Vermont Photographer "Banned"

[draymorton]

I thought this was interesting - on many levels.

http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer...-church-street

[chaman]

Scott shot some pictures of a woman smoking a cigarette outside Uncommon Grounds on Church Street. Scott claims he was about 50 feet away when the woman, an employee of the coffeehouse, noticed his camera and asked him not to take her picture. Scott claims he backed off. But the woman also asked Scott to delete the pictures he’d already taken of her. He refused.

Busted. He shouldnt have refused that and he crossed the line. To me the potential for serious problems about this type of photography is just too much and Im against it.

[OldClicker]

There are several issues here. IMO the main three being:

- Does a photographer in Burlington, VT USA have the right to take pictures on public streets where there is no prohibition by law? I would say that it absolutely protected 'freedom of expression'.

- Does someone have the right to a 'normal expectation of privacy' when viewed on that public street? I would say the law clearly says, "No".

- Do businesses have the right to issue a ‘universal trespass order’ barring someone from entering their places of business because he/she is “…really creeping us out.” I really don’t know, but I don’t like it.

TF

[chaman]

I dont see why a business can not have a say about something like that. I mean...people were complaining!! Thats bad for ANYONES business and they have the right to protect that. Would you like an obnoxious guy around your wife or daughter taking pictures of them? I wouldnt...

There is a difference between a public place and being a public figure, which not anyone of us, at least the majority, is. Does this guy have the right to take a pic of you, against your desire and get away with it? Your rights end where mine start.

This guy said he always asked permission for these pics, but when a woman asks for her pics to be deleted then he refuses?? This guy has no credibility whatsoever.....

[chaman]

Found this...makes for a good read.

3. Making Photos of People
3.1 What should you bear in mind when photographing people?

There is no general legal requirement to obtain someone’s authorization to take his or her photograph. However, there are situations where photography can infringe on important social interests such as national security, protection of children, right of privacy, etc. Most of these situations are strictly controlled by national laws and regulations. Irrespective of the legalities, there are also some things a photographer should not photograph for ethical reasons. Certain photographs of people may amount to exploiting the persons concerned or misrepresenting the truth. If you, as a photographer, know the law and one’s legal rights, you will also be in a better position to find solutions that minimize your legal risks.

Often, you may be free to take a photograph of a person, but the way the image is used may give the person shown in the photograph a right to take legal action.
3.2 Are people protected by intellectual property rights?

People are not protected by intellectual property rights. But be cautious when you photograph someone who is wearing something protected by copyright, industrial design or trademark rights. For example:

* A model wearing a piece of haute couture or some jewelry;
* An actor wearing a theatrical costume; or
* A sportsperson wearing a t-shirt with a badge or logo on it.xi

3.3 When is a permission particularly recommended?

When you snap a picture of another person, two fundamental rights often come into play: the right of the photographer to free expression and the right of the subject to privacy (the right to be left alone). Many countries have privacy laws that affect the circumstances in which you may photograph people and, to a much broader extent, the circumstances in which you may use images of people.xii Hereafter are described some potential restrictions in many countries on taking and using images of people.
• Intruding one’s privacy

Photographers may be liable for violating the privacy rights of others when they intentionally intrude in an offensive way upon someone’s private domain. You can usually photograph someone in a public place. But if you surreptitiously or without permission view and photograph people inside their homes, business or other private areas, then you are likely to violate their privacy rights. An offensive intrusion can be anything from, say entering an individual’s house under false pretense, to setting up hidden cameras in order to spy.
• Publicizing private facts

Disclosing a matter concerning someone’s private life to the public could also raise issues of privacy rights. Unless you have permission, you should refrain from publishing or distributing any photo that reveals private affairs of a person, especially if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive, and (b) is not of concern to the public. Photographs revealing sexual affairs, private debts, criminal records, certain diseases, psychological problems, etc. are likely to violate privacy rights.

Example: Suppose a beer brewery is selling a calendar that depicts an unknown person driving a car with a refreshing pint in his hand. This could raise issues of privacy because it discloses private or sensitive matters about the person.

However, in most countries, the right of privacy does not protect against disclosure of matters of legitimate public concern such as newsworthy events. This means that politicians, celebrities and other newsworthy persons may lose their right to privacy to the extent that their private facts are relevant to legitimate news.

