How to not get beat up when photographing public places?

Sella174

So there!
Mar 19, 2013
696
0
Suid-Afrika
J.R. said:
... the cops here have the habit of - shoot first, ask questions later.

Bah, our cops generally do the same, although they usually also shoot second, third, some more (plus a few bystanders) and then return to the station for tea. Questions are optional.

Seriously, over here very few policewomen carry guns and most high-ranking officers neither, as they were violently targeted by drug-gangs for their service pistols. Kung-fu dogs have proven to be better law-enforcement tools than guns.
 
Upvote 0
RS2021 said:
Again, a small foot print helps...

People seem to be more accomodating of iPhones rather than big zooms pointed directly at them.

Once again I'll advocate the other way around. The smaller the gear the sneakier the attempt the shadier you will look.

Obvious behavior, big smile, relaxed and "who gives a damn" attitude would be my tips.

A previously "sneaky" friend of mine changed his ways and he got some very "nice" pictures of an religious extreme right demonstration this weekend...
 
Upvote 0
You can shoot people crowds in the city without a legal problem. What the people do if they realize that you take pictures is the other problem.

If you shoot single persons in the city without a model release you have a problem. But if the person is not the main subject it´s no problem.

My advice: Ask the people before taking a picture.

For street photography I recommend the Leica M. A 1Dx or 1Ds Mark II with a big lens like the 70-200 2.8 II IS on it is a total overkill. Sometime you have really fun with the people.
 
Upvote 0
Be friendly, smile, try to get "connected" to the people, if they are close.
My small RX100 is very stealthy, a DSLR like a 1 or 5 gets attraction.

Never had any trouble, knock on wood.

The law: depends on the country. Doesnt help getting beaten, but later..... its good to know, whats "right" and whats not.

To play official: never thought about this, so my ID working for the police would be helpful. And the yellow jacket.
Good idea!!
 
Upvote 0

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
692
212
Adelaide, Australia
I've lived in 3 different countries for periods of some years each, and have visited many more countries for 'some week to some months' each.

Sad that in some parts of the world there is so much fear about 'street photography'- and indeed even aggression when a photographer is around with his / her camera in hand. I have researched the laws in various countries and know my rights. I also am an official photographer for events (eg some sports events, church events, youth camps, official openings, etc)

Thankfully I've never been threatened, or felt very harrassed. I am naturally a friendly, smiley guy. But stereotypes are difficult, as I'm a non-married middle aged male - so if I'm alone (eg on a beach) some people might think I'm there to capture photos of unsuspecting people ... for sinister purposes, which is far from the truth! :/ Usually though when I'm at the beach I'm with friends - so that does feel 'easier' if I have my camera then, and especially if they have their phones and/or cameras out too! :)

Only once (about 5 or 6 years ago) when I was photographing crashing waves on quite a remote beach, did one young surfer (read about 20?) stop surfing and come to me and ask if I was taking photos of him and his mates. I said I wasn't, I was capturing the waves and landscape. He asked me not to take photos of them. I responded in a friendly manner: "No worries mate, as I said I wasn't doing that and I won't take any photos of you". However that was the only exception.

When I travelled to Thailand, for example - I used my 7D with 15-85mm most of the time, especially around people (only using my L white glass less often). I was very thankful to note the friendly and open nature of the Thai people I met. I usually started conversations with people first anyway - that's just my nature.

But I know from various parts of the world - and for some - religion also has an impact on this - photography is much more difficult and threatening. While I prefer visiting 'friendly / safe' places - if in an area of 'photography vulnerability' - I'd probably not take so many photos, and no where there is a feeling people don't like it.

Regards

Paul (now in Australia)
 
Upvote 0
CharlieB said:
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Don't take photos of people in public unless you get signed permission. Many people are concerned about their photos showing up on the internet, and its a valid concern. If there are children with them, you could end up in trouble. In some countries, you will end up in jail by photographing people without permission. Claiming that you were not actually photographing anyone, is not going to be believable, if a person sees a camera pointed their way or toward their children. As more and more so called street photographers take photos of people and children without their permission and post them on the internet, we will move closer and closer to totally restricting the use of cameras in public places.[\soapbox]

Totally untrue - except for the "in some countries" part. I'm sure there are some countries that prohibit such activity. Countries like North Korea and Iran for instance. Here in the USA, if its seen from a public place, its ok to shoot. There is no expectation of privacy, whatsoever, in public. The only "caution" is what is, and what is not, public. For instance, a public park, is public. A theme park, is not public - its private, with paid admission. I got ejected from the Palm Beach County Fair one year for taking pictures. That is, the Fairgrounds is public, but the event is private, held by private company that rents the public Fairgrounds for their private event! And so it said, on the back of my ticket stub, in fine print "... no commercial photography..." amid the rest of the clutter in about 2pt type. The cops said because I was shooting with medium format equipment, I was considered a commercial photographer. I didn't push the issue... left quietly, as I was pretty much done for the evening anyway.


