It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected.
As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. While it's certainly polite not to take photos of strangers and post them without asking if it's ok, you shouldn't morally or legally need permission. They're in public. Their actions can be seen by anyone else in public who crosses paths with them, whether online or off. There are cameras everywhere, and a random person with their smartphone should not be held to a higher standard than a surveillance company or security camera. I recently had someone give me a hard time because I had posted a selfie where someone else was in the background smoking a cigarette. The person was recognizable but far from being the focus of the photo. It was a complete coincidence that they were in the background, but a friend of theirs recognized them was angry that I had posted a photo of them without consent doing something that they didn't want shared on social media. Well, I'm sorry, but if you don't want people to see you doing something, don't do it in public. I chose to immediately remove the photo out of politeness and to avoid drama, but in my opinion, people have no right to be upset if a photo of them doing something in public goes viral.
You have no expectation of privacy in any public place, period. Photographers have always had the right to take your picture without your permission, as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. It sounds like your complaint amounts to this: everyone will be a photographer once this becomes popular.
Yes, that's why I mentioned the publication of the photo for some commercial purposes, eg advertising. Nobody is disputing your right to take pictures in public.
In most countries you have no right not to be photographed (by anyone) when in public (by definition being in public is not being in private). I fully support this with the exception of the homeless (and I think it does somewhat support the right to cover your face in public if you wish).
Photographers only need to secure permission from subjects if the person is not in, or viewable from, a public place. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy then there's nothing you can do about being photographed.
This is in the US and Australia, at least. There was some irregularity depending on state but AFAIK it's reasonably uniform terriotory now.
Umm, what if I take photos in a public place with you in them and the laws of the country allow public photography? or posting images which are public record such as mugshots/booking photos? (not that I agree with them being public record anyhow, morally I'd agree with you but it would be perfectly legal to do so)
Legally speaking, the photographer is completely within his rights.
The band is also within their rights to ban him from their shows because they disagree with the way he uses his legal authority.
Personally, I find the idea that the photographer has more right to a photo than the subject ethically repugnant.
If you came up, took a photo of me, and used it to make money on your Instagram, and then sent settlement letters to people associated with me for using it you'd be asking for a broken nose if I ever laid eyes on you again, legal right or not.
I'm free to take pictures of people in public. I'm not free to monetize / share them freely without consent. There is an argument to be made that this should be the case for stuff people post on the internet as well.
I agree that people make themselves vulnerable to someone taking their picture by going outside, but I strongly disagree that people consent to having their picture taken.
I’m willing to be swayed on this issue but to me the word “consent” implies permission, and the word permission implies some type of authority. In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed. I personally believe that, for the most part, ethics and legality align here. I don’t think it is unethical to photograph and publish a picture of someone in public. However, I think there may be an ethical dilemma if the picture is unintentionally sexually suggestive. I still don’t believe it should be legislated. The societal and personal benefits guaranteed by the right which allows us to photograph in public is worth more than the protection that would come through legislation.
Additionally the picture in question is not sexual to me at all. I don’t even understand how anyone could construe it as sexual. To me it’s a raw, emotional photograph that perfectly describes what it’s like to mother children in a large city. It’s an amazing moment
You’re not ‘doing’ anything to someone by taking a photo in public with them in the background. You don’t have reasonable expectations and it’s fine for reasonable people to disregard them.
No. In the US if you take a picture of me in a public setting, you own that photo and all rights that go with it. Unless you do something so distasteful and unwarranted that I can claim material harm, I have no recourse against what you choose to do with that picture. See, for example, the paparazzi.
My expectation is that if someone takes a photo of me, I maintain some level of control over that photo. That is NOT the current situation.
I don't read that as "no one can take my photo", though. Certainly that language should protect me from people invading my private space to take photos of me, but if I'm out and about in public, I should have no expectation that no photos will be taken of me, and I would feel very wrong asking someone to delete a photo of me in a public place. I would consider that to be infringing on their rights.
I get that photos of people can be a lot more harmful than a casual photographer might assume, but I would never accede to a request from a random stranger to delete a photograph that they just happened to be in. If someone requested that I not take a photo of them, I personally would comply out of a sense of politeness, but I don't believe anyone has a legal or moral obligation to comply when in public.
(But yes, I know, this is just my opinion and preference, just like yours is yours.)
reply