Photography and Privacy

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

Confusion abounds about privacy and photography, particularly as it relates to the Internet. This post summarizes what‘s allowed and what’s not.

 

Bottom line: There are no significant restrictions on street photography in Thailand. You don't have a right NOT to be photographed. If the publication of a picture taken in or from a street in LOS is going to cause you problems with your spouse, boss, creditors or parole officer, then the only real solution is to stay secluded. If people can't see you, they can't take your picture. There's no other realistic way to render impossible the publication of your photo on the Internet.

 

Evil

 

IN THE STREET

A photographer can take pictures of anybody or anything that is visible in or from a street. He doesn't need the consent of the person being photographed. No one has any reasonable expectations of privacy on a street or in a non-secluded area that can be seen from the street. That's the rule almost everywhere in the world, including Thailand.

 

Are there any restrictions? A few, but they seldom apply to situations in which a tourist or resident ex-pat is likely to find himself. Up-skirt or down-blouse photos could be considered a violation of Thai law, but that's about it in terms of forbidden street photography.

Of course, a photographer has to use common sense. It’s stupid to stick a camera in a stranger's face or block anyone's forward progress on a street. But the issue in these instances is that the photographer is making a nuisance of himself, not that he is capturing images. You almost never see paparazzi-style photographers in farang-oriented areas in LOS.

 

What can you do if you're walking in a street or sitting in an open-air beer bar and don't want your picture taken? Very little. Many times you won't even notice you're being photographed. If you do notice, you could ask the photographer to stop and hope he obliges you. He will probably have already gotten the picture he wants, so he loses nothing by agreeing to stop.

 

But a photographer doesn't have to delete any picture he's taken. To try to force a photographer to delete pictures or hand over his camera could result in felony charges. It's unlikely things would get that formal in Thailand, but for a farang to assault another farang or destroy a camera over picture taking could lead to an unpleasant encounter with the BiB for the guilty party.

 

Again, common sense plays a role. A photographer probably won't get very far arguing freedom of expression with a drunk guy who's twice his size. At the first sign of hostility, the photographer should exit the scene as fast as possible. If you can't get away, it's better to delete a picture than have your camera broken and better a broken camera than a broken head. But if you're smart, there are ways of making someone think you've deleted a photo when you actually haven't.

 

All this is about violent reactions to picture taking on the street is very hypothetical. It doesn’t happen that often. If had a dollar for every time someone had tried to take my camera by force in LOS… I’d have one dollar. Once in Bangkok, three guys on Suk Soi 3 did attempt to relieve me of my camera, but I’m not sure if it was because I had photographed them doing a drug deal or they were simply trying to steal my camera. The timely intervention of some moto drivers restored the odds in favor and nothing happened in the end.

 

On a few other occasions, in Thailand and elsewhere, people have objected to me taking photos, but none ever took things past the yelling stage.

 

 

IN A BAR

Inside a bar or any other private area, it’s a totally different situation than on the street. The owner or manager sets the rules. If photography is forbidden, that has to be respected.. Considering the special circumstances in Thailand, it’s a very understandable that no pictures are to be taken in that bar.

 

But if the bar allows photography – and that’s common in hostess bars - there is no “opt out” clause for individual customers. It is the owner/manager who decides whether pictures can be taken, not the person whose image appears in the picture.

 

 

POSTING PHOTOS ON AN INTERNET FORUM

A photographer can post to the Internet any photograph he has taken, as long as the photo itself doesn’t contravene national law. If he posts it to his own non-commercial Web site or home page, there’s nothing anyone can do to force him to take down a permitted photo. Just like you don’t need the subject’s consent to take his photo, you don’t need his permission to post it.

 

Should an embarrassing photo, even a bare-assing photo, be posted to a forum such as this one, it depends on the forum rules. The owner/Admin can make any rules regarding photos that he deems fit, again assuming the photos remain within the law. The owner/Admin can be as restrictive or as liberal as he chooses, as long as he stays within the law. He can remove a photo for whatever reason he chooses. He doesn’t have to be consistent or even rational – it’s his forum, he can do as he likes.

