Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,900   Posts: 1,584,389   Online: 686
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Scooter, it is absolutely ethical for you to shoot a public storefront. Good grief.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    701
    Perhaps I should post this as a question outside this thread ...

    I often see mention of gifting people with images after having been allowed to photograph something on their property. That works pretty well if you have your own darkroom and even better if you take great photos. What about the amateurs? I'm not sure it would be worth the effort and expense for me to have the lab make up an 8 x 10 of some less than great photo. I'm not sure it would be appreciated.

    I haven't ever photographed anything on private/personal property. It seems very awkward to do and I can't imagine where I would park my car to do so. I live in a rural area - all highways and county roads. I see beautiful structures all the time that I wish I could photograph but ... I just keep going.

  3. #23
    scootermm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,868
    Images
    235
    anyte
    The only time I would consider actually printing an 8x10 and giving it to the owner of a building or land that I photographed would be if I felt the negative/print was worthy of being given to them. so its really up to your own personal judgement.

    in regards to taking pictures of private property. I live in Texas (one of the largest states and bigger than alot of countries) and about 98% of the land in texas is private property (last time I checked). so the concept of needing to ask permission is very real. Just be assertive. Im a very introverted person who like to keep to himself, but when I have my 4x5 over my shoulder I will openly and assertively knock on doors to ask permission to photograph old barns, silos, etc.
    Just be assertive and I think you will be suprised how open alot of people are to it if you just tell them upfront that you are merely a hobbyist who is interested in photography on their land for your own personal enjoyment (and perhaps even theirs when they get a print)

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    701
    scootermm

    Thank you for the input. I'm rather introverted myself but I guess that's something that can be overcome.

  5. #25
    rogueish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    3rd Rock
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    877
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre R. de Avillez
    I couldn't agree more with the above statement, Scooter. When one thinks of how laws are made, and how absurd some laws are, the legality of an action means next to nothing, ethically speaking.
    You should deal with some of the laws up here in Canada!
    Photographers being sued for taking a picture of a guy in public on the street. And it looks like the photographer is going to lose!!
    One in particular, is a photo published in a newspaper of a guy coming out of a court house. This guy is sueing the photographer, the editor and the newspaper because "the photograph makes me look bad".
    If you don't want to look bad, get a haircut and stay on the right side of the law. Works for me.

  6. #26
    rogueish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    3rd Rock
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    877
    Quote Originally Posted by Nige
    take her the print but don't leave the business card.. she might send Jim-Bob around!
    Or worse, a son in law lawyer...
    Last edited by rogueish; 08-13-2004 at 10:58 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: because my sppeling sux and I spell check myself...

  7. #27
    RAP
    RAP is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    476
    Sounds to me the poor women was having problems, maybe being evicted from her home for what ever the reason. The landlord sold the property or maybe the local planning board in their corrupt wisdom declared eminent domain and condemned her property to make way for some bright new future. Happens all the time.

    I once photographed a farm that was published. A few years later I got a call from the owner who asked for some prints. Sensing a potential problem, I charged her only cost for the prints. She later said that I should have asked for permission. People are very touchy these days and for good reason.

    Rights work both ways, the photographers rights and the property owners. If you published without a property release, you could get sued and loose.
    Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    405
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by RAP

    Rights work both ways, the photographers rights and the property owners. If you published without a property release, you could get sued and loose.
    This is true. But you have omitted enough information to be misleading.

    Photos of people and property can be published for editorial and educational purposes without a release. Proper captioning is key.

    To use photos of people or property for advertising use you need a model or property release.

    Having a release doesn't necessarily protect you from a lawsuit if a photo is used in a defamatory method.

    e.g. Book Cindy Crawford for a model shoot. Put it with your agency and somehow a high end escort agency ends up using dear Cindy's image to promote their services... "whole lot a suing going on!"

    You'd probably safe since the terms of any stock agency strictly forbid that sort of use, but less obvious transgressions happen in editorial and advertising scenarios and generally everyone loses except the lawyers.

  9. #29
    RAP
    RAP is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    476
    Hey ian, your comment is inflamatory and insulting. Misleading? War and Peace and law books, not enough space is there for them on this site!

    From the women's point of view, to walk out and see a stranger photographing her building, property can be very upsetting and I can sympathize with her. How does she know what the photos will be used for, who the photographers is, if he is telling the truth as to his intentions? For all she knows, he could be working for a developer who has his eye on her property. Evictions in the name of eminent domain come pretty cheap these days.

    Cindy Crawford is worth millions and certainly has the resources to sue who ever she wants. The poor women does not. To even make the comparison is ridiculous.
    Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    405
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by RAP
    Hey ian, your comment is inflamatory and insulting. Misleading?
    RAP

    There was no intent to inflame or insult.

    The fact remains. In many situations you do not need a release to publish.

    I was going to use a story of a nice English cottage that sued for mis captioning in an editorial but the details were a little long and I didn't feel like researching it to make sure my facts were straight. The crawford example seemed straightforward enough for most people to get the point... hmmm

    The size of a persons bank account or how famous they are does not change the law... or at least how we as photographers should approach it.

    Stating that you need a release before you publish amounts to blatant misinformation. I'm sorry you feel insulted that I corrected this but... If you said the times for txp320 @ 1600 was 2.5 minutes in D76 at 50 F. I'd step up and correct you as well.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin