The best advice I could offer here is "role paying". Imagine yourself sitting on a jury, hearing the pros and cons of a legal action.
First, the Court would, likely be a Civil one. You would hear arguments dealing, in the end, with money. Was there financial gain? Was anyone entitled to share in that gain? If so, how much? If you were to drive a new model Cadillac into a "Great Gatsby- type Estate", and photograph it for a national advertising campaign, it probably would not be difficult to prove that the location added value to the work; and those who own the Estate should have a reasonable share in the monetary gain from that work. Get a Property Release before you do the work. The same applies to a model ... human or otherwise: They are entitled to a reasonable share in the monetary gain.
It should be remembered that Model Releases and Property Releases are *CONTRACTS*, and all the tests for the legality of contracts apply... ESPECIALLY that of "Good Faith". Example: If you were to contract with a model for "Figure Study" work - nudes - with the understanding that the end use would be for Gallery exhibition, and publication in "Fine Art" Journals - and
use those images to advertise a "heavy porn" site - that would be a BREACH OF GOOD FAITH - and most probably would void the Model Release - contract.
An area which could conceivably wind up in Criminal Court would be a "Invasion of Privacy". If someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy and you photograph them, violating their privacy - it spells BIG trouble. One cannot thrust a camera over the top of a stall in a public restroom and photograph someone therein. That is a invasion of privacy. A more gray area could be an accident in a public place: a girl is walking down a public beach - with no immediate expectation of privacy, and the top of her bathing suit falls off. That would be far more difficult for a jury to decide.
Now, all that said... You have taken a photograph of a building accessed in public space. You have reasonably assumed that there would be no harm to anyone. Someone goes into orbit from this. You tried to negotiate - explain - reach some sort of agreement - in GOOD FAITH. You did not - and do not intend to use the use this in advertising, or to cause derision: "Look at this Run-Down Example of (ethnic slur) Laziness."
I'd say you were home free. All that would be left is your own sense of morality and propriety.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
I took an 8x10 print by on friday afternoon. she (her name is marilyn) seemed very stunned and somewhat uncomfortable when I came in to the restaurant and gave her the print. Likely due to her feeling somewhat embarrased by how openly rude she had been.
Hopefully it will cause her to rethink how she handles a simliar situation in the future.
Ed there is a very prominent case that was settled about 4 years ago in the USA. A man standing on a public sidewalk took a picture of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame sued the photographer over it saying he had no right to photograph their building and it was hurting them monitarily since they sold postcards and such of the exterior. The ruling came down in favor of the photographer. He was on a public sidewalk. He was taking a picture of a public building. That building being public by virtue of it being open for business to the public. It was and is today a precedent setting case for the photographer.
That said, Scootermm you took a picture of a public building from a public spot. You are well within your rights if you choose to sell an enlargement of that photo. I personally would go and talk to the person first before taking the picture. I had one nasty incident where I was accused of setting up a cannon aimed at a ladies house. In fact that was the only time I had not asked permission in advance. It was 6 am or there abouts, and I didn't want to disturb anyone that early. I have since taken photos and given them to the people of the places I have shot. all were very happy.
from one of our own (apug's) sponsors (i think), i.e. photopermit.org, comes this: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf.
Lawyers seem to be ethically bound to resist the temptation to guarantee outcomes of specific civil or criminal cases, but do not seem to be reticent about advising us about what our rights are absent a charge against us. This link seems to be rather comprehensive. I hope it helps.
These days we live in a world where everybody has rights that superceed everybody elses. Just because someone has the legal right, does not give them the moral right and exercising your legal rights does not always turn out for the best and more often tred on the rights of others. Just ask all those who have been victimized and villified by the media in the name of ratings. Or those who have been victimized by local planning boards and lost there homes and livelyhoods in the name of so called progress.
Correction? Please, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, right? Or visa versa.
Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ken M and I had an experiance at this Yosemite workshop where one of the particpants would set up his camera right next to someone elses, look at their shutter speed and fstop, set his, shoot film then move on to the next person and repeat. He even had the audacity to say "go find the next shot, I'll shoot this one and meet you there". After a couple days of this he got frustrated and left the workshop stating"He was not learning". Course no one would talk to him and he was so busy stealing he forgot to look and listen for himself.
That was a wonderful thing to do. I'm sure it will influence her in the future.
Originally Posted by scootermm
LOL. I know the type - so eager to learn, but so slow to understand what it takes to get there.
Originally Posted by Thomassauerwein
It's been said many times before that it's important to consider the customs/laws and sensitivities of the local people before pointing your camera. I'm normally very conscious of this when we travel. But an interesting thing happed when we drove to one of the picturesque, white sandy beaches on Upolu Island in American Samoa.
I stopped the car at the end of the beach in order to put one of those classic palms-over-white-sand-with-tropical-flowers-in-foreground shots on velvia. I was interrupted even before my holidaymode finger had reached the shutter release button by an elderly lady who had managed to beeline it across the road in record time, and hold her hand out under my nose.
Now having grown up in a country where you can poke your camera against the glass of Government Buildings in the capital city at 3:00am and photograph the g[font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana][size=2]randiose[/size][/font] [/font]hallways of power without being bothered (won't bore you with the story this time), I was just a little bothered. It was obvious what she was expecting; but I guess my surprised reaction showed up her less than confident conviction, and she sauntered off hunched over, in that manner of the defeated.
Later I checked the situation with some local friends who informed me the custom of land ownership does in fact extend to quite extraordinary lengths in Samoa. However, money only sometimes changes hands between photographers and the *particulary* entrepreneurial landowners. So I was off the hook.
Doesn't stop me getting a very slight pang of guilt each time I look at the slide though.
This is the beach, not my photo.
Last edited by John McCallum; 08-22-2004 at 08:38 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I'm surprised his learning wasn't handicaped with a tripod strike to the back of the head!
Originally Posted by Thomassauerwein
Obviously the workshop was only attended by the most gentle and patient of photographers. The lessons some of the hotter tempered among us might have taught him could have been tragically funny.