JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Commercial use in photography is specifically defined to mean use for advertising or promotion. It doesn't mean anything which results in a profit. Street photography is shown and sold in galleries without requiring releases.

https://artrepreneur.com/journal/model-release-form/#:~:text=Artistic%20Purposes%20Do%20Not%20Need,not%20require%20a%20model%20release.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I understand. And I understand that you are a former law enforcement officer. I have three close relatives and four friends who are active or retired law enforcement officers. (Some folks might say that's too many.) They are (or were) all recognized as good officers. They also have very interesting and diverging views about how "things" are and how they should go. And to your final comment...my whole argument has been that whether something is legal is not and should not be the only criteria for whether that thing should or should not be done.

Again...my point is that if she is wrong, she is wrong in both directions, independent of whatever law or rule we happen to be talking about.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Quickest way to find out? Just do it and see what happens.

Dbrow411 Loc: South Daytona, FL

Thank you for that. I guess from an artistic angle it would be a free speech issue.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Somebody complained about an aggressive photographer and the city leaders did their job. Of course, they didn't talk to any photographers before making their decision.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

MrPhotog

Every word in a law is important. So read this law carefully. It does not say it is illegal to take pictures (candid or otherwise) of people on the street.

In this city: It is illegal to run a business of taking photos of pedestrians. In some cities photographers made nuisances of themselves by photographing every person walking down a street, then hustling them to buy these photos. They usually handed out numbered slips of paper with their address and a price. The papers became litter, and the people were annoyed. It was only a little better than panhandling.

Of course if something is illegal, it is often possible to get a permit. For example, a camping permit at a park where (otherwise) sleeping overnight, or pitching a tent, would be forbidden.

I recall one character in downtown Chicago who used a 16mm movie camera in a home made rig, set up with a waist level finder, and shot single frames. With such small negatives, and lousy lighting, the quality was not too high. The nuisance factor was high, though. He planted himself in the middle of the sidewalk and everyone had to move around him.

If you are in the business of photography and plan to make photos for money in a location, you may need to get a license or permit (and pay a fee) for using areas of a city as background for advertising photos, movies, and sometimes wedding portraits or family portraits. "Public areas" are free to visit, but cities don't allow people to just move in and set up shop. Every city has some ordinances regulating businesses inside their borders.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

They apparently didn't talk to any constitutional experts either.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I just did a little quick research. California is a two-party consent state. This means that it is illegal to record, film, or photograph anyone there without the consent of all involved parties.

epd1947

That’s not completely true (at least in the United States) - photos cannot be used for “commercial purposes” - like endorsements for products, without a model release. Photos of people in public places can be sold, obviously to make money, for artistic or editorial use. For example, prints sold on-line, or in a gallery, or in a published book, magazine, etc. Profit is not the determinant, it’s the specific use of the photo that defines the need for a model release.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Do you have a citation for that law? It would seem to be unconstitutional. I tried searching for such a law, and all I found was the conventional wisdom that under the first amendment you can photograph anything you can see from public property.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

This is for commercial use no? Because of the film industry. Does not apply to photos for personal use, correct?

Klickitatdave Loc: Seattle Washington

I vote with those who cite the inclusion of "Business" as the deciding factor of whether taking photos is legal or illegal. I am pretty sure that the city does not want tourists or citizens to be harassed by people taking snapshots of them for money. I truly doubt that taking street photos in general would result in anyone's arrest.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

I think similar laws, in other jurisdictions, in public space, have been thrown out...

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I went back and looked further. What I encountered earlier was apparently related to a case where someone was trying to stretch applicability of two party consent to cover photographs. It also turns out that only the audio component of video recordings is currently subject to consent requirements.

Eleven states currently have two party consent laws. You can easily find lists or maps of those. The only one that is a little bit surprising to me is Florida.

The latest complication I've encountered is that the wiretapping law(s) are apparently now getting drawn into the discussion.