My wife and I have been for two months in Iran and only once, near Persepolis, I was politely ask by the police not to point eastward as there was a military post. At Teheran, Qazbin, Isfahan, Kerman, Shiraz, Bam, Mashhad, Tabriz, Ardabil had absolutely no problems taking people photos. Furthermore, we got invited as guests of honor to a wedding in Mashad, to eat on many occasions, and two times the taxi driver refused to be paid. I encountered problems only in Quom but I still wonder if it was due to me being in a different mood or the people. Iran is, by far, the most welcoming country I have been in. (I'm european and only speak english and spanish).
I've travelled extensively and intensively for the last 18 years in Africa, Asia, Europe, North Central and South America and, in my personal experience, the places where you are more likely to get in trouble are: taking photos of the indigenous people of Central America and on many places on the US's midwest.
But this is only my experience.
I try to be polite, don´t feel guilty if I take photos without permission and always smile. When confronted, if needed, I apologize.
 
Upvote 0
readycool said:
One time I was on a wedding and just taking some food and decoration shots ..and some guy aggressively said something like "don't you take any pictures of me!" :eek:
How would you respond to that?

Interesting question, and a lot would depend on circumstances.

It would matter who this "guy" was. A wedding guest? Food service staff? Site security or management? Too much to drink? Most likely, if he wasn't integral to my work at the wedding, I'd just say, "Sure, no problem," and go about my business.

If I had a few minutes and wanted to engage him, I might say something like, "You know, I always wonder about that. Some people like to have their picture taken and some people don't. I can never figure it out. Can you help me understand that?"

An even more aggressively engaging stance would be to say, "Oh, good. You know I'm taking pictures all day, and no one takes my picture. Since you don't want your picture taken, will you take mine?" Then I'd hand him the camera and ask him to take my picture next to the wedding cake. If he says, "Go to hell" and walks away, it's over. If he takes the picture, he's now on your side -- he has a sense he's part of your team, that he's made a contribution. And, maybe he likes it and he takes up photography! You never know.
 
Upvote 0

cayenne

CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,866
795
Chuck Alaimo said:
jcns said:
If you publish a picture of someone without a release and the subject finds out, they can come after you. Find a good lawyer.

As far as I kow, this is only true if the image is used for commercial advertising purposes. They can try to sue you of course, but to what end? To most, the money gained from the lawsuit would be far less than the cost of hiring a lawyer and going to court. People are sue happy, when they know they can make a buck. So unless you are making a killing off of selling that photo for a billboard display, the likelyhood of legal action just isn't there.

So, how do the Hollywood paparazzi get away with it all? I mean, I'm pretty sure they're not getting signed releases from Lohan or the like in the embarrassing pics they take of them....and they DO sell those images for commercial use (TMZ, magazines, etc).

And anyone that gets in the news, they get pics taken and I'm sure they get paid for them, people that are maybe only famous for their 15 minutes, but people sell pics of them, and I'm guessing many don't get model release forms signed.

How do they get away with that then?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,120
cayenne said:
Chuck Alaimo said:
jcns said:
If you publish a picture of someone without a release and the subject finds out, they can come after you. Find a good lawyer.

As far as I kow, this is only true if the image is used for commercial advertising purposes. They can try to sue you of course, but to what end? To most, the money gained from the lawsuit would be far less than the cost of hiring a lawyer and going to court. People are sue happy, when they know they can make a buck. So unless you are making a killing off of selling that photo for a billboard display, the likelyhood of legal action just isn't there.

So, how do the Hollywood paparazzi get away with it all? I mean, I'm pretty sure they're not getting signed releases from Lohan or the like in the embarrassing pics they take of them....and they DO sell those images for commercial use (TMZ, magazines, etc).

And anyone that gets in the news, they get pics taken and I'm sure they get paid for them, people that are maybe only famous for their 15 minutes, but people sell pics of them, and I'm guessing many don't get model release forms signed.