Example: You would generally be allowed to publish photos of a top football player taking performance-enhancing drugs, because this is a newsworthy fact. But revealing his sexual activities may be an invasion of his privacy because this disclosure is highly personal and has no bearing upon his public role.

Furthermore, many laws do not protect private matters if they are in public view (unless the portrayed person has taken care not to disclose private details to casual observers). Thus, a photo of a mother grieving for her daughter who was victim in a car accident, if it was taken while she was on the street, is usually not considered to be an invasion of privacy. But this does not mean that all such photography is ethical. There are situations where photographers should consider refraining from photographing people, even if it would be legal.

In case of doubt, the best way to protect yourself from being sued for infringement of privacy rights is to obtain written permission from the person you want to photograph.
• Using someone’s image for commercial benefit

Many countries recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity is the direct opposite of the right of privacy. It recognizes that a person’s image has economic value that is presumed to be the result of the person’s own effort and it gives to each person the right to exploit their own image.

Under this right, you could be liable if you use a photograph of someone without their consent to gain some commercial benefit.

Although the right of publicity is frequently associated with celebrities, every person, regardless of how famous, has a right to prevent unauthorized use of their name or image for commercial purposes. However, as a matter of practice, right of publicity suits are typically brought by celebrities, who are in a better position than ordinary individuals to demonstrate that their identity has commercial value. You should, therefore, act with special caution before using a photograph of a celebrity for your own commercial gain. If you consider selling photos of celebrities or using them in advertisements or on your website, then you should certainly obtain photographic releases (that is, permission to do so) from the people portrayed in your shots.

Example: Putting an unauthorized photograph of the tennis star Kim Clijsters on the cover of a sports magazine after she wins a grand slam final, would probably not be considered an infringement of Kim’s right of publicity, since the use is mainly informative. Conversely, if you print that same picture on posters and market them, you are simply trying to make money by exploiting her image. Kim Clijsters would have grounds to file a lawsuit for infringement of her right of publicity. This can result in monetary damages against you, and/or forced removal of the posters.

Example: A photographer who displays someone’s portrait, without having first obtained the permission, in his shop window or on his website to advertise portrait services, may in some countries be liable for violating the privacy rights of the portrayed person.xiii

While an individual’s right to privacy generally ends when the individual dies, in many countries, the publicity rights continue many years after death.xiv This means, for example, that it is illegal in some countries to use a photo of Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley for commercial purposes without the consent of their estates. As a matter of fact, many representatives of well-known authors, musicians, actors, photographers, politicians, sports figures, celebrities, and other public figures continue to control and license the uses of those persons’ names, likenesses, etc.
• Suggesting that someone is authorizing or endorsingxv a product or service

Golf star Tiger Woods acts in Buick commercials, tennis player Anna Kournikova promotes Omega Watches and Nicole Kidman is the face of Chanel No 5. Businesses have long appreciated the value that celebrities bring to the promotion of their wares. The presence of a celebrity seems to be an effective tool of quickly attracting consumer attention to a product or service and creating high-perceived value and credibility.xvi

However, before using the photograph of a person in an advertisement to sell products or promote services, it is strongly advisable to get prior explicit permission of that person. Without authorization, that person would have grounds to take action against you for “passing off” or for “unfair trade practices.”

Example: If you put the face of Kim Clijsters on the packaging of tennis balls, you are suggesting that she endorses the tennis balls. Thus, you are capitalizing on her reputation.
• Putting someone in a false light or defame someone

Photographs can place someone in a false light or defame someone.xvii It can occur, for example, when a picture is airbrushed or altered in a way that exposes the subject to hatred or ridicule. It can also occur when a photo is used to illustrate text in a way that it creates a false impression. This often happens when significant information about someone is either omitted from or added to a story such that the person is portrayed in a false light.xviii

Example: A photo depicts a man who is incidentally walking in front of a brothel. Publishing that photo to illustrate an article on child prostitution could lead to a lawsuit.

Example: Adding a caption under a photograph of a Buddhist leader that falsely attributes a quote on religious intolerance to him is likely to amount to defamation.

