Candid Photos of Strangers May Soon be Illegal in The Philippines: So stupid you may think that it's a joke. Let's hope the US and UK never let the silly brigade go this far! Candid...

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

So stupid you may think that it's a joke.
Let's hope the US and UK never let the silly brigade go this far!

Candid Photos of Strangers May Soon be Illegal in The Philippines, Even if Theyre Just in the Background;

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/03/the-philippines-is-looking-to-implement-an-anti-selfie-law/

shutterbug65 Loc: Oakville, Canada

So why don't they just ban cameras in that country. A law like that just might affect their tourism.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

shutterbug65 wrote:

So why don't they just ban cameras in that country. A law like that just might affect their tourism.

Perhaps they plan on-the-spot fines for the unsuspecting tourists and get extra revenue?

drivered Loc: Capital District, NY

My guess is that I will never go there.

SueMac Loc: Box Elder, SD

It would be impossible to not get other people in photos when taking pixs at a crowded tourist spot.

Not sure how this would be inforced unless pix were posted on the internet. Unless the pix police were following you around looking at what you just took.

DeeAndre Loc: Boyertown PA

Great way to kill tourism!

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

Crwiwy wrote:

So stupid you may think that it's a joke.
Let's hope the US and UK never let the silly brigade go this far!

Candid Photos of Strangers May Soon be Illegal in The Philippines, Even if Theyre Just in the Background;

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/03/the-philippines-is-looking-to-implement-an-anti-selfie-law/

Others politicians with a great idea !!! taxes taxes taxes and more taxes

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

It does say "for personal gain" in the law, so I think you could still take the photos, but would have to blur out faces of anyone that you didn't get permission from, if you wanted to sell the photos.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

bkyser wrote:

It does say "for personal gain" in the law, so I think you could still take the photos, but would have to blur out faces of anyone that you didn't get permission from, if you wanted to sell the photos.

A very grey area as the article does say "According to a government official, even selfies with people appearing in the background would be a no-no."

Would you take the risk? Taking it as read - tourists would find it virtually impossible to safely take photographs.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Crwiwy wrote:

A very grey area as the article does say "According to a government official, even selfies with people appearing in the background would be a no-no."

Would you take the risk? Taking it as read - tourists would find it virtually impossible to safely take photographs.

Yup, if it wasn't for personal gain. If it were just photos of my family, or shots of a historical sight, and I wasn't intending on selling them, yes, I would take photos. Selling or distributing photos of strangers without permission is bad form. that is the main reason that I rarely post wedding or portrait photos online, unless I get written permission from the model, or parent.

SMPhotography Loc: Pawleys Island, SC

This is so epically stuck on stupid that it defies all logic. How can you possibly control who is in the background of a photo you take? What if there are 20 people in the background? Are you expected to go chasing after all 20 of them to get their permission, even if you don't speak their language? What if one in the group says no? Do you have to delete the photo? Utter nonsense.

In a sane and logical world where common sense prevails, people in public places have no expectation of privacy. Of course, we as photographers do have a responsibility, if only implied, to be discreet and not post something of someone that is defaming or embarrassing. That is just being courteous to our fellow man.

I think the real issue here is that politicians don't want to get caught on camera taking bribes or engaging in other illegal activities. Rather than punish photographers, why not punish corrupt politicians instead?

SMPhotography Loc: Pawleys Island, SC

bkyser wrote:

Yup, if it wasn't for personal gain. If it were just photos of my family, or shots of a historical sight, and I wasn't intending on selling them, yes, I would take photos. Selling or distributing photos of strangers without permission is bad form. that is the main reason that I rarely post wedding or portrait photos online, unless I get written permission from the model, or parent.

Back when I used to do weddings there was a clause in the contract that stated that photos taken at the wedding might be used on my website or on display in my studio. By signing the contract, they were agreeing to let images be used for that purpose. When I do portraiture, that same clause is in the contract and again, by signing the contract they are agreeing to let their images be used. I do, however, exercise much more leeway for any boudoir or lingerie work I do though and will contact the client and get their permission before I post any images, just out of consideration. If they say no, then that is the end of it.