Is seeing someone in public the same as photographing a person in public?

[GrahamBy]

I've seen the press shoot bleacher shots that for me go way outside "decency" but because they are the press, they get away with it.

Very different in France. Any crowd shot in a newspaper here will have all the faces blurred. In Spain, there is a distinction between being a member of a crowd or being picked out as an individual, with the threshold occurring at a specific number of individuals (might be 6).

[RSL]

Actually, as you're seeing at the moment during an election season, the press can get away with all sorts of stuff us normal photogs can't. They're bound by the same laws we are as far as things like model releases for stuff they're going to use in advertising. They also have to avoid libel, just as we have to. But when it comes to editorial matter they can pretty much get away with murder, and often do. They can write what amounts to an ad, run pictures of people with it, and claim it's editorial material. Usually the ad is a slanted article in favor of or against one politician or another, but the item, with pictures, is called an editorial or a news story. Check your history books and you'll find that this has been going on since before the U.S. became a nation. Mostly it's freedom of the press at work, and mostly I'm in favor of it. But sometimes it goes over the edge. You just have to be critical.

[Rob C]

I felt I was on safe grounds with this shot:

Electric! You've got a good eye, Graham. Worse, you've got interesting people!

;-)

Rob

[GrahamBy]

Easy mark*... the local gay etc community was having a protest ahead of tomorrow's Catholic ultra-right anti-abortion, anti-everything march. Your humble photographer was himself wearing a cardboard unicorn horn on his head to fit in

(*) Just realised this is an Australian football expression... the scars of one's childhood...

PS photo credit to my sometimes model, Marie

[stamper]

A photographer might understand the law in a particular country but the public probably won't. If one of the public complains to the police about a photographer shooting in public then the police probably won't understand either and decide to side with the complainer. Other members of the public might assume the photographer was in the wrong and then....?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

But if the photographer's wearing a unicorn horn, he should be OK, right?   

[GrahamBy]

A photographer might understand the law in a particular country but the public probably won't. If one of the public complains to the police about a photographer shooting in public then the police probably won't understand either and decide to side with the complainer. Other members of the public might assume the photographer was in the wrong and then....?

Especially if it is the police complaining. During the recent protests in Paris, photographers were carrying print-outs of a reminder from the Minister of the Interior that it is perfectly legal to photograph the police... but at least one ended up with an extended hospital stay.

[Chris Calohan]

When in Rome.....

[Rob C]

When in Rome.....

Reminds me of Patrick Lichfield who was apparently told to fold his camp for trying to shoot something on a Roman street without a proper licence so to do. Maybe the fuzz was confused, or just anti-royal. Whichever way, they certainly produced an amusing anecdote for other pros of more humble origins.  Best look like a tourist! Or a paparazzo, in which case you'd get a movie contract. No, wait: isn't Fellini up in Cinecittà heaven now?

Rob

[donbga]

so if you are attending a municipal loo for a certain business you are not on a private property with all the consequences ? or when I am standing openly on my property a step away /forget about easements, etc for now/ from the municipal road I am not supposed to be photographed by GoogleMobile ?

I have no idea what a 'municipal loo' is but if it takes place in public then in the US photography is allowed. If you are in public view on or off private property you maybe photographed, But that doesn't mean someone can photograph through windows etc.

[GrahamBy]

I have no idea what a 'municipal loo' is

Public toilet, provided by the city.

This actually confuses the notion of public space with public ownership. A public space is one anyone has the right to enter: it's uncontrolled. A public toilet is not  public space: it usually has a door, which may on occasion be locked. You are implicitly invited to use it. The fact that it is owned by some sort of public body is irrelevant: otherwise you would be at liberty to do in concert halls and museums whatever you are free to do on the street. You are not.

There are also privately owned public spaces. the two concepts don't actually overlap much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space

[TDvN]

How does this fit with security cameras, both inside business premises and cameras pointing outside to the public? I'm not referring to government related cameras, I'm referring to privately owned and operated security cameras.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... inside business premises and cameras pointing outside to the public?...

Inside > you are on private property, thus fair game
Outside > you are in public, thus fair game

[RSL]

How does this fit with security cameras, both inside business premises and cameras pointing outside to the public? I'm not referring to government related cameras, I'm referring to privately owned and operated security cameras.

As I said earlier, if you're on private property the owner has the right to prohibit you from shooting pictures. Therefore, if you're the owner you have the right to prohibit yourself from shooting pictures.

[TDvN]

As I said earlier, if you're on private property the owner has the right to prohibit you from shooting pictures. Therefore, if you're the owner you have the right to prohibit yourself from shooting pictures.

Understood, but the person with the right to prohibit does not even know the picture is taken, until it is discovered, on say social media.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the person with the right to prohibit does not even know...

...that he doesn't have the right to prohibit anything (in the States). As I said, inside or outside, that person is a fair game.

[RSL]

Right. Let's run through it again. If you're on private property the owner of the property has the right to prohibit you from taking pictures of his property. He doesn't have the right to prohibit you from taking pictures of stuff outside his property in public places. If you're in a public place -- a sidewalk, etc., -- you have the right to take pictures of public property and you also have the right to take pictures of private property -- as long as you can shoot it from where you are, a public place. But there are always limitations to that right. Copyrighted symbols on a sign, etc; You can shoot it but you can't show it. And pictures of people that are unfairly degrading. Generally speaking, if you're in a public place and you shoot pictures of people on private property, best to check with your attorney before you decide to publish the result.