission, avoid publishing or distributing any photo of an individual that reveals private facts about the individual (particularly if revealing those private facts might embarrass the individual).

A pic of someone eating (stuffing face) like you so eloquently put it might embarrass ANYONE. More when you find it in a public forum and some member referred to it as "stuffing your face". Again...does it hurt to ask??

Concerning shooting in a PRIVATE place such as a restaurant, from that article:

If you are going to shoot on private property, get permission to enter and use the location for shooting and to show the premises in your work, in order to avoid trespass and invasion of privacy claims by the property owner.

[Dave Smith]

Here is the full quote relative to Rights of Individuals from the above source. It is an article written by a copyright attourney and deals mostly with copyright infringement (something good to know). Hi-lights are mine.

Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals
You may need permission to photograph people due to state laws giving individuals privacy and publicity rights.

Most states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of privacy. The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude or seclusion, and against those who publicly disclose private facts. Unless you have permission, avoid publishing or distributing any photo of an individual that reveals private facts about the individual (particularly if revealing those private facts might embarrass the individual).

Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.

Be particularly careful about celebrities. Using a photograph of a celebrity for your own commercial gain - for example, posting a photo you took of Clint Eastwood on your business's marketing material or Web site - is asking for a lawsuit, even if you took the photograph when you ran into Clint on a public street.

Commercial photographers avoid right of publicity/privacy lawsuits by obtaining photographic releases from people shown in the their shots. If you are considering selling your photos or using them on your Web site, you may want to do the same. The Multimedia Law and Business Handbook contains a sample release. Experienced performers and models are accustomed to signing these releases.

[chaman]

Did you just dont see the paragraph ABOVE that nice bold sentence trick??

But playing it your way....who here can put their hands in the fire for anyone and boldly say no one here uses this critique forum to, in certain way, make a name for himself/herself, to, in fact SELL their work to anyone interested in?? Aint that business or commercial??

Again...what with this attitude?? Why is it so hard to ASK PERMISSION.....Could someone explain this?? Because Im starting to get a very arrogant attitude pertaining this issue at hand. This in way harms the artist work, in fact it says a lot about him or she....is a matter of politeness if you will. What wrong with asking, again?

[Dave Smith]

OK ... Enough from me. This is the "Photo Critique Forum" not the legal forum.

Don ...
I do like your picture. The "table top" height composition is great. Gives the view of being seated there. The exposure and detail is nice and crisp.

Thanks for posting this pic.

[Frog]

Privacy and seclusion are guaranteed in the home.
When you are in public, you are just that-in public. You are visible and your actions are visible. This is why photographers DO have the right to take pictures IN PUBLIC.
At certain times it would be courteous to ask, of course.
Whether the interior of the restaurant is a private or public place, I don't know. Its open to the public but on private property. Don could ask the management and even show them his pic, but then he's in Canada and the laws may differ.
There is no rule against him standing outside the window on a public sidewalk and taking pics of the people inside.

[Kajuah]

Did you just dont see the paragraph ABOVE that nice bold sentence trick??

But playing it your way....who here can put their hands in the fire for anyone and boldly say no one here uses this critique forum to, in certain way, make a name for himself/herself, to, in fact SELL their work to anyone interested in?? Aint that business or commercial??

Again...what with this attitude?? Why is it so hard to ASK PERMISSION.....Could someone explain this?? Because Im starting to get a very arrogant attitude pertaining this issue at hand. This in way harms the artist work, in fact it says a lot about him or she....is a matter of politeness if you will. What wrong with asking, again?

I think if you need a time out :thumbsup: ....and honestly quoting a website like photosecrets is hardly a reputable or even valid source of information.. especially law...
Why is it so hard to ask permission?...Well excuse me... Why is it so hard to ASK PERMISSION?because in some cases permission is not required.. it's as simple as that. Next time you go outside look into a store, any store, and find any book and open it, in fact find some postcards too. Or a newspaper. Look through the photos; do you think that the photographer went and took down the permission of every single person who appeared (even slightly) in those photos? No. Why? Because he/she doesn't *have to*.

but i'm not going to go into a pissing contest over who's right and who's wrong (ahem, you're wrong by the way ;) just to clear that up) quoting various silly blogs filled with unreferenced information .. the photo's subject matter is not the people - it is *the restaurant* and by canadian law anywhere is a public place unless labeled that it isn't. "no trespassing" "no public admission" "employees only" "do not enter"

A restaurant IS a public place, but like I said, I'm not going to continue this battle over urinals..

