frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

It is accurate from July 2023

pnbarne

A friend and fellow photographer took a picture of a farmer tilling his field while sitting inside his John Deere. Just one of many environmental shots. The tractor was a ways off with the field in the foreground. He sold it to a magazine that targeted the agriculture industry.

The farmer said that was him and his tractor and he sued for using his likeness without permission or compensation. The magazine settled. Fortunately for my friend, the magazine’s lawyer included him in the settlement.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

And that's because he was not on public property, but private property. His.

pnbarne

Taken from a public highway in Nebraska.

Mostly settling was a business decision. They bought the old boy off for a few thousand dollars.

epd1947

The magazine may well have chosen to "settle" as less costly than going to court (usually referred to as nuisance value settlements) - that oftentimes happens - doesn't indicate that the farmer was in the right on the basis of law. Some other factors that might be at play here is if the photographer was on public property in shooting the photo or if he was actually on the farmer's land. Possibly also the issue of "expectation of privacy" was a factor - maybe the farmer alleged that since he was inside of his tractor he had some expectation of privacy?

There was a case I read about in NY - a man was walking down the street and he was wearing clothing in the style associated with Hassidic Jewish men (and he was fairly prominent in the overall composition.) The photographer displayed the photo in a gallery showing of his work as well as planning to include the photo in a coffee table book he was in the process of publishing. The gentlemen in the photo went to court to try to get the photo taken down - and also not to be published claiming that he had not given his permission to be photographed and I believe he also said something about how the photograph violated his religious rights (not sure of the details on that part) - His suit was dismissed by the court as having no legal merit.

Having said all of that - my personal view (which has nothing at all to do with what is legal) is that photos taken of people without their permission - especially in cases where they are the obvious and prominent reason for the composition (the sorts of photos often associated with Bruce Gilden and his followers) - should generally not be used if objected to - that's called being a decent person with empathy and respect for others. Maybe legal to do something but that doesn't mean you "should" do it.

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

That is why God invented lawyers - but ramming it down their throats would be pretty expensive

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

I’ve seen mountains and I’ve seem mole hills. This is one of the best mountain v molehill stories ever. Business is the operative word. End of story.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

All I see is a pile of feathers outside the UHH hen house. Really, 8-pages to cluck over?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

if street photographers had to ask permission to shoot people or show the photos, the history of photography would be missing a lot of the greatest photos ever taken.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

The photographer might be standing on public property, but he focused on someone on their private property. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy on private property. If the person was a party of a photos without being the main subject matter, it would be different.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

You have the 1st amendment right to photograph anything you can see from public property, except for looking in windows as there is an expectation of privacy in your home.

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

It says the "business of." If you are not doing it professionally and you are taking a picture of an interesting store front and a pedestrian happens to be in the picture, that should be acceptable, just not for commercial use.

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

Way back in the "good old days" rather ragtag photographers walked some city streets taking snapshots of folks they encountered for a fee. I have a couple of these photos in our family album. The photographers did serve a purpose for this was before there were so many easy cameras around and tourists/city visitors were happy to pay a small fee for a memento. Those I have are from the 1910-1941+/- time frame. There are always people who look down on those less fortunate and try/do succeed in leveraging their view on the public. It doesn't take much to offend some influential ppl, sadly. I remember seeing such entrepenuers on the streets of NYC about 1940.

keywest305 Loc: Baltimore Md.

As a kid in the 60s 70s at the ocean for vacation you always had the telescope pic guys/gals walking down the beach and it was a memento to take home. No more. Phone cameras put them out of business. At least in my area

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

How can the police wear body cams? How about personal dash cams, store security cameras, traffic cams, drones, game cams? In Washington state the recording of voice is prohibited by the two party consent, it has no such prohibition for photos.