rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

exactly!

knoxworks Loc: Western Mass.

You can legally take her photo.

But common courtesy is part of the glue that holds our society together. (Thank you, Cosmo Kramer.)

My adult daughter had a similar experience.

She was visiting, and we went to a scenic outlook to see the foliage.

As she held up her I-Phone to take a few photos, a woman sitting on the grass about 50 feet away -- and to the side of the vista -- started yelling at her and told her not to take a photo of her.

My daughter is not timid and replied that she wasn't taking the woman's photo. The woman continued to scream and rant until my daughter got back into the car.

One time a world-class blues musician got mad about my friend taking a photo taken without his permission. My friend went up to his limo later and apologized. And he was given an autographed photo.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I do not see answering 'no' to anything makes anyone a 'jerk'... A person who says 'no' to sex can also be a jerk or 'no' to more salt...

Your statement is really lacking here.

Another issue to your 'guesses' is that for all you know this person may have religious belief or superstition relative to having her image taken.

No one knows why but her and quite frankly we respect other folks decision. Always remember that one's freedom stops when someone else's starts.

chfrus

I would have lowered my camera taken the shot while looking at her, apologize and walked away with the picture. Sorry she is in a public place. I am a photo journalist. After VE day in New York City did the photographer ask ed the sailer permission when he shot him kissing that girl?

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Agree! I don't take street photography and stranger, and I don't like stranger taking photo of me neither!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You can be anything you claim to be, have any credential it makes no difference there is no right or expectation of right on either side.

Also as a 'photo journalist' you seem to ignore the difference between a public event and (VE Day celebration) and every day life.

'Having' or 'claiming' to have a badge does not prevent anyone to be respectful if anything it should make you more sensitive to other folks desire for privacy. Your attitude 'as a pro' is despicable. The person says 'no', end of story.

If a woman or man says 'no' to sex, would you have sex with him or her anyway and say 'sorry' afterward and hope to get way with that? It would be rape. Same for photography. You force yourself onto someone w/o consent.

Cookie223 Loc: New Jersey

Your lucky she didn’t smash your camera in your face. Worse things happen for even less.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Yes, there are laws on this issue. I have had to use it on rare occasions. Look into it.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

It would seem that if the lady was one person in an image of a crowded pier, she would have no legal objection. But if she alone was clearly the subject of the image taken in a public place, then yes, she would have grounds to object to the taking of her image without her consent.

Stan

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I have. You should give the court cases since you claim to have used them. I should be interesting.

What exists - and is iffy - are 'precedents' that folks confuse with 'law'.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

Public domaine (and the Oceanside pier is public) is generally open to take pictures. However that is not to say it's ethical or polite to do so--specially of one subject. She was rude in the way she told you to back off but many people today mistake rudeness and assertiveness. You, however, did the right thing after she made it clear she was talking to you--just politely walk away. Of course she was a bit disingenuous because she was posing in a very interesting way but suddenly didn't want the attention. Her bad not yours. This is why I try to do all my street photography with a telephoto lens as it reduces the interaction between the photographer and subject.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

So I would assume in today’s world that waiver is transferred electronicly if you buy your admission online. The signs are most likely there you just didn’t see them because you weren’t looking. I shoot a lot of hockey and they are in every NCAA and Proffesional rink I have ever gone into.
The question is not how egregious the image is. It’s all about money. Is someone losing what they think is a significant amount of money? If they think they are they could come after you. Like I said the venue might feel the publicity it gains or the good will they get from you taking pictures is more valuable to them. Many rock stars will not allow pictures of them to be taken at their concerts. They are trying to protect the value of their images. On the other hand Country stars seem to go the other way many have meet and greats after the show and are more than happy to pose and take selfies. But the bottom line in your case the owner of the venue holds the rights which he may transfer to a promoter or others because it is private property.
Another issue you bring up about the magazine. Posting a picture in a magazine does not require a release unless it is to promote or advertise even if the photographer is paid. However if it is a cover photo it would be wise to get a release because an argument could be made that is promoting or advertising.
With your son and his grandparents a release was needed. But at what cost? Were any of them unhappy with the image? Did it depict them negatively? Was their a significant profit from that image that they missed out on? In most cases like that it is more principle than anything and if they were thrilled about the picture no big deal. How ever if it were for a major advertising campaign that would generate millions of dollars then it might be a big deal. In your sons case you could have sued because you can bring suit for just about anything. But what were the damages? They would be limited to a share of the photographers profit maybe a couple hundred dollars and what ever profit the magazine or event made which might or might not be that much. I am guessing based on the fact that no releases were obtained not much money was on the line. I am guessing a drag racing magazine does not make huge money like Sports Illustrated it’s sole purpose really is to promote the sprout more than make a profit. Probably not worth the legal fees. But your thoughts on the subject are all certainly valid and I also agree with your conclusion. I would have done the same. Probably would have kept the magazine and tried to get some of the drivers to sign it as a cool piece of memorabilia. 👍🏻

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

In the United States, the photographer was well within his legal rights to photograph her.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

You actually compare raping someone with taking their photo?

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Courtesy