Taking photos is unwanted touching?

[JoeKitchen]

I probably should add that it can get even hairier than what we've covered so far. Suppose I shoot a picture of Alan with no model release (I'd never do that, even with a model release) and put it in a gallery. The picture sells. The buyer then uses the picture in an advertisement for his marihuana business. Can Alan sue the new owner of his picture? Can he sue me?

Typically the photographer is not the one who is being sued, it is the end user, so you would be free and clear.  Even if you were sued, more then likely the gallery (assuming they know what they are doing) would inform the buyer that the purchase of the print does not authorize him to use the image commercially and the gallery may even require the buyer to indemnify the photographer to cover such cases.  This would allow you to then sue the buyer for not only breach of contract and copyright (their commercial usage), but to also settle your other court costs with the other case. 

More then likely though, you would not even be brought into the suit. 

However, the business owner would certainly loose in this situation. 

This actually happens in contests all the time.  Usually what happens is some clothing company is looking for a lot of free images and runs a photo contest with some (usually worthless) prize to the winner, like a $500 gift certificate.  Of course buried in the contest contract is pretty much a rights transfer clause that states you are allowing them to use your images however they want.  They then use your images, but the person whom is in the images never signed a waiver for the company to use the images.  That person then sues and wins a large amount of money, or that is how it use to be.  Nowadays, companies that do this also add another indemnification clause in the same contest contract stating that the photographer has a model release for all people in the image and, if not, they indemnify the clothing company from any lawsuits. 

This is why if you talk to any pros, they are leery about enter contest nowadays. 

Building supply manufacturers do this shit all the time.  Typically I get a request from an architect asking me to sign a release for some contest they want to enter my images in and I then have to explain to them why I can not sign due to the rights grab of the contest and a blanketed indemnification clause.  Many understand, but it is always an uncomfortable conversation to have. 

[RSL]

Or even demand samples?

He probably can do that, Keith.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I probably should add that it can get even hairier than what we've covered so far. Suppose I shoot a picture of Alan with no model release (I'd never do that, even with a model release) and put it in a gallery. The picture sells. The buyer then uses the picture in an advertisement for his marihuana business. Can Alan sue the new owner of his picture? Can he sue me?

That would be an OK use of the image as far as I'm concerned.  In terms of free samples asked by Kieth, no way.  I've been drug free since 1973 and don't want to fall off that wagon!! One of my lab partners in grad school had his PhD thesis topic analyzing the metabolites in marijuana smoke; turns out they were 10 times higher than in cigarettes.  I quit cold turkey when he showed me the data.  We used to kid him about the project as he was a Mormon and did not smoke or drink saying he was the only one they would let work on this.  That kidding aside, the MJ they got was grown on a government farm in Mississippi for research and they had to account for every ounce.

I'm still a little confused and realize the advertising use as one requiring a release.  I just bought a great book by Neal Preston who is one of the great rock music documentary photographers of our day.  I'm sure a lot of his images have sold and the book 'Exhilirated and Exhausted' is fantastic.  Did he have to get model releases from all the people he took pictures of?  I'm sure some of those images were used in posters, etc.

[Martin Kristiansen]

We have laws about everything but virtually no enforcement. Total chaos. Some people dislike it but I’m comfortable with it. Do what you like, try not get get robbed or shot and you should be good to go as long as no ones image appears on a magazine cover or billboard. Apparently you still get magazines.

[JNB_Rare]

I probably should add that it can get even hairier than what we've covered so far. ...

Especially if it's chaps wearing chaps and little else. I wonder if consent would be easier if the photographer wore only chaps? On a personal level, the older I get, the less interested I am in sub cultures. I don't care to photograph or even see pictures of people who want to waggle their winkies in public, or pierce multiple parts of their bodies, or play Nazi. But it does seem to me that such parades are public performances designed to draw attention to the "statement/cause(?)". I have more sympathy for some of the surprised subjects of the more aggressive street photographers.

[RSL]

I have more sympathy for some of the surprised subjects of the more aggressive street photographers.

John, I'm gonna get dissed for saying this, but the kind of "street photographer" you're talking about doesn't really understand what street photography is all about. It's not about performances, or showing the absurdities people can come up with. It's about showing the often subtle interrelationships between people and between people and their environment. The best street shots don't clobber you. They caress you.

[Jim Pascoe]

The law may be one thing but common respect is another.  While I fully support the law on freedom to photograph people in public places, I think it is a quite reasonable request at a fair such as this for photographers to ask before shooting.  There may be people there that are happy to bare all on the day because of the atmosphere at the event, but not want their pictures splashed across Instagram or Facebook for the rest of their lives.

