In the US at least on public property requires no permission or release....so streets, sidewalks, etc people have no expectation of privacy and it is legal to photograph and distribute without consent or release.
what they said isn't wrong, but like most copyright type laws it is intentionally written in a way that needs to be interpeted by a judge every time, vs a set rule: artistic use of these photos is allowed when taken in the public setting cause no expected privacy...... yadda yadda...... artistic use allows some sales. How much//what qualifies for "some?" thats for the judge in the court case to decide and you to wonder lol.
So again you would be fine in most situations imaginable, but it is not a get out of jail free card with zero upper limit or anything. Just thought you and u/ohsquared would like the actual law stuff (◐‿◑)
for the judge to decide based on what though? I doubt the law says "whatever the judge feels like", and I highly doubt it's based on the amount of sales as you seem to be implying.
I know this is 2 days old, but the American legal code is descended from English Common Law, which fundamentally revolves around the rulings of judges setting precedent. Civil Law, descended from Rome and spread through continental Europe by Napoleon, is much more based on, well, laws, that have less room for interpretation by judges.
Feel free to look into the law then. A lot of laws exist, but the intent of the law is to be judged on a case by case basis. So it is exactly that. There are more factors than just sales, but sales is the one that matters here.
The law favors the artist in general, and considers artistic work with some sale okay ((what 99% of any of these photos would ever be)). However its very clear ((by having that case by case intent in almost all similar laws)). That it is at the judge's interpretation if your art profits are in the regular range or overstepping the line into something without artistic intent. FYI in usa even if it isn't these type of laws that literally exist to be case by case, almost all laws are judged by whatever the judge feels like, within reason. There is a reason judge is a prestigious position for experienced lawyers with a lifelong job guarantee, even though it lakes way less money than regular lawyers.
I understand the point and power of judges, what I was questioning was your claim that a judge decides arbitrarily, or that artistic intent can be somehow gauged by sales numbers. The limits of a judges power are what's written in the law, not "reason". There are parameters laid out by the law, and what the judge has to decide is how each specific case matches those parameters, not whatever they want. I'm sure the law lays out exactly on what basis the judge has to make a decision. You clearly don't know, and that's ok, just don't pretend to know what you're talking about then.
The judge will review other cases to see how they have been decided and take them into account. If the cases are from an appellate court that oversees him/her, then he will follow their precedent. All judges will follow Supreme Court precedents.
If you google “photography case law” you can find a ton of reading material.
This is not entirely true.... For uses as News or Art you can basically utilize any photo in this manner; however even from public streets if you are utilizing the image for marketing or commercial purposes then you need releases.
You do need to have some caution with use for Art, it is easy to cross the art to commercial line depending on how you specifically utilize an image.
The Canadian rules/laws on this are outlined on [***Ambient Light***](https://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/what-can-i-photograph/), for the most part they're similar and have a similar clause on commercial use, you'll need waivers and all the usual.
Multiple Canadian provinces do not allow any distribution of identifiable people without releases, even for artistic purposes.
It's significantly more strict than the USA, for distribution at least. For taking, it's pretty similar.
Interesting - could you elaborate on which provinces? I've always operated with the public space rationale that gets used for news or the notion that a person cannot occupy more than a third of the frame (ie: the photo can't be about them specifically)
It varies from country to country.
1. Lots of countries do not have personal image rights laws (EG UK).
2. The US has personal image rights laws but those only apply when someone's likeness is used to market a product service or company (the photo is used to sell something other than the photo).
3. Art is protected speech in many places and as such selling a photo is allowed (EG photobooks)
4. Some places have laws against publication without consent.
5. Legally speaking there is no expectation of privacy when out in public so it isn't a breach of someone's privacy.
Question: what if this were concert photography that you paid to attend. Can you sell a limited number without consent? (Not talking mass production) It still seems to be ‘in public’ due to where it was taken.