 

Should you want a photo taken down, you can always ask the poster or the Admin of the board. Neither is under any obligation to comply, nor are there any legal means to force compliance.

 

Sometimes in discussions about photography and privacy, model releases and copyright are mentioned. They are two very separate things and neither is very relevant to forums such as this. But for the sake of completeness, I’ll deal with them briefly.

 

COPYRIGHT

Copyright is part of intellectual property law and protects the right of an author or creator of an original work to protect how that work is reproduced or modified. It also provides a remedy under the law in case of infringement of a copyright. A copyright exists from the moment a work takes tangible form. For photographs, that would be the moment the photographer presses the button on the camera. A photograph doesn’t have to be formally registered to carry a copyright, nor does it need to bear a notice such as “Copyright by Evil Penevil, 2010.”

 

A copyright remains in place until the number of years specified by law has passed (usually 70 years after the death of the author or creator). A copyright isn’t invalidated by publication on the Internet. I’ve often read on forums that it’s free to “lift” posted photos because they were put in the “public domain” through publication on the Internet. That is a false statement and results from the difference in meaning between the term “public domain” in popular usage, i.e., easily accessible to a broad public, and its correct meaning under the law, i.e. works to which a copyright never applied or for which the period of copyright protection has expired. However, it is in practice almost impossible to sue someone for copyright infringement for lifting a photo from a forum such as this.

 

MODEL RELEASES

A model release isn't required to post a picture on the Internet, whether it is a compromising photo or not. A model release protects the publisher of the image from civil liability, i.e., getting sued for damages. It almost always applies to situations in which the photographer SELLS the image for commercial use. One common situation is an image used in an advertisement. Assuming the photo contains a recognizable image of an individual, the photographer must obtain a model release in order to sell the photograph of that individual. Otherwise, the model could sue the publisher (not the photographer) because the image was used without permission. But it could only be a civil suit - there is no criminal penalty attached.

 

The use to which the image is put is most important factor in deciding whether civil liability can arise. No model release is required for news photos. An image (of a recognizable person) published in an article in Time or National Geographic wouldn't need a model release, but the exact same image, if used in an ad in the same publications, would need a model release.

 

The U.S. is the most litigious society in the world and there are only a handful of lawsuits every year over model releases. They most often involve celebrities.

 

 

 

PORNOGRAPHIC PHOTOS, VIDEOS

This is a very tricky point, as photographer can run afoul of several different sets of laws. The laws are strictest if you plan to make commercial use of the pics, but even if you only take them for non-commercial, personal use, you can find yourself in violation of criminal law. Most importantly, you need to be damn sure the models (male or female) are over the age of 18 and that you have acceptable proof of age. Beyond that, the situation is so complicated I’m not going to say more, other than do a lot of research if you plan to take XXX-rated pics or videos.

 

MORE INFORMATION

Finally, I’ve included links to articles written by attorneys in Australia and the U.S. for those of you who enjoy detailed discussions. The rules and laws are substantially the same in almost all countries, including Thailand, but the application can vary depending on local custom and practice.

 

“In Australia the taking and publication of a person's photograph, without their consent or knowledge, but within the limitations outlined below, is not an invasion of privacy, nor is it in contravention of case or statute law. Privacy advocates may disapprove, but in this country it has always been, and for the moment remains, a perfectly legal thing to do.”

 

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

 

“The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. ...

Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.”

 

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Edited June 25, 2010 by Evil Penevil

[js007 795]

Confusion abounds about privacy and photography, particularly as it relates to the Internet. This post summarizes what‘s allowed and what’s not.

 

Bottom line: There are no significant restrictions on street photography in Thailand. You don't have a right NOT to be photographed. If the publication of a picture taken in or from a street in LOS is going to cause you problems with your spouse, boss, creditors or parole officer, then the only real solution is to stay secluded. If people can't see you, they can't take your picture. There's no other realistic way to render impossible the publication of your photo on the Internet.

