D, I can't see the image in your main page, and when I copy the href it's not valid either. Perhaps there is a problem with your post? Please delete this comment when you see fit.

Ben, thanks. I've been doing some work developing another photoblog over the last couple of days and inadvertently uploaded today's image there. Today's shot is up now.

In the states you can take pictures of almost any person (even law enforcement officers) if you are standing on public property or have permission to be on the property you are shooting from . View an article by this lawyer http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Max...

Dave

As far as I am aware if it's in a public place then it is no problem.

The guy playing the fiddle must have moved onto Blackpool because he is usually busking in Bolton town centre, and has done for years. Did you notice that he has an amazing ability to play one tune whilst seemingly dancing to another melody (talk about two left feet. Nice shot, I like these type of everyday life photos.

john

Max, thanks for the link.

John: I was at work today so no, he's not moved to Blackpool ;-)

Max and John: irrespective of whether you can take shots in public places (and I think you're both right; i.e. this isn't a problem), can you subsequently sell the images without a model release?

I forgot to mention that he has also perfected the art of never looking at anyone.

Here's a link to a random article written by a copyright attorney:

http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html

Under the heading "Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals" (no doubt referring to U.S. law):

...The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude or seclusion, and against those who publicly disclose private facts...

If your subject is walking down a public street in plain view of dozens of people, traffic cameras, security cameras etc., I doubt your photograph would expose her anymore than she already has been.

There are stories of lawsuits against unauthorized images incriminating individuals caught in the act of perpetrating illegal activity, or inadvertently exposing clandestine extramarital shenanigans.

The article says you must obtain permission to photograph a building constructed after December 1, 1990. If your street candid includes a building for which you had no permit to photograph, the subject may have legal grounds based on the fact that you didn't have permission to photograph that building in the first place. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but you see how murky things can get in such a litigious society as the U.S.A., where cigarette lighters come with instructions and legal disclaimers.

For the most part I think you're okay in public venues. Carry releases with you. If the stars are aligned, try to get one signed. Above all, shoot first and ask questions later. :)

Dave, currently in the UK it's perfectly legal to take a picture of anyone in a public space without asking their permission. The subject of the photo *could* make a purely civil (not criminal) claim against you under the Data Protection Act if you were to publish the image, but any claim would be only based on the "loss to the individual by having their photo taken" upon which you might be expected to compensate the individual if you'd profited from the photo. Of course, they're likely as not to lose the claim if it was clear they were not the only subject of the photo or that you hadn't specifically targeted them for the photo - i.e. you could have taken a picture of anyone... and then it would depend on them being recognisable. Today's pic would be OK, but that earlier one at the same location *might* cause an issue.

If you're really worried, ask a lawyer! ;)

This PDF has an informal discussion of the subject.

Um. I meant yesterday's shot. The guy today wouldn't stand a chance at a claim, being a street performer and all...

Dave, The general rule is, no, you shouldn't sell the image without a model release. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can't sell it but rather that the person pictured would have legal recourse against you if you do, should they choose to pursure it. In other words, you sell the picture commercially and somehow the person finds out. The person pictured would then have a legal right (at least here in the states) to pursue you for unauthorized use of their likeness.

At that point, the lawyers take over and life becomes miserable.

If you're just selling a few prints, it's probably not worth the subject's time and money to sue you. If, however, you sell the image for a bazillion dollars --er, pounds to Nike and they use it for their worldwide advertising...

Hi....I recognised him too!! I know when working as Development Officer I could not take or use pics of kids without their parents permission....dodgy area really and one probably worth looking into.... just my view for what its worth. Moral as much as a legal issue and I know we have chatted about this before....
Interesting how being familiar with the person affects my 'take' on the photo though... I either love it all the more....like family shots....but this one had the opposite effect.

Technically, the public places argument holds true. In addition, model releases are not generally required for editorial purposes ie. newspapers, magazines, etc. However, for commercial, corporate or advertising usage, model releases are required. Many editorial houses are requiring model releases these days though just to cover themselves. It really depends on how badly they want the image. It never hurts to have one though as it expands the marketability of the image.

