juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

There! Enough said.

ecurb1105

Odd, I worked for a studio in Philly 1981-1982 and wandered Philly and the Camden waterfront day and night. I used a 4x5 on tripod and never had any trouble. But I was six foot, 250 pounds and carried a pistol, that might have helped.😎

juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

Really?

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

1981 - 1982 is probably more the reason

BebuLamar

Yup during those years I never had problem but I don’t dare doing the same today.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

You probably SHOULD go to law school. If you did, you would learn that you may not “appropriate” the “likeness” (image) of another without their consent, IF the purpose for the photo is to make money.

It’s called “misappropriation of likeness” and is an “invasion of privacy” tort.

In law, misappropriation is the unauthorized use of another's name, likeness, or identity without that person's permission, resulting in harm to that person.

So, I suppose the operative phrase is “resulting in harm to that person”. It may be difficult for that person to prove they were “harmed” by your having taken their photo and selling it.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Making money is not the determining factor. As noted anyone can take your picture and sell prints for money all day long! You have no control, at all.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

excellent!

Photocraig

The operative words in all the above posts. SOME people are IDIOTS, and some people are CRAZY. Anytime you're out and about in public, camera or not, street awareness is priority ONE. In the cases if said idiots and crazies,as well as criminals, rights are as important as being right in a losing argument. There are many legitimate reasons why people don't want to be photographed--legal and other. Respect that, and be very careful where you are, and where you point the lens.

I was shoo'd away from photographing some small bicycle jumps in a local park for a student assignment--Motion. Fortunately I had a business card and my school ID to satisfy an irate (aren't they all) mom. I also captured a man reading a newspaper in the midst of the Sparks (NV) Nugget Rib Fest, two years ago. His wife asked me if I took her husband's picture and why? I replied that I thought he was interesting. She answered, you're the first person in 20 years who thought he was interesting and we along with my wife all shared a good laugh, thankfully.

For parks and other scenic places, this issue is a further incentive beyond the obvious golden light for getting there early and, also leaving early. Then there are far fewer people. As for "Street" photography, there are a number of nonverbal protocols that many Street Photographers have passed on in tutorials and articles. Smile, raise an eyebrow and gesture with the camera, etc.

Rights make good newspaper and Forum copy and great arguments in Court. They seldom, if ever, count for much on the "Street."

A NY City kid who learned (and still does) the hard way,
C

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

I found this to be informative: "To constitute an invasion of the right of privacy, the use of a name or likeness must amount to a meaningful or purposeful use of the name or likeness of a person. A mere incidental commercial use of a person’s name or photograph is not generally actionable.

Gleaned from this site - https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/fighting-misappropriation-of-name-or-likeness-31086

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

The link won't work for me, maybe the WiFi I'm on limits it. I'll have to try again after I get home.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

True. Such legal action really is meant to apply to celebrities or for a commercial product.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Further quote:

"Thus, to be liable for a misappropriation, a defendant must have misappropriated the use or benefit of the person's reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, public interest, or some other values of the plaintiff’s name or likeness. This is why the use must be meaningful and purposeful: if it is unintentional there is no intent and no liability. In other words, using a famous actress's name or picture in advertising materials for a low-budget movie without her permission would give rise to a misappropriation claim, but accidentally catching the actress walking through the background of a location shot on the local nightly news covering the opening of that same move would not."

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

You’re correct. As with crimes, something like this — misappropriation — centers around “intent”.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

True,
Another thing to think about before assaulting someone is that they may be armed and decide they have to use their weapon to defend themselves.
I would think that someone carrying an expensive camera is more likely to be armed to defend against hold-up than the average citizen.
I happen to know someone personally who is usually carrying when with camera.