 

Evil

 

IN THE STREET

A photographer can take pictures of anybody or anything that is visible in or from a street. He doesn't need the consent of the person being photographed. No one has any reasonable expectations of privacy on a street or in a non-secluded area that can be seen from the street. That's the rule almost everywhere in the world, including Thailand.

 

Are there any restrictions? A few, but they seldom apply to situations in which a tourist or resident ex-pat is likely to find himself. Up-skirt or down-blouse photos could be considered a violation of Thai law, but that's about it in terms of forbidden street photography.

Of course, a photographer has to use common sense. It’s stupid to stick a camera in a stranger's face or block anyone's forward progress on a street. But the issue in these instances is that the photographer is making a nuisance of himself, not that he is capturing images. You almost never see paparazzi-style photographers in farang-oriented areas in LOS.

 

What can you do if you're walking in a street or sitting in an open-air beer bar and don't want your picture taken? Very little. Many times you won't even notice you're being photographed. If you do notice, you could ask the photographer to stop and hope he obliges you. He will probably have already gotten the picture he wants, so he loses nothing by agreeing to stop.

 

But a photographer doesn't have to delete any picture he's taken. To try to force a photographer to delete pictures or hand over his camera could result in felony charges. It's unlikely things would get that formal in Thailand, but for a farang to assault another farang or destroy a camera over picture taking could lead to an unpleasant encounter with the BiB for the guilty party.

 

Again, common sense plays a role. A photographer probably won't get very far arguing freedom of expression with a drunk guy who's twice his size. At the first sign of hostility, the photographer should exit the scene as fast as possible. If you can't get away, it's better to delete a picture than have your camera broken and better a broken camera than a broken head. But if you're smart, there are ways of making someone think you've deleted a photo when you actually haven't.

 

All this is about violent reactions to picture taking on the street is very hypothetical. It doesn’t happen that often. If had a dollar for every time someone had tried to take my camera by force in LOS… I’d have one dollar. Once in Bangkok, three guys on Suk Soi 3 did attempt to relieve me of my camera, but I’m not sure if it was because I had photographed them doing a drug deal or they were simply trying to steal my camera. The timely intervention of some moto drivers restored the odds in favor and nothing happened in the end.

 

On a few other occasions, in Thailand and elsewhere, people have objected to me taking photos, but none ever took things past the yelling stage.

 

 

IN A BAR

Inside a bar or any other private area, it’s a totally different situation than on the street. The owner or manager sets the rules. If photography is forbidden, that has to be respected.. Considering the special circumstances in Thailand, it’s a very understandable that no pictures are to be taken in that bar.

 

But if the bar allows photography – and that’s common in hostess bars - there is no “opt out” clause for individual customers. It is the owner/manager who decides whether pictures can be taken, not the person whose image appears in the picture.

 

 

POSTING PHOTOS ON AN INTERNET FORUM

A photographer can post to the Internet any photograph he has taken, as long as the photo itself doesn’t contravene national law. If he posts it to his own non-commercial Web site or home page, there’s nothing anyone can do to force him to take down a permitted photo. Just like you don’t need the subject’s consent to take his photo, you don’t need his permission to post it.

 

Should an embarrassing photo, even a bare-assing photo, be posted to a forum such as this one, it depends on the forum rules. The owner/Admin can make any rules regarding photos that he deems fit, again assuming the photos remain within the law. The owner/Admin can be as restrictive or as liberal as he chooses, as long as he stays within the law. He can remove a photo for whatever reason he chooses. He doesn’t have to be consistent or even rational – it’s his forum, he can do as he likes.

 

Should you want a photo taken down, you can always ask the poster or the Admin of the board. Neither is under any obligation to comply, nor are their any legal means to force compliance.

 

Sometimes in discussions about photography and privacy, model releases and copyright are mentioned. They are two very separate things and neither is very relevant to forums such as this. But for the sake of completeness, I’ll deal with them briefly.

