phographing people from car (Page 3): I know what you mean. He could come running at you before the light changes, and you'd be stuck there. I took a picture of a house with snow...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I know what you mean. He could come running at you before the light changes, and you'd be stuck there. I took a picture of a house with snow sliding off the roof the other day, and I was expecting to see someone coming running out of the house. Being legal and being safe are two different things. You could sue someone from your hospital bed and win, but...

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

lamiaceae wrote:

Here were I live, your stranger un-approving subject might shoot back with a glock! These days many people just do not want their photo taken by strangers. Street photography is not what is was. Flowers, Dogs, Birds, and Mountains are probably safer.

Not saying you are wrong. That might happen but most likely not a realistic comment on your part. If it did happen then the person would be going to prison because he would be in the wrong.

Dennis

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

dennis2146 wrote:

Not saying you are wrong. That might happen but most likely not a realistic comment on your part. If it did happen then the person would be going to prison because he would be in the wrong.

Dennis

I used to drive an old woman, and when we were about to cross the street one day, I stopped her because there was a car coming. She said, "I don't care. If he hits me, I'll sue him." I replied, "No, your relatives would sue him right after your funeral."

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

jerryc41 wrote:

I used to drive an old woman, and when we were about to cross the street one day, I stopped her because there was a car coming. She said, "I don't care. If he hits me, I'll sue him." I replied, "No, your relatives would sue him right after your funeral."

Yup. I have done the same thing myself Jerry. Fortunately no car ever hit the person I was addressing. I also doubt that anybody will start firing a Glock or any other firearm at you or the other poster because of a photo taken. More than likely the person would ask about the photo and you/he would explain what you were photographing. You/he could then delete it or not. It would be up to each of you but the fact still remains that it IS legal to take photos of people/things in public.

Have a wonderful day,

Dennis

Rick Bailey Loc: Fayetteville Arkansas

It depends on what you are going to do with the photo. If you just hang it on your wall, you are ok. If you were going to display it in public, publish it in a public event, or use it in advertising of any kind, you should have a signed release detailing what you are planning to do with the photo.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

unanchored wrote:

recently I was driving somewhere and while stopped at light I notice a gentleman leaning on a light post thought of rolling down the window and grabbing a few photo's of the handsome guy. but chose not to. I am aware that is is ok to shoot on public area inc people. just not sure, quick roll down window shoot a few frames and drive off is OK

thanks for thoughts

jane

Sounds like a drive by shooting.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Rick Bailey wrote:

It depends on what you are going to do with the photo. If you just hang it on your wall, you are ok. If you were going to display it in public, publish it in a public event, or use it in advertising of any kind, you should have a signed release detailing what you are planning to do with the photo.

You would be correct with respect to using the photo for advertising.

Dennis

no12mo

billnikon wrote:

This subject has been discussed here for ever. Yes, you do have the right to photograph folks in public.
BUT, in the United States of America, American Citizens are afforded a "REASONABLE expectation of PRIVACY", YES, EVEN IN PUBLIC.
In the United States of America, you cannot trample on citizens reasonable expectation of privacy.
The photographer must weight those out when shooting in public.

I totally agree. It's just the polite thing to do. However, what's wrong with pulling over (if possible) and asking the gent if you could capture what you think is an unusually good picture and offer to send him a copy.

Having said that the is such a thing these days of so-called "street photography." All well and perhaps good. If you are going to go out on a "hunt" for street subjects, don't grab your DSLR size camera. Use a good phone camera or a point and shoot. I still think it's the right thing to do whenever possible to ask permission. That individual for whatever personal reason might not want his presence memorialized at that particular time and place - *privacy*!

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

billnikon wrote:

This subject has been discussed here for ever. Yes, you do have the right to photograph folks in public.
BUT, in the United States of America, American Citizens are afforded a "REASONABLE expectation of PRIVACY", YES, EVEN IN PUBLIC.
In the United States of America, you cannot trample on citizens reasonable expectation of privacy.
The photographer must weight those out when shooting in public.

I am not sure what law school you went to but the courts in the United States of America have ruled over and over that a person does NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Jaackil wrote:

I am not sure what law school you went to but the courts in the United States of America have ruled over and over that a person does NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas.

True.
What if this interesting person is a drug dealer or up to some other nefarious activity.
Think first before doing a drive by.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

Rick Bailey wrote:

It depends on what you are going to do with the photo. If you just hang it on your wall, you are ok. If you were going to display it in public, publish it in a public event, or use it in advertising of any kind, you should have a signed release detailing what you are planning to do with the photo.

You are only correct with regard to advertising. No release is needed to publish, post in a public place for viewing or even sell for profit or monetary gain. Only comercial use needs a release and consent from subject. Commercial is define by the courts as using to advertise or promote goods or services. It does not include the mere sale or publishing of a picture. If it did every proffesional athlete would have to sign waivers every time their image is posted in a news paper. Also keep in mind the release is not just limited to persons. It does extend to logos branding and anything that is identifiable. So if you use an image of the Empire State Building to advertise or promote a release is needed if the building is clearly identifiable which the Empire State is. You will also see logos with tape over them in many commercial shoots because releases were not obtained. However if you take a picture of the Empire State Building you do not need a release to sell that image to whomever you want at any price you can get.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

Architect1776 wrote:

True.
What if this interesting person is a drug dealer or up to some other nefarious activity.
Think first before doing a drive by.

So you are saying drug dealers have a reasonable right to privacy in public?
I was addressing the statement that people have a reasonable expectation to privacy in public spaces under the law which is not true as define in the Supreme Court case Katz vs United States. Which has been used over and over again to uphold the principle of no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. I didn’t see anywhere in there that illegal drug dealers are exempt. But then again your example is illogical because drug dealers do not usually transact business in plain sight of the general public due to their aversion to getting caught. Most drug dealers would be more worried that the person taking the picture was law enforcement than to chase them down and confront them.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Jaackil wrote:

I am not sure what law school you went to but the courts in the United States of America have ruled over and over that a person does NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas.

You could not be more WRONG. Judges rule on what a REASONABLE person would do. Also, judges have always protected private citizens right to privacy. Again, you are sooooooooooooooooooooo wrong it's laughable.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

billnikon wrote:

You could not be more WRONG. Judges rule on what a REASONABLE person would do. Also, judges have always protected private citizens right to privacy. Again, you are sooooooooooooooooooooo wrong it's laughable.

Hmm.... The tone which this discussion is beginning to take suggests that it will soon belong in The Attic, aka the sewer.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Jaackil wrote:

So you are saying drug dealers have a reasonable r... (show quote)

Wasn't he using a phone booth that the authorities used a "work around" listening device to hear his phone conversations? That case, from what I recall is a 4th Amendment case, so unless OP is recording audio while the subject is using his phone, and then using it for evidence, it really doesn't apply to photography.