Photographic Rights

[lisaj]

I'm an amateur photographer and I've been wondering : What's the deal with photographing strangers? Taking portraits of random people offers some great photo opportunities but what's the legal standpoint? There are many people who would seem to get angry at the prospect, like I'm stealing part of their soul (this hasn't actually happened, but I guess it could), but I'm not storing any information about them. I own the image, so what claim do they have? Any ideas, opinions or thoughts?

[treaclefight]

i think it's going to depend what you plan to do with the photo, if it was going into a national exhibition or published in a book, it would be a good thing to let the person know. technically there is no legal right to privacy but i'm pretty sure they do have legal rights over their own image, but the law isn't as balck and white as people like to think it is, if we're talking one photo for a personal collection or local amatuer group then no court is going to make you pay huge damages for that. if the photo was going to appear on every bus stop in london that would be different. also if you plan to take several pictures of someone you're going to need permission. i am sure you can take random snaps that form a collection, just bear in mind that if you are very talented and the photos become famous then the people in them may demand a 'royalty' of some sort. in the meantime i would go for the friendly approach, ask permission and tell them what it is for and if they say yes you can take the portrait then your covered for most legal eventualities. good luck.

[lisaj]

Obviously we're not talking about mass publication here. The thing is, portraits lose their individuality when a person is aware. They pose for it, even if they don't think they do. As such, I'd really need to be asking them afterwards by which time the whole "soul-stealing" thing would already exist. Anyhow, I'm not sure a person does own their image in this way. Is there a lawyer out there? After all, I sincerely doubt that passers by in films claim royalties from the production company, or those on tv, or those photographed in backgrounds, etc etc etc.

[rekstout]

As far as I understand this the law works as follows...

You, as the photographer, have copyright over the photographs, the individual does not unless you enter into some form of contract (so if you did get written permission, make sure the writing of the permission is watertight).

The law currently does not protect an individual against invasion of privacy by anyone (except public bodies) but this may change depending on the result of certain landmark cases in court at present.

The individual does have recourse to the human rights act which includes right to privacy

The subject could sue if the image could be construed as being the equivalent of libellous or in some way defames them.

My sister and sister in law both use photography of unwitting individuals in the course of their work (for one for commercial gain, the other as a student) and work on the above basis. When using people off the street as subjects as part of a commercial project, they do get signatures on proper legal paperwork, waiving the subjects right to payment but only when there is an obvous subject as opposed to a street or crowd shot.

[lisaj]

And to anyone else who's interested in this thread, I've found a full and comprehensive anser (finally!) to compliment the input from rekstout and treacle
http://www.corrs.com.au/WebStreamer?page_id=2667

[errol]

Don't tell them!