 

COPYRIGHT

Copyright is part of intellectual property law and protects the right of an author or creator of an original work to protect how that work is reproduced or modified. It also provides a remedy under the law in case of infringement of a copyright. A copyright exists from the moment a work takes tangible form. For photographs, that would be the moment the photographer presses the button on the camera. A photograph doesn’t have to be formally registered to carry a copyright, nor does it need to bear a notice such as “Copyright by Evil Penevil, 2010.”

 

A copyright remains in place until the number of years specified by law has passed (usually 70 years after the death of the author or creator). A copyright isn’t invalidated by publication on the Internet. I’ve often read on forums that it’s free to “lift” posted photos because they were put in the “public domain” through publication on the Internet. That is a false statement and results from the difference in meaning between the term “public domain” in popular usage, i.e., easily accessible to a broad public, and its correct meaning under the law, i.e. works to which a copyright never applied or for which the period of copyright protection has expired. However, it is in practice almost impossible to sue someone for copyright infringement for lifting a photo from a forum such as this.

 

MODEL RELEASES

A model release isn't required to post a picture on the Internet, whether it is a compromising photo or not. A model release protects the publisher of the image from civil liability, i.e., getting sued for damages. It almost always applies to situations in which the photographer SELLS the image for commercial use. One common situation is an image used in an advertisement. Assuming the photo contains a recognizable image of an individual, the photographer must obtain a model release in order to sell the photograph of that individual. Otherwise, the model could sue the publisher (not the photographer) because the image was used without permission. But it could only be a civil suit - there is no criminal penalty attached.

 

The use to which the image is put is most important factor in deciding whether civil liability can arise. No model release is required for news photos. An image (of a recognizable person) published in an article in Time or National Geographic wouldn't need a model release, but the exact same image, if used in an ad in the same publications, would need a model release.

 

The U.S. is the most litigious society in the world and there are only a handful of lawsuits every year over model releases. They most often involve celebrities.

 

 

 

PORNOGRAPHIC PHOTOS, VIDEOS

This is a very tricky point, as photographer can run afoul of several different sets of laws. The laws are strictest if you plan to make commercial use of the pics, but even if you only take them for non-commercial, personal use, you can find yourself in violation of criminal law. Most importantly, you need to be damn sure the models (male or female) are over the age of 18 and that you have acceptable proof of age. Beyond that, the situation is so complicated I’m not going to say more, other than do a lot of research if you plan to take XXX-rated pics or videos.

 

MORE INFORMATION

Finally, I’ve included links to articles written by attorneys in Australia and the U.S. for those of you who enjoy detailed discussions. The rules and laws are substantially the same in almost all countries, including Thailand, but the application can vary depending on local custom and practice.

 

“In Australia the taking and publication of a person's photograph, without their consent or knowledge, but within the limitations outlined below, is not an invasion of privacy, nor is it in contravention of case or statute law. Privacy advocates may disapprove, but in this country it has always been, and for the moment remains, a perfectly legal thing to do.”

 

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

 

“The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. ...

Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.”

 

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

Once upon a time, I tried to explain all this to everyone. I didn't get very far. First, there were the guys who thought it was their right to wrap my camera around my neck. Then there were the guys who were going to punch me out, etc.

 

It's not that I carry around a camera all the time. But when I do, and when I take pictures, you're fair game if you're out in public.

 

One the other hand, for 99.99999% of the people, no one cares if you're in a picture or not. You don't matter. That's a good thing.

Edited June 24, 2010 by js007

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

As a freelancer who sells to stock photo houses on occasion,

 

any recognizable person's image that is used commercially requires a release. - even if you take the photo in a public place.

 

"The Right of Privacy

Although the laws of the 50 states vary, all states recognize that individuals have a right to be let alone in their daily lives and that harm (in the form of embarrassment, scorn or loss of status) can result if that right is violated.

 

However, the right of privacy is not absolute. In particular, the courts have long held that news reporting and social, political and economic commentary — the things the First Amendment was designed to protect — are more valuable to society than an individual’s right to be let alone. Therefore, images that are part of the public colloquy about events have usually been exempt from privacy lawsuits. In contrast, the courts have generally held that making money is distinctly less valuable to society than the right to be let alone.