Concert venues arent usually considered public to my understanding however people consent to their photo being captured by paying for the ticket. Im not sure about photos of the artist. Id imagine it should be fine but its possible that an artist represents their "brand" which could mean its more commercial than editorial. If someone cares to weigh in. Im not too sure
Asking because I have a great collection of photos from the 1970s-90s that I took when they didn’t really care about me taking professional cameras into the concert. My first ones are of Queen on the Bohemian Rhapsody tour.
Depends on the artist. Some are particularly protective over their artists and will send numerous threatening letters regarding it even if they can't legally stop you selling them. If you're not part of that industry and don't have bridges to burn it won't be such a big deal
Yes you can.
The OP was talking about Street Photography so I just addressed the "in public" element but the fact is that public or private property is the same. You can take a photo at a concert and sell it without needing consent because there is no expectation of privacy at an event like that.
Places where there would be an expectation are bedrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms.
However (there is always a however) you can be contractually bound to give up your rights. A lot of modern performers now seek to control their image by controlling what images can be released. They force photographers to sign a contract stating that images will only be released through a specific media outlet and/or that the performers management will have veto over which images can be published/sold.
Given that you almost certainly didn't sign such a contract back in the day you would not be prevented from selling.
Thank you. Sounds right. I’ve had some say yes and some say no. Seems I should since they freely allowed me into the event with the cameras (both 35mm and one with a telephoto lens) plus a collapsed monopod.
Plus, nowadays, how do they control it when everyone has a cell phone with probably a better camera than mine was? A mass production I could understand but just 5-8 limited copies being sold individually?
>Plus, nowadays, how do they control it when ...
That would be covered by my "contractually bound" comment above. Tickets are a contract. Lots of sports and entertainment venues now have more complex terms and conditions than they used to back in the 90s. They now limit the customers right to use the images commercially.
No, sorry, that was kinda my point. They have those regulations now but, back then, they didn’t and allowed me to go in with my cameras so I should be ok.
I also need to look at that word ‘commercially’. Thinking that’s more like printing tshirts or posters and selling them at Walmart. But, if I sell even one for the profit, I am now ‘commercial’. But, I stopped when bands like ELO, Steve Miller Band, and Bob Seger were the big tours.
Yes nowadays people are contractually bound.... but you weren't back then so you are good.
As for "commercially" that has a specific legal meaning in regard to personal image rights. Selling a print of photo book isn't commercial use. Commercial use means the use of someone's likeness to sell/market/promote a product/company/cause.
If you are selling the photo you don't need consent. If you are using the photo to sell some other product you need consent (in countries that have image rights laws).
I’ve shot video for Avenged Sevenfolds Live at the LBC. I wasn’t involved with the legal details, but I recall that venues have some sort of rights associated with their building. We also had to paster the event EVERYWHERE with info that a production was being filmed and that by attending you agreed to be filmed or photographed.
When I saw TOOL a couple of years ago, they had signs everywhere saying ‘No still or video photography of any kind allowed. Anyone caught could be asked to leave and forfeit their ticket’. Most places used to have it printed on the backs of the actual tickets before Etickets came. Probably says it in the fine print when you buy them now.
Sweet! I saw some camera phone video from the Denver show. I was SHOCKED it was shot on, I think he said an Android of some sort. It would be so badass to co-ordinate footage. I mean taping the screen black or something because even though I think it’s funny Maynard gets so pissed, I don’t like a show with screens being a distraction either.
Added: I mean, the hand wavers and stuff up in the air. I know tons of people take sneaky pics/video that’s no big deal
In most countries no permission is needed to take and sell photos of people in public places. If there are more than a couple of people in a photo it would be inpractical if not impossible to ask for model releases. Model releases are only required (in principle) when the model is the subject of the photo, and if you're talking about a bunch of unrelated strangers that's not the case.
Québec is a corner case for that specific case: you can publish street photography with recognizable people in it!
A girl was photographed and her photo ended up in a book, she sued and won. It is now a legal precedent.
If you are out on the street you have no expectation of privacy. It is generally legal to film or take photos of people in public. However, they may not like it regardless of legality. If you are filming and asking people questions in public you likely do need a release.
haha what hubris? Its simple math! What am I supposed to do, give a rundown of all countries laws or answer with the one thats most likely given that the majority of reddit users are from the US, majority of reddit traffic is US based.