[chaman]

You know...this is not a battle. Its a mature discussion which obviously you are not prepared to have. Im glad Frog contributed in a controlled, centered way. That is what I expect from this kind of environment.

I dont need a time out, you need to GROW UP and consider an attitude adjustment, Kajuah or whatever your name is. I took the time to do some research and shared the article here. You have not brought a single constructive argument here. I think it is you, my friend, who needs a time out and learn to have CLASS.

I thought I could discuss here in a civil, polite way. I guess I was wrong. After this "show" I prefer to pursue my photography interest some place else. I expected this teen rage responses in a foreign car forum or something like that. Certainly not here.

Again i would like to thank Frog to contribute in a MATURE way.

[Kajuah]

A mature discussion? It doesn't look that way.. you seem to be replying very insultingly and with great abrasion and that yelling EVERY other WORD isn't doing a very good job at illustrating your superior maturity. I'm glad you took the time to come back and get the last word in, though, it's the icing on the cake :thumbsup: cheers mate, sorry you couldn't find what you were looking for. Thanks for spelling my name correctly, it seems you do know "whatever my name is"

[Greg McCary]

If you needed a model release I think Britney Spears and Paris Hilton would get rich just sueing people. I thought if you were in a public place, not your own property you were fair games, so to speak? Celeberties get photographed even in private places, Beaches, churches ect? Even President Bush get nailed in private places.

[Don Schaeffer]

The law here says that the camera is an extension of the eye. You can take a photo of people if they are in a public place where they can expect to be seen. Putting photos on a web site such as this is not publication and there is no financial gain. Furthermore, I am very careful never ascribe uncharitable motives to people in my labels so there is no libel. If I were to try to sell this image, I would need releases from everyone who is recognizable. I have no intention to sell this image.

I often thought, what would happen if some stranger came up to me and said, "I would like to take your photo--just acting natural while you are having dinner. Will you sign this release saying it's ok?" I thought about how I would react--signing my name for a stranger on a piece of paper I didn't really understand. What am i releasing...all my money? Then he wants me to look natural...how can I? Get real guys! Obtaining releases would unlock a Pandora's Box, cause riots!

If we do not assert our right to take pictures in public places, photography will be reduced to studio and florals or impersonal lightening and fireworks shots. I am not hurting anyone and I am documenting my community and way of life. I see nothing unethical about it.

[Frog]

I guess the rules about personal attacks are getting ignored.

[gahspidy]

Don, this is a fine shot. The composition is very good, and the low angle works well. The patrons being relaxed and engaged in their books and what not make for a great scene.

The topic of whether or not a photographer has the right to take pics of people in a setting like this is one for another forum. This topic, if I recall had been started in the Photo Business and Law forum many times.

I'm not taking sides here, nor am I interested in how the dispute came to turn ugly but from this point on I do not want to read anymore tit for tat on this. Lets keep the comments focused on the critique of Don's photograph. A thread can be started in another more appropriate forum for the discussion and questions regarding photogs rights, etc.
So please, let cooler heads prevail and let's move on. . . .

[Don Schaeffer]

Thanks Gary

[GB1]

Don - Nice shot. Great location, and I think you captured the mood of a simple day, not too crowded like on a Friday night, but a casual day where people are just chillin'. I sort of wish you were using an even wider angle lens. Watch the column's straightness, it seems to be leaning CW (you can fix this w/o too much trouble). It is also a tad dark on the far right side, which you can also fix in PS with a graduated Neutral layer. Nice work

G

[Don Schaeffer]

It's a semi fisheye. I think you can expect some leaning.