 

Thus, privacy issues typically arise when an image is used for purposes of trade or advertising. That is, it’s not the picture, but how it is used that determines the need for a release. For instance, an image that is printed in a newspaper, shown in an exhibition or reproduced in a book might well be immune from a privacy suit. But the commercial sale of coffee mugs or t-shirts with the same image would probably not enjoy such protection. An advertisement almost certainly would not be immune.

 

from: http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html

[js007 795]

It's always a question of degree. There are no bright line rules. If I'm on walking street taking pictures and you happen to be one of 200 people in the background, then you have little right to privacy. If I'm in your face with my camera and want to sell the photos to CNN and the BBC, then maybe I need your release.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

It's always a question of degree. There are no bright line rules. If I'm on walking street taking pictures and you happen to be one of 200 people in the background, then you have little right to privacy. If I'm in your face with my camera and want to sell the photos to CNN and the BBC, then maybe I need your release.

The US law says recognizable.

 

But read the whole posted article if you are a commercial photographer.

 

I have had images rejected for what I believe you allude to.

 

edit: but someone would have to recognize the image and a court agree. "Hey, that's my brother in the beer ad!"

 

Many stock photo houses won't take the risk. Then there is Photoshop!!!

Edited June 24, 2010 by midlifecrisis

[js007 795]

The US law says recognizable.

 

But read the whole posted article if you are a commercial photographer.

 

I have had images rejected for what I believe you allude to.

 

edit: but someone would have to recognize the image and a court agree. "Hey, that's my brother in the beer ad!"

 

Many stock photo houses won't take the risk. Then there is Photoshop!!!

 

US law? But you alluded to the law of 50 states, with each being different?

 

I used to take a lot of pictures, but I never tried to publish them anywhere. Still, most photographers don't run around collecting model releases unless absolutely necessary. And what about the celebrities? If all they had to do was say no, what would happen to all the Paparazzi's? Public figures are different? where do you draw the line?

 

One time, when I was a little kid, the AP ran a photo of me, from coast to coast. Every major newspaper in the country. I can guarantee you I didn't sign any model release. I don't think my parents signed anything. Somewhere, I still haver the clippings.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

US law? But you alluded to the law of 50 states, with each being different?

 

I used to take a lot of pictures, but I never tried to publish them anywhere. Still, most photographers don't run around collecting model releases unless absolutely necessary. And what about the celebrities? If all they had to do was say no, what would happen to all the Paparazzi's? Public figures are different? where do you draw the line?

 

One time, when I was a little kid, the AP ran a photo of me, from coast to coast. Every major newspaper in the country. I can guarantee you I didn't sign any model release. I don't think my parents signed anything. Somewhere, I still haver the clippings.

But that was not to promote a product. I have also been in newspapers as a kid and adult. Please read the bold portions of my cut. News is exempt.

 

As to US law, a bit of a typo but generally images become subject to federal jurisdiction (eventually) if not immediately because usage crosses state boundaries.

 

All I am speaking of is using a recognizable image to promote a product. Even celebs are protected from this.

 

Any slice of life shot in a public place is fair game. I have a shot I took of Clint Eastwood that I took at a golf tournament. I can display it at a gallery, sell it as my original work to hang on a wall, put it in a book of my best (lol) photos but I cannot use it to sell something without his permission.

 

That is all I am saying. US law(s) are universally consistent on this is issue I believe. But, I am not a lawyer.

 

edit: btw, I am in agreement with the op but just wanted to include this one caveat.

Edited June 25, 2010 by midlifecrisis

[joekicker 53]

It's always a question of degree. There are no bright line rules. If I'm on walking street taking pictures and you happen to be one of 200 people in the background, then you have little right to privacy. If I'm in your face with my camera and want to sell the photos to CNN and the BBC, then maybe I need your release.

