jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Excellent!

http://movieclips.com/9Z2Lz-judgment-at-nuremberg-movie-judge-haywood-explains-his-ruling/


And not so excellent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO6Zk5qkYcA

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

For your own enjoyment, yes, HOWEVER when it involves children and infants, you must be careful that the police don't interpret it as suspicion of being a "child molester".
Otherwise, as long as you do not use it for 'commercial profit' you can 'probably' use it for 'some' publication as a newsworthy photo.
HOWEVER, the subject (or subjects parents/guardians) can still sue you for 'invasion of privacy' or suspicion of wanting it for illegal purposes, so BE VERY CAUTIOUS unless you have LOTS of money to defend yourself.

gettheshot

All interesting points. Thank you all very much.

Lionsgate Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona

The alternative: If you do photograph children in a park or other public venue and you can identify the parent(s), show them the photos. Offer them copies of some of the shots in exchange for a signed release. Don't forget to give them several (3-5) business cards and ask them to show the photos to other parents. If you frequent the same park let them know that you will be at that park the following Saturday or whenever during a specific set of hours. You will be surprised how many candid portrait jobs you will get.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Shot, in today's age of paranoid, runaway helicopter parents, you make some points that have a lot of validity.
But it would be difficult to abuse a child strictly from a photograph.
And then you would have to find a lawyer ignorant enough of the law to invest time and energy into taking on a groundless case. Then the parent would have to be able to put up the $2-$3k retainer, assuming you could find such a fool.
Ignorant parents and photographers are a dime a dozen. But lawyers and judges know the law and are not so ignorant.
Your points are well taken, sometimes it's better to just move on. There will always be BETTER opportunities with NO hassle at all, if you know where to look. And a photographer needs to be savvy about excercising their rights.
This comes up A LOT here since there is also a lot of misinformation as well.
There are SO many hassle free opportunities with children, why waste your time with iffy public parks and strangers. Learn when and where to look.
Why are people so fixated on strange and unco-operative kids and homeless people? Take a page from Diane Arbus.

Gramps Loc: Republic of Tejas--Tomball, TX

It's highly objectionable and in some cases against the law to shoot pictures of minors and publish them. We had a law in FL and it is similar, here in TX, you don't advertise for Lester the Molester.

Trevor Dennis Loc: New Zealand (South Island)

Ask any paparazzi what is off limits, and if the subjects always give permission to publish the pictures. It's a daft argument IMO, or do PJs live under different laws?

Mpeter45 Loc: Springfield, Illinois

I have heard that The Joshua Tree and the Space Needle are not allows to be photographed. Anyone else heard this?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

You can not use their likeness in commercial advertising without a model release, just like everything else. For your personal gain or editorial(any kind of publication), its pretty much anything goes. I would ignore the Joshua tree thing. Even if it was growing in Obamas front yard.

Trevor Dennis Loc: New Zealand (South Island)

Would that be cultural or security? Ayers rock in Oz is culturally sensitive, but a highly photographed object.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

It is a good idea to have a regular model release for models of legal age, a Parental/Guardian model release for kids under legal age, and property releases to cover those backgrounds when they might be owned by someone.

Getting things in writing is important in the extreme if you plan on publishing the photos.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

AMEN. Yes, the ACLU has some unpopular causes: free speech, individual rights, oh yeah, and that dirty little document known as the Constitution.

slickrock Loc: jacksonville

:thumbup:

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

No knowledge of restrictions on Space Needle. No problem with Joshua Tree, as with other National Park lands provided ---

Still photographers require a permit when

1. the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or

2. the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or

3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.

Otherwise, shoot away.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Remember that HCB took very few pictures in his trips to the USA (concurrent with trips to Canada). His work was not covered by US law. In France, in most cases, you do not need a Model Release if the model is aware that a picture is being taken. A photograph by HCB was a highly sought after item and to be one of his subjects was an honor (although he seldom posed anyone). If you were photographed by HCB, it was an honor and nobody complained. Furthermore, almost of all of HCB's photography appeared as a news item or as a work of art; he wasn't into selling Nike's!