I don't know whether you can sell the images or not without a model release...I just wanted to comment that I like today's shot. :)

Thanks everyone. Over the last hour I've been doing a bit of research into model releases and have come up with a fairly simple one that I'm going to print out to carry around with me (as follows):

MODEL RELEASE FORM
For valuable consideration received, I hereby grant to David J. Nightingale, and his legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of me, or in which I may be included, for editorial trade, advertising or any other purpose and in any manner and medium; and to alter the same without restriction. I hereby release David J. Nightingale and his legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs.

Name:
Signature:
Address (*):
Phone (*):
(* optional)

As best I can tell, this should be ok.

And thank-you Sarah :-)

On the odd occasion that I take a photograph of somebody (not just a photo that happens to have people in) I try to get their permission in some way - it's just common courtesy; I wouldn't like it if someone put up photos of me that I didn't like on the web. Mostly the people concerned are either friends, in which case I'll show them the shot and ask if I can publish it, or street performers in which case I ask for their permission to photograph them.

Nice- I'd like to see it without the man walking though. =)

James: I should have mentioned that I do normally ask, at least when I can – for yesterday's shot I would have had to dash across the street and run after them – but for today's I did ask if it would be ok.

I recently posted some thoughts Here

I don't know much about the legal side, but I do think that there is a diference between photography of people for personal use as opposed to posting on the web, even as a not-for-profit exercise. There may also be cultural issues involved in some instances.

Getting somone to sign a release in the street might be interesting though.

Be sure you give the subject something, usually money, so that you fulfill the "valuable consideration" clause. In the states, on commercial jobs where you're shooting non-paid subjects (i.e. not models), the pay is usually a dollar. Doing this seems like nit-picking but there was a court case here some years back where the photo subject sued the photographer and won because the photographer gave the subject nothing when he signed the release (no valuable consideration was received by the subject, hence the contract was invalid.)

Meanwhile, as David said, getting somebody to sign a release on the street should be interesting... :)

I like todays shot Dave, you should keep with the people theme.

As for release forms and all that, it sounds like such a hassle, an interuption of a working flow to have to try and get someone you took a shot of on the street to sign something that, looking at the one quoted above, would make me suspicious is someone shoved it under my nose. I know it's best to cover yourself, and of course your subject, but I would rather carry on taking pics without any pretension to sell them for commercial gain and just get the verbal permission to take the shot and use it for non-commercial/editorial purposes, wherever possible .

I think the model release would be fine. As to legal consideration, a b-law class I had defined consideration as givng up something that you have a legal right to in exchange for someone else doing the same. You might give up a print of the pic, with labor, post, etc. as part of the consideration. There is also law about the adequacy of consideration; courts have ruled that the consideration was not enough and that there wasn't a recipracle exchange.

I suggest talking to a solicitor. Maybe you could offer him/her the photo in exchange.

[This advice is worth just what is being charged and no consideration has been received (except the pleasure of checking on your site regularly. Thanx.)]

As far as I'm aware, if someone is in a public place then you are free to photograph them as long as by doing so you aren't harrassing them unduly or causing breach of the peace etc.

You are free to use the photo for editorial purposes.

If individuals are recogniseable you cannot use their likeness to support or endorse a commercial or other activity without their permission.

But the key issue here is whether you can sell a print with their recognisesable likeness (captued in public) as 'art' without their permission? My guess would be that you can - but I'd be interested to here from someone in the UK who was certain about the legal position.

As a thought - I wonder what happens in the area of photo journalism? I can't imagine a war photographer asking the permisson of everyone they take photos of and then publish in the papers. And of course, they are paid for their pictures .....

The other issue is more one of artistic merit - you sometimes get a much better feel for an person if they are not aware you are taking a photo.

I love shots like this as they just capture a moment in time. I can't help thinking that all of us photobloggers are doing an amazing job as historians for future generations ..... let's pat ourselves on the back !!!!!

maybe it's me, but i always feel very very funny when taking shots of strangers (i get really shy and end up not taking the shot)

Do people ask them before they take the shot?

ps.. brilliant shot as usual :0)

I agree with Daniel, I have a hurdle to get over in terms of confidence. I feel really uneasy about being stood in the middle of random stangers and even using my camera at all. I get looked at as if I'm some kind of freak as soon as it comes out of the bag (and I don't even have a DSLR)!