 

ABSOLUTELY not, this is a "bright-line rule" indeed. If you're selling news photos, there is no release needed. The only legality involved there is libel. That is so unlikely both you and the editors at BBC and CNN can simply disregard it. Sorry for the possible subjects, but every one of you (us) may find ourselves illustrating one of those articles in The Sun about all the paedos who head to Pattaya. No release will be asked for that photo, and there is about zero you can do about it -- in fact before publication, exactly zero. After publication, not EXACTLY zero of course, but very close. The text with the photo MIGHT be considered libelous but not the photo in any case I can think up.

 

If you are selling BEER and not your despicable photo-story about the baby-abusers in Pattaya, then yes, you'll need that release.

 

News is exempt.

 

And not just in the US by a long, long shot. In Thailand among many other places. In fact I don't know of a place it isn't, apart from where you'd need government permission to publish, but even then not the subject's.

 

.

.

Edited June 25, 2010 by joekicker

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

ABSOLUTELY not, this is a "bright-line rule" indeed. If you're selling news photos, there is no release needed. The only legality involved there is libel. That is so unlikely both you and the editors at BBC and CNN can simply disregard it. Sorry for the possible subjects, but every one of you (us) may find ourselves illustrating one of those articles in The Sun about all the paedos who head to Pattaya. No release will be asked for that photo, and there is about zero you can do about it -- in fact before publication, exactly zero. After publication, not EXACTLY zero of course, but very close.

 

If you are selling BEER and not your despicable photo-story, then yes, you'll need that release.

 

.

well put!

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

double post

I was only speaking of the US. I take each nation on a case by case basis.

[joekicker 53]

I was only speaking of the US. I take each nation on a case by case basis.

 

I got a VERY strong feeling the OP was on about Thailand. Legally, not much difference but definitely some. And frankly, after we all quibble and niggle, Evil is right on.

 

.

[MeGoDanceNow 4,281]

Okay, that's the law.

 

What about common courtesy?

 

Taking a picture of a couple sitting in a bar without their permission is just rude. Don't do it.

 

General street scenes are fine.

[Idefix 2,275]

The US law says recognizable.

Why are you talking about US laws ? Nearly nobody here care about these US laws !

Most people are not American... and we are not in America...

So lets come back to what Evil Penevil posted in is 1st post

and who is supposed to be the law in Thailand.

 

My understanding of this post is that if I see you kissing a ladyboy in a open beer bar

and that I post the picture on the Internet, there is nothing you can do against that.

[MeGoDanceNow 4,281]

My understanding of this post is that if I see you kissing a ladyboy in a open beer bar

and that I post the picture on the Internet, there is nothing you can do against that.

 

First, Thailand is not a law-governed country.

 

Second, just because it may be legal doesn't mean you should do it. Have some courtesy.

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

Why are you talking about US laws ? Nearly nobody here care about these US laws !

Most people are not American... and we are not in America...

So lets come back to what Evil Penevil posted in is 1st post

and who is supposed to be the law in Thailand.

 

My understanding of this post is that if I see you kissing a ladyboy in a open beer bar

and that I post the picture on the Internet, there is nothing you can do against that.

you did not understand my posts or the reason for them. I used US law as a reference. Use of recognizable images for commercial profit is almost universally illegal. I agree with what you said. Post away. Use the ladyboy's photo in a beer add and the ladyboy finds out and you may have problems.

 

This is not an American issue as you seem to think.

 

You obviously did not read what I wrote in context or critically.

[Idefix 2,275]

You obviously did not read what I wrote in context or critically.

No, no. I read all your writing

I agree that it's very different for a "commercial" usage of a picture, and I think everywhere in the world.

But "recognizable" is far to be enough in many countries...

I do take the example of my country : France (Please don't talk about football )

There are very frequent trials from "celebrities" who got their picture on cover page of some very populars "scandal press". In most of cases they lost in court because French law authorize the commercial use - without authorization and compensation - in the case of photos taken during a public event and when the celebrity is not alone on the picture...