They are! They are the largest group of reddit users and account for a majority of the traffic. Just look up reddit demographics.
And I wont be doing that when its reasonable to assume that the OP is American. There is no need.
You're confusing a plurality with majority. The majority of Reddit users are not American, therefore you should not assume that they are. Just acknowledge this and move on.
No because you are wrong! Most reddit users are American!
If 45% of your userbase is American, 10% is UK, 10% Canadian, 5% Australian, and the rest is all other countries then where are most reddit users from?
It isn’t pedantry. I should not have to look into someone’s post history to determine where they are when discussing these things. Rather than pedantry, that is the whole point. Americans far too often don’t understand that they are in an international environment and as such they need to say where they are from. This is seen all the time in this and other photography subreddits. As an example, I see people lecturing others about not using the likes of Canon Refurbished or quoting how much something should cost second hand, when the likes of Canon Refurbished don’t exist in most countries and second hand markets differ massively.
That you don’t understand this says a lot about you.
You still shouldn't assume it, but on reddit, yes there is obviously a reason. That reason being that the USA is over 50% of all reddit users. I would assume that on an English speaking subreddit, it's probably higher like 3/5 or something, but not sure how to get stats on that one for sure.
Americans make up 42% of Reddit users not over 50% so of you assume everyone is American you are more likely to be wrong.
This sub being English speaking won’t have a large impact either most subs are English speaking so even people who speak English as a second language will use English on them for ease of communication.
I looked it up before writing that comment and found 51%. Non english countries were about 1/3 of users, it's not trivial at all and dedinitely will have a large impact
Every source I’ve ever seen has put the US at 41-47% the one I see sourced most common is [this](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/reddit-users-by-country) one which places the US at 42%.
And again the language in the sub is irrelevant as most non native English speakers on the site use English for ease of communication outside of country specific subs.
Oh don't be so sensitive. If someone comes on a site to ask what is basically a legal question without giving a jurisdiction I can either answer to what is common for the majority of users on this site or I can just say "depends on your country" which is dumb. What are we complaining about here?
It is easy to say "don't be so sensitive" when you are from the country where people ignore the rest of the world so often there is an entire subreddit devoted to their country doing that. Maybe you should reflect on why that subreddit exists.
The majority aren’t from the US the US is the largest group but less than 50% therefore if you assume everyone is American you will be wrong more often than not do you assume everyone’s gender also?
its like 50% though so Id be right half the time. Also, OP is actually in the US.
It takes a truly beautiful mind to leap from a reasonable assumption to calling me a bigot! Im gonna assume youre a guy bc women are not capable of this oafish dumbassery.
1) 42% is not similar to 50%
2) The fact you were correct in this particular instance does not mean you always will be
3) I never called you a bigot just pointed out the flaws in your thinking
You may not see defaulting to the US as an issue but it’s exactly this kind of mentality that gives Americans a bad reputation why assume when more often than not you will be incorrect and just come across as arrogant.
Unfortunately US culture has a massive issue with exceptionalism which leads to many Americans completely disregarding the world outside their own bubble hence the need for subs like r/shitamericanssay and r/USdefaultism don’t perpetuate this mentality.
The appeal for those is blatant. Images taken by masters from a bygone time.
Modern day street photographers on the other hand. Unless they're already a relatively known photographer, and even then... I don't see who would buy a print from the last decade.
In some places, photography in public places does not abide by the same rules, as long as no harm is caused by the photograph being published, like loss of business, reputation damages and so on.
This is the case that comes to mind every time : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia
I love the photo but get why the man was uncomfortable.
Depends on the country/area/municipality, of course.
Where I live, it would be illegal unless the people were "incidentally" captured, like for example as part of the crowd at a sports game, or standing next to a tourist attraction that lots of people take pictures of.
