 HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | reply to fruhead
Re: [Rant] People that don't want their picture taken in PUBLIC said by fruhead:People are allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy. You forgot "in their own homes." on the end of your sentence.  |
|
|
|
 drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6
 ·wavebroadband
| reply to fruhead
said by fruhead:People are allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy. Not on the street they're not.
And why on earth hasn't anyone commented on r81984's gross misrepresentation of commercial use of photos?
You, absolutely, positively need a release from a person who is identifiable in an image you capture if you plan to use it commercially. This is not negotiable. Go and try selling a street photography-styled image to a stock image company (getty, anyone?) and do so without a model release. Good luck!
The only exceptions are:
Personal use - you can hang these pictures on your wall all you want.
Editorial use - go right ahead, put that photo up on flickr. use it for a lead image for your blogger post.
--
flickr | Of faith, power and glory |
|
 DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Heres a question on that
given the EULA and such that google/FB/ect have these days consider the following
you take a pic at some park, and some cure girl happens to be identifiable in the image.
then when looking over your pics you notice that (and because you think aformentioned girl is hot) and enlarge her and then post the enlarged pic of her on google+
then google uses the pic in their advertising
1. you didn't get a release
2. you didn't know google was going to make money off your picture
so are you or google now responsible for the picture? |
|
drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 | Google won't do this, intentionally. Mistakes happen, but their marketing team is smart enough to know that they have to obtain model releases.
--
flickr | Of faith, power and glory |
|
DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Googles Policy (as well as many many other photo sharing sites) is that they can use your pics as they please
its ment so that they can display cool or interesting pics to drum up intrest and as you would have agreed they don't have to get sqat from you (iirc theres been a lawsuit on the matter and the site won over the user (might not have been google in the case but similer photo site)
basicly they just randomly pick some pics that look good and make an ad out of it. |
|
| reply to drew
Some businesses will swipe images rather than pay for stock. Photo fora usually have examples of this. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
| reply to billydunwood
I went to lunch with a friend at a local Mexican restaurant recently.... and for a long time, I've taken pictures of my meals to share with friends.....
A funny story that goes along with this Mexican food meal is that when I took the picture, the flash was required.... when the camera flashed, a guy who was sitting at a booth across from me asked if I had taken their picture. I assured him the picture was of my dinner, that I take photos of almost everything I eat.
He and a lady friend had been sitting there, holding hands, and seemed to have been having a serious conversation.... however, after I took the photo of my food, they both scurried out the door.
Hmmmm, perhaps rather than food photos, I should become a private eye? Me thinks they were nervous, because they were not visiting with their marital partners?
--
Humanity - The greatest natural disaster of all time. |
|
DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | I don't know why but partway through your post I was thinking the manager or cook was going to claim that the food was their intellectual property and you weren't permited to take pictures of it. |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | the foods presentation is most definitely IP, and transmissions of images is addressed in the AUP printed at the bottom of the last page of the menu.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
google this "(sqrt(cos(x))*cos(200*x)+sqrt(abs(x))-0.7)*(4-x*x)^0.01, sqrt(9-x^2), -sqrt(9-x^2)" |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
| reply to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:I don't know why but partway through your post I was thinking the manager or cook was going to claim that the food was their intellectual property and you weren't permited to take pictures of it.
I've known the manager since I was 15, and I'm 60 later this year. He and his son were in another booth eating when this all happened, as it was an off time... the manager and his son, my friend and I, and the secretive couple were the only people in the place.
I will add that there have been times when people look at me suspiciously when I whip out my camera to shoot the food pictures.... no doubt wondering if I'm some food or health critics, but I always explain, it's all just part of a what did you eat today game I play with friends on Facebook... then they just smile.
--
Humanity - The greatest natural disaster of all time. |
|
DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | reply to AVD
said by AVD:the foods presentation is most definitely IP, and transmissions of images is addressed in the AUP printed at the bottom of the last page of the menu.
If such a AUP were there it could simpily be you eat food anything else with the food is not acceptable
then kick kids playing with their food out for breaking the AUP terms lol |
|
sailorPremium
join:2003-10-21
Long Island
kudos:6 | reply to disy
»www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jus···.1011271 |
|
rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA | reply to billydunwood
For some reason this thread reminded me of the guy last year taking pictures of little girls swimming at the public pool. I dont remember what the actuall charges were. But he got arrested and JAIL TIME for it. So by most posts that would be perfectly acceptable to do? |
|
HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | Arrested, but was he prosecuted ? Two different things.....
Note: I'm NOT defending this person. Taking pictures of *people* at a public pool is different -- legal or not -- than specifically taking pictures of young girls. |
|
 pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to billydunwood
It is legal, for the moment, to take pictures of what can be seen with the naked eye in public settings. The problem is that law enforcement and the general public don't understand this.
Law enforcement routinely goes nuts over people taking pictures near airports, railways, other federal/state facilities, and of themselves too. It's always "because of terrorism". No logic or recitation of law is of any help on the scene.
With people, they figure you're a creep up to no good. If kids are around, you're a pedophile to boot.
The bottom line is that your actual rights are not in line with the treatment you'll get in the real world. It's your choice to be a martyr for photographers' rights or to just move on and snap somewhere else.
Of course, without proper model releases from your human subjects etc, you are very limited with what you can do with the photos commercially. Commercially, these days, can mean something as simple as uploading them to a place that supports itself with ad revenue.
--
My Site |
|
pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI Reviews:
·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to rody_44
said by rody_44: But he got arrested and JAIL TIME for it.
I think you must have got suckered by the headline. In every case I've read about, the "photographer" was also a registered sex offender or had done other things to get arrested (indecent exposure, possession of child porn, etc).
--
My Site |
|
| reply to pog
Re: [Rant] People that don't want their picture taken in PUBLIC I think that if someone doesn't want their picture taken you should respect that. And I am not talking about the law here or public space vs private space, it's about common courtesy and that's that. |
|
 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:10 | reply to DarkLogix
Exactly!!!!
Too much privacy invasion now!! |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to nesmir
Re: [Rant] People that don't want their picture taken in PUBLIC said by nesmir:I think that if someone doesn't want their picture taken you should respect that. And I am not talking about the law here or public space vs private space, it's about common courtesy and that's that.
I would agree with you, but people need to understand photographers dont HAVE to do this. If you are in Public, they could take your picture. When you are out in the middle of public, don't expect to not have your picture taken. Police are recording you in major cities anyway, so maybe we should go down and tell them to not record or take pictures of us out of "common courtesy"
--
No Victim=No Crime |
|