 

 

And to LadyDrinkKing : Yes there is what the law say I can do, and what I would really do ! In fact I would not take any picture of someone if I would not like a picture if I was at his place

[MeGoDanceNow 4,281]

And to LadyDrinkKing : Yes there is what the law say I can do, and what I would really do ! In fact I would not take any picture of someone if I would not like a picture if I was at his place

 

Well put! Thanks for clarifying.

[temba 0]

Okay, that's the law.

 

What about common courtesy?

 

Taking a picture of a couple sitting in a bar without their permission is just rude. Don't do it.

 

General street scenes are fine.

 

 

amen

[Emil 0]

Okay, that's the law.

 

What about common courtesy?

 

Taking a picture of a couple sitting in a bar without their permission is just rude. Don't do it.

 

General street scenes are fine.

 

 

amen

 

I would never take a picture of someone who I didn't know as the primary or centeral feature of the photo. But what about when one takes a photo of something interesting to show their friends and some individual is in the background like out on the street. Am I suspposed to delete the photo because this person doesn't want to be seen?

[samfreeland 64]

although i like to see hot scantily dressed women walking down walking st. it seems a lot of the girls don't like to be plastered all over u tube. shooting the photographer with two fingers or covering there faces. understandable really .on the other hand you could say it comes with the territory and some even use it to there advantage to hustle more work. there views should be respected individually same goes with the punters i guess. and if they look put out don't publish. after all how would you like to be seen in your local paper whore mongering in Thailand.[yes i am sure some wouldn't mind] like Mr bigalow the international gigolo .

Edited June 26, 2010 by samfreeland

[Upharsin 0]

Try printing out the blurb from the opening post and showing it to some Thai who is offended because you have taken his or her photo.

 

Remember TIT and the law of the street rules and they will do at the time what seems right to them rather than listen to some made up pseudo legal argument.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Upharsin

[Gabor 296]

you did not understand my posts or the reason for them. I used US law as a reference. Use of recognizable images for commercial profit is almost universally illegal. I agree with what you said. Post away. Use the ladyboy's photo in a beer add and the ladyboy finds out and you may have problems.

 

This is not an American issue as you seem to think.

You obviously did not read what I wrote in context or critically.

 

It is.... the usual american PC paranoia... however... tell me please about the paparazzis...

[Gabor 296]

I would never take a picture of someone who I didn't know as the primary or centeral feature of the photo. But what about when one takes a photo of something interesting to show their friends and some individual is in the background like out on the street. Am I suspposed to delete the photo because this person doesn't want to be seen?

 

Not... being in a public place you are a subject being photographed...

[som nam na 0]

Okay, that's the law.

 

What about common courtesy?

 

Taking a picture of a couple sitting in a bar without their permission is just rude. Don't do it.

 

General street scenes are fine.

 

 

amen

 

Really difficult to hold a view on this. I enjoy looking at the pictures posted but really don't want my picture plastered over the internet

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

It is.... the usual american PC paranoia... however... tell me please about the paparazzis...

Gabor, those louts are considered journalists.

 

Again, my only point is, take a photo of anyone in public, celebrity or not, and you can do almost anything you want with it except use a recognizable image without a model release to promote a product.

 

There is no PC paranoia about that. You are out of line because it has nothing to do with America. You have similar laws in Europe!

 

If I take your photo and put it on the boards or publish in my local newspaper, no problem.

 

If I use it to sell my favorite beer and you object, I have a potential problem.

 

Please people, read what I wrote. Don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. I agreed with the op on every point he made. I said so. As a seller of images I was simply adding an addendum.

 

Edit: for Gabor

 

Hypothetical situation

 

You are at FLB partying

 

I am there taking photos and you toast the camera holding up a bottle of Heineken

 

I sell that photo to an advertising agency who uses your image (without your permission) to promote Heineken Beer

 

Is that American PC paranoia? Would you not expect either compensation for your photographic endorsement or removal of your image from the advertising campaign?

Edited June 26, 2010 by midlifecrisis