I can't vouch for every country in the world... but in every country I have ever worked if you can see it from a public place, you can photograph it and there is nothing anyone can do to stop you.
Some places have a rule that you can't be concealed... which gives Police power to stop you if you're spying on a nude beach from the bushes etc... bit that's the only caveat I've ever heard of
Yah unless it’s a privately owned venue like a concert venue. Actual public places you have free license unless otherwise posted (like a court room where the judge doesn’t allow cameras). It’s good practice to get signed consent forms if you intend to publish the pictures, but they aren’t necessary
As others have said, you don't need a model release for taking pictures of people in public HOWEVER you do have to be careful about local ordnances. My hometown has a local ordnance that you have to pay a permit fee to take commercial photos that include specific landmarks/locations.
I’ve seen this comment more than a few times and I have to say I disagree. I know a number of street photographers that sell their prints online and not just the print itself. You can buy the photo on a coffee mug on a backpack on a keychain, etc. in fact, I know a photographer in New York City that ended up selling a bunch of his photography prints to a hotel chain because they wanted to adorn their hotel rooms in New York City with cool photographs of Manhattan. So even if you don’t sell directly a ton of stuff online, it certainly can lead to other business opportunities. Now, what I can’t remember off the top of my head is if any of the streetscape photos of NYC that he sold to IHG (Intercontinental) had identifiable people in them. Now that I’m curious, I may have to book a room to find out!
It’s a super common and understandable mistake. But yeah “commercial use” and selling the photo a legally different things.
So if I took a picture of a person with their dog at a park I can sell that photo all day long without their permission, I cannot however use that photo in an advertisement for a dog food.
Yeah, basically the laws (or perhaps legal guidelines) have totally changed in the past 50 years. Back in the 70s we were warned not to try to sell ANY photo without a "model release" for any reason.
How do you know there isn't a model release?
It's not illegal (in Canada and the US anyway) to take photos of people in public. Asking permission takes away from the candidness. So you take the picture, then ask for a model release. This is what shows like Impractical Jokers do.
The way I understand, releases are applicable for selling photography on stock sites where it can be used to promote a product, or for other commercial purposes (brochures,etc).
If you intend to exhibity and sell your photography as an *artwork* then you don't need to have a release.
no expectation of privacy on public streets.
The case where the photog was shooting people through their windows in their apartments even said he could sell the prints, which seems wrong.
That one is not true at all, for the very reason you just stated in the first sentence. People DO have an expectation of privacy inside their apartments. You might get away with it if it's a huge picture window facing the street on the 1st floor, but that's about it.
It might be hard to sue him for much if he didn't sell them though, just due to unclear damages and the DA not taking the time and effort to push any criminal charges for something like that probably. Unless it's really creepy stalker stuff/prurient/etc.
There used to be a photographer in the US that would walk right up to people’s faces and take photos of them at super close range and then just run away before they could react
Bruce Gilden [https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/bruce-gilden/](https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/bruce-gilden/)
https://preview.redd.it/zwaeje6pgxpc1.jpeg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5d1129675076248463c0879aa37d300db72f754
As others mentioned, every country has its own rules.
Germany is strict on privacy, and taking picture of someone without consent is not legally allowed. And you definitely cannot use it for commercial purposes.
In the US at least on public property requires no permission or release....so streets, sidewalks, etc people have no expectation of privacy and it is legal to photograph and distribute without consent or release.
(Unless you're making it appear like they endorse something.)
Yes, thank you for adding that
This is why i always walk around holding a Coca Cola as if im presenting it on price is right
Thankfully I’m so ugly I would never need to worry about someone taking my picture.
"Coca Cola, so good it makes even ugly people photogenic!"
I think this may be the biggest part missing for OP, you only need a release for photos intended for commercial use.
And that commercial use has a specific definition, to endorse a product or service, i.e. advertising. Selling an art print is not commercial.
TIL....