Plus I think I have had a few strange experiences before which probably puts me off. I was stood near a sort of stall on a street once that was selling old clothes and junk, I had the camera around my neck and the old woman who looked to be running the stall came over and told me not to take photos of her or the stall or she'd phone the police! Admittedly I was thinking about it, but hadn't gone that far.

Another time I was taking pictures of passing traffic on a street, trying to get an interesting blur. Then from across the strett a woman came out and shouted at me to stop taking pictures of the outside of her pub. I wasn't taking pictures of the pub at all, but she wouldn't believe me. So to save imflaming things more I just walked off, rather than bother to show her the LCD screen of what I was doing...she was quite a big lady after all!

If I asked someone if I could take their picture then pulled out a form to sign, I think they'd just get worried that I was up to something strange.

This is a facinating photo. I love the lighting.

I love the reality of this photo, the lighting against the dark clothing is really striking.

Dave

I think it is fair to say that in the UK you do not need permission because if you did how do newspaper reporters geta away with taking pictures of anyone and that is how they make their money. I believe that in Italy moves are afoot to stop this kind of photography but here it is okay.

Putting my x police hat on though, the only problem you may have is when someone objects to what have you have just done and confronts you, which then turns into a bit of a fracar. In this situation (but I believe it is so rare) then there is a chance that public order offences may come into play.

When I shoot for my local council I do have to get permission if my photographs 'home in on a specific person' but if it is a group then it's no problem.

I doubt that many members of the public will willingly sign a model release unless you convince them that your work is for professional usage.

John

There is a lot of talk about the legal, and I would rather stick with talking about the photo.
I personally do not favor this photograph. The man's blue shirt is the only thing that pops out at me. Everything else is gray or beige. I also think another perspective would have been more appealing.

I see a musical scale behind the violinist.

What I have heard here in The States is that a publicly taken photograph of people can be sold for artistic, journalistic, or documentary use but not for commercial use -- like an advert.

Where is the buskers hat or collection tin ? Seriously, I like this shot because it depicts reality and whilst it's not typically 'chromasia creativity ' it still has merit for me because it is so real.

Thanks everyone.

In terms of the legality of taking and selling street shots the consensus seems to be that it depends on usage; i.e. it would be ok for an exhibition, or a magazine, but not for a commercial advertisement. That said I suspect that any company wanting o use an image wouldn't do so if you didn't have a model release so I guess this is probably not an issue.

As for people's reactions at having their photograph taken: on the whole my experiences have been positive. When my taking the shot has been obvious, I've asked, and have only had a couple of people say no. Some people ask me why I'm doing, or if I work for the newspaper, but on the whole people don't seem to mind.

Daaave: oddly, I used to get odd looks from people when I used my G5, but the 20D doesn't attract nearly the same attention. Or, probably, it attracts a different sort of attention; i.e. my impression is that people see it as a 'proper' camera and, maybe, more legitimate as a consequence. I don't know.

Funny how you mention that using the 20D gets a different reaction as i've found exactly the same with the D70 - I sense that people think you're either a professional photographer or a photography student (although the later might be because of my sruffy appearance and boysih good looks! NOT)

That said I miss my Nikon 4500 sometimes - it was one of those with the swivel body which meant you should shoot alot more surreptitiously!

.... one other thing that makes people look at you different is if you're lugging around a large tripod!!!

D :o)

~now this is my cup of tea, street photography...as for the releases and such, when shooting in a public place no permission is necessary from the subject, but if you plan on using the images commercially a release is necessary.... I make it a habit to speak to 99.9% of everyone I shoot on the street, either before or after the shutter has been snapped, mostly because I want to know the "story" behind the moment. But also because I have them sign a business card-sized release in case I present the image in a publication, as the case has been lately, or in an exhibit, as will be the case in the spring and fall of this year. I suggest doing the same, for your photography has great commercial ability and I would not want any backlash of discontent from any subject you present. Plus, chatting it up with random people you shoot can be very rewarding, it really adds depth to what you see and shoot~

This image reminds me of the famous (sort of) photograph of Nick Drake (60's / 70's folk singer who died tragically young), leaning against a wall in London watching the world rush by taken by Keith Morris.

I wonder if you have seen this image.

I greatly enjoy your work and would like to wish your newborn baby boy the best of health. Congratulations to you and your family.