It's not the 1950's it's 2018.  Whereas once there would have been a few people taking pictures at events, now with 'everyone being a photographer' there could be thousands.  So many events now just seem to be a photo opportunity where photographers go to grab some pictures.  Possibly people want to gather with like minds and enjoy a day - without having endless cameras shoved in their face (or possibly in more intimate areas).  In truth I know nothing about this particular event - but I can easily imagine the scene with crowds of sweaty old men lugging around the latest cameras and trying to get a titillating picture for their collection. (I know, I know, that is a horrible generalisation.  I like old people really I do - half our friends are 20 - 30 years older than us).

Anyone with a genuine interest in the event and the characters in it will likely be happy to chat with participants and politely ask.  That would cut down the numbers of voyeurs drastically and leave the serious photographers to get some decent pictures, including the press photographers.

You could read the ad as comparing unwanted touching to photography.  I think they're two distinct things that are real irritants to participants, even if neither are illegal.  I'm assuming the unwanted touching is not sexual in nature, in which case it probably would be illegal.  Nowhere in the ad does it suggest the actions are illegal, or that transgressors would be arrested.  It's asking for a bit of common decency.  Of course you are free to just push in, get your pictures and be damned if that is in your nature....

I would add that I love photographing people, sometimes in public places, and like nothing more than a bit of naked flesh too!

Jim

[JNB_Rare]

John, I'm gonna get dissed for saying this, but the kind of "street photographer" you're talking about doesn't really understand what street photography is all about. It's not about performances, or showing the absurdities people can come up with. It's about showing the often subtle interrelationships between people and between people and their environment. The best street shots don't clobber you. They caress you.

Definition(s) aside, the bit of your post that I've highlighted is certainly what interests me most.

[JNB_Rare]

The law may be one thing but common respect is another.  While I fully support the law on freedom to photograph people in public places, I think it is a quite reasonable request at a fair such as this for photographers to ask before shooting.  There may be people there that are happy to bare all on the day because of the atmosphere at the event, but not want their pictures splashed across Instagram or Facebook for the rest of their lives.

Just some random thoughts ...

1. Common respect doesn't seem to be that common these days
2. If you need to ask permission beforehand, does that kill spontaneity, and/or change the photographer/subject relationship?
3. Despite ongoing legal battles about it, have we already reached the point where any expectation of privacy in a public space is naive?

[Jim Pascoe]

Just some random thoughts ...

1. Common respect doesn't seem to be that common these days
2. If you need to ask permission beforehand, does that kill spontaneity, and/or change the photographer/subject relationship?
3. Despite ongoing legal battles about it, have we already reached the point where any expectation of privacy in a public space is naive?

1. That's in our hands...
2. Sometimes it does yes.  The problem is that there are just so many snappers out there - the majority not that good.
3. I don't know about laws - but see 1. above - it's down to us isn't it?

Jim

[Rob C]

Amateur lawyer games aside, does anyone seriously believe that somebody going naked or semi-naked in the street - a public street - does not crave attention, is not a downright exhibitionist?

Being photographed must be enough to make their day, or even their year! It's validation of whatever in hell they think they have just expressed.

Dangerous wedges come with very fine leading edges. Be careful what you give up - unless it's your machine gun!

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...I remembered another similar example: naked, though body-painted ladies of the Times Square. They were photographed (and photographed with, for selfies) probably a million times. I have a few too (not selfies though).

And naked cowboys... that's how they do it in the Sin City... no permission needed, tips appreciated:

[Ivophoto]

And naked cowboys... that's how they do it in the Sin City... no permission needed, tips appreciated:

Why are the photos of the naked cowboys converted in B/W and the naked lady left in vibrant colors? Is there a Freudian reason? (I would probable not photographing the cowboys, but that’s Freudian as well, I guess)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why are the photos of the naked cowboys converted in B/W...

In the second photo at least, it is black and white... by nature

[Frans Waterlander]

In the second photo at least, it is black and white... by nature

Now that's very funny (or is it racist?).

[Rob C]

Now that's very funny (or is it racist?).

Probably just logical.

Rob

[Rob C]

This thread seems to me to be very slanted: nobody has taken the trouble to represent the other side of the proposition.

What about the rights and desires of those who want to do some little touching? "Unwanted" is such a totally enveloping concept, as if were a cut and dried deal with no room for compromise. I can understand a possible antipathy to being photographed, but touched? Gently? Isn't touchy-feely still all the rage?

Used to make the world go round.

:-)

[LesPalenik]

What about the rights and desires of those who want to do some little touching? "Unwanted" is such a totally enveloping concept, as if were a cut and dried deal with no room for compromise. I can understand a possible antipathy to being photographed, but touched? Gently? Isn't touchy-feely still all the rage?
:-)

Very much so. To do or to get some touching.
Some of the photographs above suggest that the model is just asking to be touched.