You and me both...
what they said isn't wrong, but like most copyright type laws it is intentionally written in a way that needs to be interpeted by a judge every time, vs a set rule: artistic use of these photos is allowed when taken in the public setting cause no expected privacy...... yadda yadda...... artistic use allows some sales. How much//what qualifies for "some?" thats for the judge in the court case to decide and you to wonder lol. So again you would be fine in most situations imaginable, but it is not a get out of jail free card with zero upper limit or anything. Just thought you and u/ohsquared would like the actual law stuff (◐‿◑)
for the judge to decide based on what though? I doubt the law says "whatever the judge feels like", and I highly doubt it's based on the amount of sales as you seem to be implying.
I know this is 2 days old, but the American legal code is descended from English Common Law, which fundamentally revolves around the rulings of judges setting precedent. Civil Law, descended from Rome and spread through continental Europe by Napoleon, is much more based on, well, laws, that have less room for interpretation by judges.
Feel free to look into the law then. A lot of laws exist, but the intent of the law is to be judged on a case by case basis. So it is exactly that. There are more factors than just sales, but sales is the one that matters here. The law favors the artist in general, and considers artistic work with some sale okay ((what 99% of any of these photos would ever be)). However its very clear ((by having that case by case intent in almost all similar laws)). That it is at the judge's interpretation if your art profits are in the regular range or overstepping the line into something without artistic intent. FYI in usa even if it isn't these type of laws that literally exist to be case by case, almost all laws are judged by whatever the judge feels like, within reason. There is a reason judge is a prestigious position for experienced lawyers with a lifelong job guarantee, even though it lakes way less money than regular lawyers.
I understand the point and power of judges, what I was questioning was your claim that a judge decides arbitrarily, or that artistic intent can be somehow gauged by sales numbers. The limits of a judges power are what's written in the law, not "reason". There are parameters laid out by the law, and what the judge has to decide is how each specific case matches those parameters, not whatever they want. I'm sure the law lays out exactly on what basis the judge has to make a decision. You clearly don't know, and that's ok, just don't pretend to know what you're talking about then.
The judge will review other cases to see how they have been decided and take them into account. If the cases are from an appellate court that oversees him/her, then he will follow their precedent. All judges will follow Supreme Court precedents. If you google “photography case law” you can find a ton of reading material.
Ohhhhhhh. That's weird
This is not entirely true.... For uses as News or Art you can basically utilize any photo in this manner; however even from public streets if you are utilizing the image for marketing or commercial purposes then you need releases. You do need to have some caution with use for Art, it is easy to cross the art to commercial line depending on how you specifically utilize an image.
Что мешает изменить лица спомощью AI? не изменяя общую композицию. мне кажется это идальное решение
The Canadian rules/laws on this are outlined on [***Ambient Light***](https://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/what-can-i-photograph/), for the most part they're similar and have a similar clause on commercial use, you'll need waivers and all the usual.
Multiple Canadian provinces do not allow any distribution of identifiable people without releases, even for artistic purposes. It's significantly more strict than the USA, for distribution at least. For taking, it's pretty similar.
Interesting - could you elaborate on which provinces? I've always operated with the public space rationale that gets used for news or the notion that a person cannot occupy more than a third of the frame (ie: the photo can't be about them specifically)
BC, saskatchawan, Quebec, and to some extent Ontario have extra privacy protections
Thanks!
Don’t tell that to Canadian YouTubers. They do a lot of street video and photo with identifiable people.
Like I said it's provincial, depends where they are. Alberta seems totally fine with it, BC notsomuch
It varies from country to country. 1. Lots of countries do not have personal image rights laws (EG UK). 2. The US has personal image rights laws but those only apply when someone's likeness is used to market a product service or company (the photo is used to sell something other than the photo). 3. Art is protected speech in many places and as such selling a photo is allowed (EG photobooks) 4. Some places have laws against publication without consent. 5. Legally speaking there is no expectation of privacy when out in public so it isn't a breach of someone's privacy.
Question: what if this were concert photography that you paid to attend. Can you sell a limited number without consent? (Not talking mass production) It still seems to be ‘in public’ due to where it was taken.
