Photographing Strangers in Public. . Etiquette?

[gahspidy]

As someone who mostly shoots landscapes and wildlife, abjects, etc. I had done something completely different last week. I decided to go out and capture some of the interesting looking people I see in the city every day. I found that mostly people don't mind having their photo taken, but was somewhat nervous about the whole affair.
What are the "rules of engagement" when it comes to photographing people out in public. I really don't want to ask first because that kind of throws the whole mood and makes them too aware and ruins the moment, most times.
Do we have a right to just snap someones picture without asking? Is it only a concern if the pic is used later for selling purposes?
I had posted three pics of "Interesting People" in the Critique forum, but hope I have not broken any protocol.
Thanks. . .

[another view]

First off, good for you for trying something new, this experience might help you at some point with other shooting situations. There will probably be a lot of opinions on this. I'm not so good at this, but have tried a little. It's easier to photograph people in a situation where they more or less expect to be photographed, say at a wedding or if they're involved in an event like a parade, a band, Civil War re-enactment, etc.

True street shooting, like what you're talking about, is different than that though. The best advice I've heard is that you don't shoot someone who gives you the impression that they don't want their picture taken. With most of the things I see that I want to photograph, if I asked them or even if they saw me do it that would ruin the moment. Of course, doing it that way obviously there's no model release so you can only use the shot for personal or editorial use.

[Pose]

So, in order to use a street photo for future sales, or publications, you must get them to sign a model release?

[another view]

So, in order to use a street photo for future sales, or publications, you must get them to sign a model release?

That's the general rule, if someone is recognizable you need a release. You argue what is and isn't "recognizable" but you'd be paying an attorney to do that. If you have a model release, you have the right to use it. Just that simple.

[Janie]

That's the general rule, if someone is recognizable you need a release. You argue what is and isn't "recognizable" but you'd be paying an attorney to do that. If you have a model release, you have the right to use it. Just that simple.

Wasn't there a movie where a photographer photographed someone and realized they caught a murder on film? lol

Okay, I don't generally photograph people in the city because last time I did it was a schizophrenic homeless guy that chased me three blocks screaming I stole his soul! That scared me off that. I should have realized that it was the same guy that used to yell at my building all the time but he was wearing a different hat. Maybe he was Amish?

[Ultra Magnus]

I think that was enemy of the state, with will smith and gene hackman. I beleive it was an automatic camera set up to shoot pictures of wildlife for some nature data group or something, I think.

Oh, and having someone chase me like that would scare me off of taking street people pics too !

[darkrainfall]

I've taken up some photojournalism again and the rules there are pretty simple... I go and start to take a few test pics... nothing even remotely useable and then if I get some strange or concerned looks I just say that I'm from the North County Journal and then I move around taking more pics and I stop to get the names of the people in my pics. The rule I learned is that if there are more than five people in a picture and none of them are outwardly apparent you don't have to include names.
When you photograph people yourself it's kind of a case by case basis... I've had experiences like Janie's and they are scary, but I take pics first sometimes and then have them sign a very simple model release (and yes they are very important) or I tell them who I am, have them sign the release, and snap a pic or two. In the latter case the person must be very interesting posed or unposed otherwise the pic doesn't work.
I've also heard some guys say that they offer a dollar or two to homeless people when they agree to the picture or for others whom a few dollars would be inappropriate they say they offer to send a copy via e-mail... a small file with marked photographer branding, of course...
For publishing or advertising purposes a model release is imperative though...
Also a long lens where you aren't in people's faces helps....
hope this kind of helps... *smile*

[schrackman]

I've recently revised my policy on photographing people...shoot first, ask questions later! The reason I say this is because I missed a great opportunity at the huntington library. Three older ladies, decked out in sun hats and dresses, were sitting on a bench and just looking as classic as can be, like from a movie in the deep south. I asked if they minded if I took their picture, and two of them got so embarrassed about their photo being taken they got up and hid their faces. They weren't offended, just shy. I tried coaxing them back onto the bench but no such luck. I should have sat down across the path from then and shot them as they naturally conversed. I blew the moment. Of course this may not sit well for everyone, but it's how I plan to work until it doesn't work for me.

