Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Glad you agree.

epd1947

Sorry but you are the one that is misinformed (assuming we are talking about the law in the United States - other countries may differ). As long as the photographer in our in the public he/she photograph pretty much anything or anybody that is also out in public where that person has no expectation of privacy. The photographer owns the rights to said photos and can use them for editorial or artistic use. The only way the photo use is restricted is in use for a commercial purpose. Police have zero right to require anyone to delete photos (they are the property of the photographer) - and had they arrested someone for taking photos the charges would be rapidly dismissed and they would be subject to a suit for false arrest. Unfortunately many police officers are poorly schooled in this and/or hope to make up non-existent laws to intimidate people.

longtimeclicker

NEVER assume a cop knows what they are talking about when they tell you something is illegal. Unless it is something they deal with every day, they will simply tell you it is illegal because they don't want to be bothered finding out what the law actually is. Once they've taken this position, there is no way they are going to back down unless you get a higher authority involved -- that is simply the personality of the majority of people who choose to become cops. They will also try to bully you into believing that they can confiscate and destroy things when there are very few laws that allow this.

This is relevant because if you're going to stand up for your rights in any situation (not just photography), you need to be prepared to deal with the probable consequences which are almost guaranteed to include an enormous expenditure of time on your part.

I'm not saying not to do it, just choose your battles. To me, this situation didn't sound like a battle worth fighting. Apparently it was for the original poster.

Many people also seem to be missing the important distinction between what is covered by criminal law (could get you arrested) and what is covered by civil law (could get you sued). If it is a civil issue, the only thing at stake is money, not your freedom.

pappleg

Unfortunately, or fortunately the law is what courts decide and individuals can sue over any matter they deem relevant and whatever attorneys feel they can litigate successfully. This is the world we live in-like it or not not! Any person may have legitimate reasons for not allowing their image to be reproduced or the image of their child, siblings, relatives, etc. and we, as photographers, have to respect those reasons/wishes or suffer the consequences of litigation as a result. If someone demands that their image is not in the public domain I believe we need to respect that position.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Street shooting does not work with long glass.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I agree. Using a wide to normal lens lends an immediacy to street photos where long lenses suggest a distance from the subject. Also, usually you don't want an out of focus background in street photos - the surroundings are an important element.

blackest Loc: Ireland

I don't know if the USA has a law the equivalent of "breach of the peace" , or maybe "threatening behaviour" though not usually directed at photographers might be suitable grounds for an arrest.

uk example

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/i-was-just-doing-my-job-men-862969

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/Photographer_arrest_shows_police_ignorance_says_union_news_308166.html

axiesdad Loc: Monticello, Indiana

If I took a picture of someone or someone's child and was asked to delete it, I would need a hell of a lot better reason than, "I might enter it in a contest," to refuse.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

It was never meant for that to be so. Laws are for the politicians to pass into law. Judges have tried, and are succeeding, to legislate from the bench. It's our duty to not let them do it. But the judges are above the law and get away with it all the time.
Welcome to the Hog, pappleg.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Found this, but also found other sites that give a contrary opinion.

"Right of publicity

Just as a person has the right to keep personal information private, he or she also has the right to control the use of his or her identity for commercial promotion. Unauthorized use of one's name or likeness is recognized as an invasion of privacy.

There are four types of invasion of privacy: intrusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity and false light. If a company uses a person's photo in an ad claiming that the person endorses a certain product, the person could file a lawsuit claiming misappropriation"

From: https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html

aardq

That is for "commercial promotion," or in other words, selling it. A photo can be used for educational purposes does not fall under this. You can sell a photo to a educational publication and it isn't considered commercial because it is a one time use for education. I'm not sure about a photo that is displayed, but not sold.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

This is about how a photo is used, not whether it is legal to take a photo. Even if someone gives permission to take their photo, if it is used for commercial use without specific permission for that, you could get in trouble.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

Goly Darn - one more member - besides myself - with some common sense and decency toward others


.

epd1947

Commercial use is not simply a matter of money - it generally involves use of a photo in advertising to promote a product. A photographer can earn money from a photograph without it being considered a commercial use of the image. For example, you can sell the use of the photo to a newspaper for their use in an article (that would be an editorial use) or you could sell copies of the photo as art or publish the photo as part of a coffee table book - such usage would fall under the heading of artistic use not commercial. So, the mere fact that the photographer may earn some money from the image does not necessarily make it a commercial use.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Agree 100%.