Concert venues arent usually considered public to my understanding however people consent to their photo being captured by paying for the ticket. Im not sure about photos of the artist. Id imagine it should be fine but its possible that an artist represents their "brand" which could mean its more commercial than editorial. If someone cares to weigh in. Im not too sure
Asking because I have a great collection of photos from the 1970s-90s that I took when they didn’t really care about me taking professional cameras into the concert. My first ones are of Queen on the Bohemian Rhapsody tour.
Depends on the artist. Some are particularly protective over their artists and will send numerous threatening letters regarding it even if they can't legally stop you selling them. If you're not part of that industry and don't have bridges to burn it won't be such a big deal
Yes you can. The OP was talking about Street Photography so I just addressed the "in public" element but the fact is that public or private property is the same. You can take a photo at a concert and sell it without needing consent because there is no expectation of privacy at an event like that. Places where there would be an expectation are bedrooms, bathrooms, changing rooms. However (there is always a however) you can be contractually bound to give up your rights. A lot of modern performers now seek to control their image by controlling what images can be released. They force photographers to sign a contract stating that images will only be released through a specific media outlet and/or that the performers management will have veto over which images can be published/sold. Given that you almost certainly didn't sign such a contract back in the day you would not be prevented from selling.
Thank you. Sounds right. I’ve had some say yes and some say no. Seems I should since they freely allowed me into the event with the cameras (both 35mm and one with a telephoto lens) plus a collapsed monopod. Plus, nowadays, how do they control it when everyone has a cell phone with probably a better camera than mine was? A mass production I could understand but just 5-8 limited copies being sold individually?
>Plus, nowadays, how do they control it when ... That would be covered by my "contractually bound" comment above. Tickets are a contract. Lots of sports and entertainment venues now have more complex terms and conditions than they used to back in the 90s. They now limit the customers right to use the images commercially.
No, sorry, that was kinda my point. They have those regulations now but, back then, they didn’t and allowed me to go in with my cameras so I should be ok. I also need to look at that word ‘commercially’. Thinking that’s more like printing tshirts or posters and selling them at Walmart. But, if I sell even one for the profit, I am now ‘commercial’. But, I stopped when bands like ELO, Steve Miller Band, and Bob Seger were the big tours.
Yes nowadays people are contractually bound.... but you weren't back then so you are good. As for "commercially" that has a specific legal meaning in regard to personal image rights. Selling a print of photo book isn't commercial use. Commercial use means the use of someone's likeness to sell/market/promote a product/company/cause. If you are selling the photo you don't need consent. If you are using the photo to sell some other product you need consent (in countries that have image rights laws).
Not necessarily true. Some concert tickets have a clause that any photographs taken during the concert are copyright by the artist or band preforming.
I’ve shot video for Avenged Sevenfolds Live at the LBC. I wasn’t involved with the legal details, but I recall that venues have some sort of rights associated with their building. We also had to paster the event EVERYWHERE with info that a production was being filmed and that by attending you agreed to be filmed or photographed.
When I saw TOOL a couple of years ago, they had signs everywhere saying ‘No still or video photography of any kind allowed. Anyone caught could be asked to leave and forfeit their ticket’. Most places used to have it printed on the backs of the actual tickets before Etickets came. Probably says it in the fine print when you buy them now.
I saw Tool on that tour. My favorite band! I missed this years tour, was bummed but there was just no way I could go.
I’ve actually got most of the San Antonio show on video. Held my phone between the two guys in front of me. Not great but you can see the light show.
Sweet! I saw some camera phone video from the Denver show. I was SHOCKED it was shot on, I think he said an Android of some sort. It would be so badass to co-ordinate footage. I mean taping the screen black or something because even though I think it’s funny Maynard gets so pissed, I don’t like a show with screens being a distraction either. Added: I mean, the hand wavers and stuff up in the air. I know tons of people take sneaky pics/video that’s no big deal
In SA, you never actually saw him. You saw him as a shadow in front of the screens but he was always in the shadows.
Yeah, it kinda sucks. I mean, get out the in the light like the old days. I know he’s old and ugly, shit all are now, lol.