Example: Figure skater Nancy Kerrigan brought a defamation suit against a company that was selling pornographic photos fudged to resemble her. One photo showed a nude woman ice-skating. Nancy Kerrigan’s face was affixed onto the nude body. The photos were advertised on the Internet and could be bought on a CD-ROM.

Example: Photographers may be liable for defamation, false advertising or unfair competition if they help to create advertisements that lower the reputation of a competitor’ character, his business or his products or services.

Never use photographs in a way that exposes someone to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or reflects unfavorably upon one’s personal morality or integrity. A person who is portrayed in a false light or defamed may bring a lawsuit against you for the damages he has suffered (such as humiliation, the loss of a job or the ability to earn a living).
3.4 Tips for Photographers

The best way to protect oneself against lawsuits - when feasible and appropriate - is probably to get a prior written permission from the subject of the picture, or the (copyright) owner of any object or property to be photographed. Remember, however, that the extent of what may be legally used will be governed by the terms and context of that consent. Even when it is lawful to photograph without any authorization, it may still be advisable to get a permission. In fact, many advertisers and other potential clients demand releases before they will buy the rights to use a picture.

If you license a particular image to a client for purposes of manufacture, sale or publicity, require the licensee to indemnify you for any liabilities arising out of the licensed use of the image. This is usually done through an indemnification clause in the licensing contract.

If you have not obtained written permission for a particular photograph, it is a good idea to add a disclaimer on the back of the picture, such as: “This photograph cannot be modified for commercial or advertising use, nor can it be copied or reproduced in any form without the photographer’s permission.” This may limit your liability should someone else make unauthorized use of your photographs.

[jetrim]

The interesting thing here is that the universal trespass order does absolutely nothing to to stop or even curb the offending behavior. Sure he can no longer go into the stores to buy anything, but that doesn't stop him from camping out in the street 24/7 - which I'd be really inclined to do following receipt of an order like this handed out at my place of work.

Charman, I've been in the position of being asked to delete pics of a private business that I had taken from a public street - I refused too, and metered my behavior to that of the store manager, eventually demanding that she call the cops right then, so they could explain the law to her. If you feel that strongly about people taking your picture without your consent, it's real simple...don't go out in public anymore. As far as the photos, the law is on this guy's side 100%. There are literally thousands of photographers that do what this guys did as a full time profession, not as a lunch time hobby. As far as the trespass order, the store owners are well within their rights to ask for the order, but that does not prevent him from standing with his lens 1" from the store window glass and photographing the interior, so I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish, other than some mild form of public humiliation.

[draymorton]

Thomas Hawk (street photographer extraordinaire and high profile flickr guy) recounted a similar predicament to this one on his blog awhile back. He snapped some woman on the street. She noticed, had a hissy, and asked him to delete. He refused. She threatened to go to the police. He said go ahead and took off. She followed him for several blocks, ranting and gesticulating. She notified a nearby police officer and demanded an arrest be made. The police officer turned out to be a photographer, told the woman to get over herself, and proceeded to talk shop with TH for the next fifteen minutes. :lol:

From all I've read and heard, it seems that there are no laws barring anyone from taking pictures of anyone else on the street. The guy clearly got shafted.

[chaman]

The interesting thing here is that the universal trespass order does absolutely nothing to to stop or even curb the offending behavior. Sure he can no longer go into the stores to buy anything, but that doesn't stop him from camping out in the street 24/7 - which I'd be really inclined to do following receipt of an order like this handed out at my place of work.

Charman, I've been in the position of being asked to delete pics of a private business that I had taken from a public street - I refused too, and metered my behavior to that of the store manager, eventually demanding that she call the cops right then, so they could explain the law to her. If you feel that strongly about people taking your picture without your consent, it's real simple...don't go out in public anymore. As far as the photos, the law is on this guy's side 100%. There are literally thousands of photographers that do what this guys did as a full time profession, not as a lunch time hobby. As far as the trespass order, the store owners are well within their rights to ask for the order, but that does not prevent him from standing with his lens 1" from the store window glass and photographing the interior, so I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish, other than some mild form of public humiliation.

Sorry but I will continue getting out of my house.