Ray

[gahspidy]

This thread has been very helpful and if for nothing else, has given me some comfort in hearing of others experience. Fact of the matter is on that day I was about to snap a shot of a very interesting looking homeless man who was being offered some options I think from a couple of homeless advocates. Just as I was about to snap this shot they came running over to me yelling at me that they did'nt want any pics taken and that I was invading his privacy and that I needed to ask first. I just told them it was my hobby and only for my collection and that no harm was meant (and that I did not get the shot).
Asking permission or giving a few dollars to a less fortunate person on the street to take their pic seems reasonable, in some cases. But I don't know if I would be up to carrying around release forms and having some one sign something . Seems to me I would get a " who the F--- are you" look. ( which, as an after thought, might make for a good shot in itself) i.e. "Here is a shot of a angry man after I asked him to sign on the dotted line" Gotta get an IS lens so I can run as I am shooting. . .
Darkrainfall, thanks for your info. I went to an exhibit the other day with my girl before seeing a show, and there were lots of candid photographs of people in rather compromising situations. For example, there was a photo blown up to huge scale, of a Hasidic Jew peeing on a wall with a young boy waiting for him to finish. I can't imagine that the photographer asked him afterwards if it would be ok to blow this up and sell it, and by the way please sign this release form. Many other interesting compositions such as that. i think what I need to do is speak with the photographer and find out how he went about it The same goes with news photogs. I can't imagine that they could get a release form from everyone they shoot on the street. Such as when they catch celebrities at all situations.
I think there is a lot of gray area regarding this whole topic.
But I did enjoy it overall, and will be doing it again . I think like anything else, the more you practice at soimething the better you get at it. And I'm hoping I can not only better my skills at shooting people shots, but also get good at working with them and getting people to feel non threatened by my camera and I.

[gahspidy]

[QUOTE=another view]First off, good for you for trying something new, this experience might help you at some point with other shooting situations.

Thanks for the comments.
Yes, I do feel this is good experience for other situations as well. It made me use my auto focus for the first time ever!! I mostly shoot with aperture priority and manual focus, but in doing these shots and wanting to get them framed and shot quickly, I used auto focus. I t was definetely a rewarding and learning experience and am looking forward to doing it again.

[another view]

The same goes with news photogs. I can't imagine that they could get a release form from everyone they shoot on the street. Such as when they catch celebrities at all situations.
I think there is a lot of gray area regarding this whole topic.

Gray area, absolutely. I think two factors would be how aggressive the celebrity (or their "people") is/are, and how much in assets they think the photographer has!

Generally, news photographs are considered an editorial use and do not require any sort of release. You would need a release for the same shot if you planned to sell it for an ad campaign, etc. It's not the image, it's the use.

[natatbeach]

question would be ---did you ever give it back Poor you that's frrreaky

[philic1013]

i am no expert in law, but i've had some run-ins with the police before, shooting at a park or street and someone calls it in, they come and say they got a complaint, ect, ask for the film. I politely refuse and state that it's public grounds and as i've been informed I have the right to keep all my photographs and do as I please with them as long as there are no signs saying otherwise, and I shoot from public ground and not into private property (over/through fence, window, ect). That what i've been taught to do. At the age of 16 I was at a park with some of my friends taking shots, a mother called thought i was stalking her child. I explained that her son was not the intent of any photographs, nor did i believe I ever captured him accidentally in the background, they were just in the area near me. She freaked, called the cops before approaching me, and they were there before her and I were done speaking. I immediatly called my dad, who is a lawyer in an unrelated field, and he told me not to let go to anyone, police included, my camera/film/ect for any reason unless there was a court order as all event occured on private property. I went as far as offering to have it developed right then, and show them the prints. Mother was unsatisified, cops bullied me, my dad said to leave. So i just walked away, they didnt tell me not to, and they told her she couldnt follow me. I've also had men in suits from (not the government) local citibank skyscrapers and whatnot stand in my way literally about photographing a fountain and art sculpture outside the building. I took a step back onto the sidewalk, and shot away, because I didnt know if the city or the building owned the courtyard outside the building. They stood silent.

So- cops will be cops if someone complains loud enough, look into your LOCAL rights from a lawyer/police dept. and know them, I would go as far as carry a copy of the statues on you if you expect problems.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm Page I carry with me from a lawyer who assembled some information on photographer's rights. Not exactly federal rules or general guidelines, but it has satisfied anyone who's stopped me so far.

~Andrew

[ACArmstrong]

Just a quick note about celebrities and public figures.

They're not protected by the same laws as your normal Joe Schmo on the street. The courts have said that people who are "public figures" should reasonably assume that they will be the subjects of photographs, videos, drawings, etc. BECAUSE they are public figures. In other words, celebrities, politicians, or just anyone who is a known public figure is fair game, as long as you're not going onto private property to take the photographs, video, etc.

I was a political cartoonist for five years. The Supreme Court in Hustler V. Falwell upheld the right of cartoonists/artists to make fun of public figures AND stated that there was NO SUCH THING as an "outrageous clause" that would stop a cartoonist/artist from publishing.