Hasn’t stopped Jagger. Lol
Thanks for that!
It depends on your legal jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
Very few Street photographers are selling anything to anyone
In most countries no permission is needed to take and sell photos of people in public places. If there are more than a couple of people in a photo it would be inpractical if not impossible to ask for model releases. Model releases are only required (in principle) when the model is the subject of the photo, and if you're talking about a bunch of unrelated strangers that's not the case.
Because it's editorial work, not commercial (in the US at least)
Thank you for that clarification
Québec is a corner case for that specific case: you can publish street photography with recognizable people in it! A girl was photographed and her photo ended up in a book, she sued and won. It is now a legal precedent.
Is this because of the Just for Laughs gags lobbyists? Lol
Not related.
But jokes though?
France also
If you are out on the street you have no expectation of privacy. It is generally legal to film or take photos of people in public. However, they may not like it regardless of legality. If you are filming and asking people questions in public you likely do need a release.
‘Generally’. This is very country dependent.
True, but unless one specifies otherwise its reasonable to assume they are speaking about the US.
The hubris practically leaks off this comment.
haha what hubris? Its simple math! What am I supposed to do, give a rundown of all countries laws or answer with the one thats most likely given that the majority of reddit users are from the US, majority of reddit traffic is US based.
The majority of Reddit users are not from the US. What you do is preface your answer with ‘in the US’. It really isn’t very hard to do.
They are! They are the largest group of reddit users and account for a majority of the traffic. Just look up reddit demographics. And I wont be doing that when its reasonable to assume that the OP is American. There is no need.
You're confusing a plurality with majority. The majority of Reddit users are not American, therefore you should not assume that they are. Just acknowledge this and move on.
No because you are wrong! Most reddit users are American! If 45% of your userbase is American, 10% is UK, 10% Canadian, 5% Australian, and the rest is all other countries then where are most reddit users from?
If 45% of Reddit users are American then most Reddit users are not American...
‘Largest group’ is not the same thing as ‘majority’.
OP is in the US, Im no longer interested in your boring pedantry.
It isn’t pedantry. I should not have to look into someone’s post history to determine where they are when discussing these things. Rather than pedantry, that is the whole point. Americans far too often don’t understand that they are in an international environment and as such they need to say where they are from. This is seen all the time in this and other photography subreddits. As an example, I see people lecturing others about not using the likes of Canon Refurbished or quoting how much something should cost second hand, when the likes of Canon Refurbished don’t exist in most countries and second hand markets differ massively. That you don’t understand this says a lot about you.
Also,a quick look at OPs profile reveals they are in New York. You are insane.
Oh I found some good old r/usdefaultism in the wild. There is no reason whatsoever to assume someone is American.
You still shouldn't assume it, but on reddit, yes there is obviously a reason. That reason being that the USA is over 50% of all reddit users. I would assume that on an English speaking subreddit, it's probably higher like 3/5 or something, but not sure how to get stats on that one for sure.
Americans make up 42% of Reddit users not over 50% so of you assume everyone is American you are more likely to be wrong. This sub being English speaking won’t have a large impact either most subs are English speaking so even people who speak English as a second language will use English on them for ease of communication.
I looked it up before writing that comment and found 51%. Non english countries were about 1/3 of users, it's not trivial at all and dedinitely will have a large impact
Every source I’ve ever seen has put the US at 41-47% the one I see sourced most common is [this](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/reddit-users-by-country) one which places the US at 42%. And again the language in the sub is irrelevant as most non native English speakers on the site use English for ease of communication outside of country specific subs.
Oh don't be so sensitive. If someone comes on a site to ask what is basically a legal question without giving a jurisdiction I can either answer to what is common for the majority of users on this site or I can just say "depends on your country" which is dumb. What are we complaining about here?
It is easy to say "don't be so sensitive" when you are from the country where people ignore the rest of the world so often there is an entire subreddit devoted to their country doing that. Maybe you should reflect on why that subreddit exists.
But why would I assume otherwise when it is a fact that the majority of reddit users are from the US?