The law is indeed clear. If you use ANY of my pics for a business I have legal grounds to sue you and so I would. I may loose, I may win but this attitude is plain abusive when it can be so easily avoided. Maybe people should inform better on how to defend themselves against this suposedly freedom of speech. Whats so hard about a simple thing called consent?? Also the law can prosecute him even more forcefully if he has the brilliant idea of shooting through the windows. You better read more carefully because the law is not on your side %100 of the times as you think.

Im glad this one got shafted because anyone who does this against someone wishes truly deserves getting it. So if you see a guy taking pics of your wife and your kids you will let it go because he is an "artist"? Good luck with that one buddy.

This is my last post on this subject...BTW Im going out tomorrow with my family so sorry....:thumbsup:

[almo]

This is why I photograph birds.

[draymorton]

This is why I photograph birds.

And why I'm thinking about getting into landscapes. Photographing people can be very complicated. Which is why you see so many photographers shooting selfies these days.

[OldClicker]

This is why I photograph birds.

Birds are people, too! TF

[chaman]

This is why I photograph birds.

:thumbsup:

[Loupey]

"...she explains, it’s because the police don’t decide whether to issue trespass orders; they simply issue them at the behest of businesses and property owners...The bottom line is, if a business owner requests that we issue a notice of trespass, we’re OK with that. We don’t require that an illegality happened.”

I've never heard of a universal trespass order. Police are supposed to enforce the law. Sounds pretty dangerous to me if a group of people (business owners in this case) have the power to tell the police to keep someone away that they don't like - someone who wasn't even on their property nor committing any illegal actions.

I think Mr. Scott is only "guilty" of having poor people skills.

[Nicci]

Sometimes I think people in the US are weird. Sex is horrible but blood splatter from an AK47 is acceptable. Now street photography is "despicable". sigh. You all are a strange brew.

/Nicole
American now living in Europe

[OldClicker]

Sometimes I think people in the US are weird. Sex is horrible but blood splatter from an AK47 is acceptable. Now street photography is "despicable". sigh. You all are a strange brew.

/Nicole
American now living in Europe

From what I've seen (this is, of course, a hot topic on many photo forums), that is a very un-Euro response (the photo part, not the sex/guns part). The Euro-culture seems to be nearly unanimous that the people in the street DO have a right to expect privacy in a public place. - TF

[Medley]

... And this is precisely why I love being part of a photography club!

A few years back, I took a road trip out to our local countryside. My purpose was to take some pics of our local covered bridges. There is a 'scenic drive', created and organized by the local townships to promote both the bridges and local tourism.

Long story short, I took a pic of a local business, "Kelly's Machine Guns" because I thought the sign was novel. Chaos ensued. The business owner ended up calling the police "demanding" that I be arrested. I wasn't, but was asked to 'continue on my way' so as not to upset the local businesses.

A few weeks later, our photography club showed up en-masse, to capture the local color. After a short discussion with one of our members, who happens to be a photographer for the state newspaper, you can't BELIEVE how remarkably cordial the local authority was.....

The law is indeed clear. If you use ANY of my pics for a business I have legal grounds to sue you and so I would.

Yes, that's entirely correct chaman. You have every right to sue over the image's USE, the law is VERY clear on that. But you do NOT any jurisdiction over it's existence or creation, so long as it was created from public property. Case law has also made THAT clear.

But, If I USE the image for ANY commercial purpose, I would need your permission. I can't sell the photo without first obtaining your permission, but I can (and have) posted them publicly.

It may interest you to know that Portland, Oregon was recently ordered to pay $40,000 (plus all legal fees) because a local police officer tased a citizen after he refused to stop video-taping an arrest in progress. The officer said he felt threatened because the citizen was 'brandishing a weapon in a menacing manner'. Turns out the judge didn't consider the video camera a 'weapon' and didn't consider holding said camera at shoulder level 'brandishing' or 'menacing'. I'm happy to report that photography is STILL not a crime in the state of Oregon.

However, they are revamping the oversight committee for officer involved complaints in Portland. It seems that until now, all oversight was in the hands of the police chief, who found 'no evidence that excessive force was used by the officer'. I'm guessing the judge disagreed. A citizen's panel is being formed to handle future complaints, much to the chagrin of both the police chief and police union.

See, standing up for one's first amendment rights should never be considered 'abusive'.

BTW Im going out tomorrow with my family so sorry....:thumbsup:

Well, if you happen to see me, and I have a camera pointed your direction....smile.