How do they get away with that then?

Very short version:

There is a fundamental difference between commercial use, and news and editorial usage. If you take a picture in a public place of Justin Bieber you can sell it to a "news" outlet for news or editorial use, you cannot use it in an advert for hair gel. If you hire Justin Bieber and get the releases you can use the images to sell hair gel.
 
Upvote 0

cayenne

CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,866
795
privatebydesign said:
cayenne said:
Chuck Alaimo said:
jcns said:
If you publish a picture of someone without a release and the subject finds out, they can come after you. Find a good lawyer.

As far as I kow, this is only true if the image is used for commercial advertising purposes. They can try to sue you of course, but to what end? To most, the money gained from the lawsuit would be far less than the cost of hiring a lawyer and going to court. People are sue happy, when they know they can make a buck. So unless you are making a killing off of selling that photo for a billboard display, the likelyhood of legal action just isn't there.

So, how do the Hollywood paparazzi get away with it all? I mean, I'm pretty sure they're not getting signed releases from Lohan or the like in the embarrassing pics they take of them....and they DO sell those images for commercial use (TMZ, magazines, etc).

And anyone that gets in the news, they get pics taken and I'm sure they get paid for them, people that are maybe only famous for their 15 minutes, but people sell pics of them, and I'm guessing many don't get model release forms signed.

How do they get away with that then?

Very short version:

There is a fundamental difference between commercial use, and news and editorial usage. If you take a picture in a public place of Justin Bieber you can sell it to a "news" outlet for news or editorial use, you cannot use it in an advert for hair gel. If you hire Justin Bieber and get the releases you can use the images to sell hair gel.

So....could I shoot people in public, and post them for sale on my website "listed" as for use in news/editorial only to sell them.

What people do with them after I sell them the images aren't "my" concern, right?

:)

C
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,120
cayenne said:
privatebydesign said:
cayenne said:
Chuck Alaimo said:
jcns said:
If you publish a picture of someone without a release and the subject finds out, they can come after you. Find a good lawyer.

As far as I kow, this is only true if the image is used for commercial advertising purposes. They can try to sue you of course, but to what end? To most, the money gained from the lawsuit would be far less than the cost of hiring a lawyer and going to court. People are sue happy, when they know they can make a buck. So unless you are making a killing off of selling that photo for a billboard display, the likelyhood of legal action just isn't there.

So, how do the Hollywood paparazzi get away with it all? I mean, I'm pretty sure they're not getting signed releases from Lohan or the like in the embarrassing pics they take of them....and they DO sell those images for commercial use (TMZ, magazines, etc).

And anyone that gets in the news, they get pics taken and I'm sure they get paid for them, people that are maybe only famous for their 15 minutes, but people sell pics of them, and I'm guessing many don't get model release forms signed.

How do they get away with that then?

Very short version:

There is a fundamental difference between commercial use, and news and editorial usage. If you take a picture in a public place of Justin Bieber you can sell it to a "news" outlet for news or editorial use, you cannot use it in an advert for hair gel. If you hire Justin Bieber and get the releases you can use the images to sell hair gel.

So....could I shoot people in public, and post them for sale on my website "listed" as for use in news/editorial only to sell them.

What people do with them after I sell them the images aren't "my" concern, right?

:)

C

Yes you can, and there have been many cases where these laws have been tested.

Having said that very few people/companies would even consider using unreleased images in situations where a release was needed, that is why we have lawyers. Many stock agencies require releases of any "identifiable person" in the image because they can't be bothered with different licensing arrangements. But in general, you can shoot anything in public and sell it, the purchaser is liable for their use, assuming you didn't imply they could do anything with the images.

I had an image I shot at a carnival, it featured Bud Light very prominently, the local distributor was desperate to use the image, of which I was selling prints and the national paper ran it, but as we couldn't find the subject to get a release they couldn't use it in an advert for the "beer".
 
Upvote 0

m

Nov 24, 2012
204
0
cayenne said:
How do they get away with that then?

Some laws make exceptions on people of public interest.
Check yours to get all the details.

I've read controversial opinions about whether some laws prohibit even taking the picture without permission.
Then there's group shots, which may or may not allow publication.
Get rid of the humans and you still cannot sell that night shot of the Eiffel Tower.
etc.

=/

If there's anything useful one gets out of this discussion is the guilt of lost time that one did not use to take pictures.
 
Upvote 0