- Joe U.

[DGK*CRONE]

See, standing up for one's first amendment rights should never be considered 'abusive'.

Well, if you happen to see me, and I have a camera pointed your direction....smile.

- Joe U.

Well put, Joe. :thumbsup:

[Nicci]

From what I've seen (this is, of course, a hot topic on many photo forums), that is a very un-Euro response (the photo part, not the sex/guns part). The Euro-culture seems to be nearly unanimous that the people in the street DO have a right to expect privacy in a public place. - TF

I think it depends on where in Europe. Here I take pictures on the street all the time and no one has said a word to me. I can see there being a problem if I went to the beach where being topless and/or naked is the norm and whipped out my camera and started shooting.

[Skyman]

I think there are a number of issues, one is that photographers and law inforcement need to learn their rights, but also both sides need to display some responsibility. The point is that just because you have no legal requirement to cease and disist doesn't mean you shouldn't. A little public courtesy goes a long way. Also to your subject, they have no Idea who you are and how you plan to use the photo (why take it if you aren't going to sell it) and if you do sell it / use it for advertising, what are the odds that they will know about it and therefore be able to take action. If you post it online, and a third party steals the image what then? you didn't sell it, but their rights have been infringed anyway. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should stop "street photography" but I do think that if photographers were nicer some of the time these problems would go away.

[chaman]

I think there are a number of issues, one is that photographers and law inforcement need to learn their rights, but also both sides need to display some responsibility. The point is that just because you have no legal requirement to cease and disist doesn't mean you shouldn't. A little public courtesy goes a long way. Also to your subject, they have no Idea who you are and how you plan to use the photo (why take it if you aren't going to sell it) and if you do sell it / use it for advertising, what are the odds that they will know about it and therefore be able to take action. If you post it online, and a third party steals the image what then? you didn't sell it, but their rights have been infringed anyway. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should stop "street photography" but I do think that if photographers were nicer some of the time these problems would go away.

EXACTLY!!!!!:thumbsup:

[Greg McCary]

I think it depends on where in Europe. Here I take pictures on the street all the time and no one has said a word to me. I can see there being a problem if I went to the beach where being topless and/or naked is the norm and whipped out my camera and started shooting.

I agree a little common sense goes a long way. Most people I shoot are very receptive but I ain't chasing women around and trying to make a lude or embarassing shot. I can kind of get a feel for it if someone is going to go off. In the past I have explained what I was doing and even offered for them to visit my website. If they absolutly are aganst me having their picture I will delete it. But that ain't happened yet.

[draymorton]

Lots of great posts here. Thanks, everyone, for chiming in.

[CaraRose]

I just think I would have erased the shot, pulled that card out, put a new one in, and when I got back home I'd use some file recovery to get that shot back. Less conflict, same result.

[draymorton]

I just think I would have erased the shot, pulled that card out, put a new one in, and when I got back home I'd use some file recovery to get that shot back.

Now you're talkin'!

On similar note, someone was telling me today that they might have just pretended to erase the image...

[OldClicker]

I think there are a number of issues, one is that photographers and law inforcement need to learn their rights, but also both sides need to display some responsibility. The point is that just because you have no legal requirement to cease and disist doesn't mean you shouldn't. A little public courtesy goes a long way. Also to your subject, they have no Idea who you are and how you plan to use the photo (why take it if you aren't going to sell it) and if you do sell it / use it for advertising, what are the odds that they will know about it and therefore be able to take action. If you post it online, and a third party steals the image what then? you didn't sell it, but their rights have been infringed anyway. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should stop "street photography" but I do think that if photographers were nicer some of the time these problems would go away.

I don't see that we have nearly enough information to decide who is or isn't being 'nice'. One interpretation would be that this photographer is just taking pictures when he is harassed by a full-of-himself security guard and town cops, then the cops come and harass him at work (putting his job in jeopardy), then some lady goes off on him because she's afraid her boyfriend is going to find out she's still smoking and then he is further harassed with a ‘universal trespass order’ from the shop owners and served (again publically at his workplace) by the police. I think I might be a tad grumpy, also.

My point here is that we cannot truthfully judge the intent or ‘niceness’ of any of these people. All we can do is demand that the rule of law be upheld for all.

TF