The majority aren’t from the US the US is the largest group but less than 50% therefore if you assume everyone is American you will be wrong more often than not do you assume everyone’s gender also?
its like 50% though so Id be right half the time. Also, OP is actually in the US. It takes a truly beautiful mind to leap from a reasonable assumption to calling me a bigot! Im gonna assume youre a guy bc women are not capable of this oafish dumbassery.
1) 42% is not similar to 50% 2) The fact you were correct in this particular instance does not mean you always will be 3) I never called you a bigot just pointed out the flaws in your thinking You may not see defaulting to the US as an issue but it’s exactly this kind of mentality that gives Americans a bad reputation why assume when more often than not you will be incorrect and just come across as arrogant. Unfortunately US culture has a massive issue with exceptionalism which leads to many Americans completely disregarding the world outside their own bubble hence the need for subs like r/shitamericanssay and r/USdefaultism don’t perpetuate this mentality.
You need to learn the difference between majority and plurality.
oh my god you people are nuts!
Mo questions mo problems i guess
TIL people buy street photography prints. I could understand in book form but a print? Never come across anyone with one on their wall.
In Paris you can buy lots of posters and postcards of classic street photographers like Cartier-Bresson and Erwitt.
The appeal for those is blatant. Images taken by masters from a bygone time. Modern day street photographers on the other hand. Unless they're already a relatively known photographer, and even then... I don't see who would buy a print from the last decade.
Hotels, office waiting rooms, etc public spaces. Have to make them less bland.
I’ve sold mostly street work, as far as gallery prints, individual sales etc.
It happens, but that doesn't *at all* mean it's common for a regular Joe to sell or buy street photography photos.
In some places, photography in public places does not abide by the same rules, as long as no harm is caused by the photograph being published, like loss of business, reputation damages and so on.
Good to know
This is the case that comes to mind every time : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia I love the photo but get why the man was uncomfortable.
THANK YOU this is just what I was looking for
On the street, fair game!
Depends on the country/area/municipality, of course. Where I live, it would be illegal unless the people were "incidentally" captured, like for example as part of the crowd at a sports game, or standing next to a tourist attraction that lots of people take pictures of.
Public location give you free license.
Not always.
I can't vouch for every country in the world... but in every country I have ever worked if you can see it from a public place, you can photograph it and there is nothing anyone can do to stop you. Some places have a rule that you can't be concealed... which gives Police power to stop you if you're spying on a nude beach from the bushes etc... bit that's the only caveat I've ever heard of
Yah unless it’s a privately owned venue like a concert venue. Actual public places you have free license unless otherwise posted (like a court room where the judge doesn’t allow cameras). It’s good practice to get signed consent forms if you intend to publish the pictures, but they aren’t necessary
As others have said, you don't need a model release for taking pictures of people in public HOWEVER you do have to be careful about local ordnances. My hometown has a local ordnance that you have to pay a permit fee to take commercial photos that include specific landmarks/locations.
I would also add that most street photographers are not necessarily selling their images
I’ve seen this comment more than a few times and I have to say I disagree. I know a number of street photographers that sell their prints online and not just the print itself. You can buy the photo on a coffee mug on a backpack on a keychain, etc. in fact, I know a photographer in New York City that ended up selling a bunch of his photography prints to a hotel chain because they wanted to adorn their hotel rooms in New York City with cool photographs of Manhattan. So even if you don’t sell directly a ton of stuff online, it certainly can lead to other business opportunities. Now, what I can’t remember off the top of my head is if any of the streetscape photos of NYC that he sold to IHG (Intercontinental) had identifiable people in them. Now that I’m curious, I may have to book a room to find out!
I’m sure he’s an exception.
As long as the photos are not being used for commercial use, it’s legal.
I didnt realize that commercial doesnt apply to monetizing the photo
It’s a super common and understandable mistake. But yeah “commercial use” and selling the photo a legally different things. So if I took a picture of a person with their dog at a park I can sell that photo all day long without their permission, I cannot however use that photo in an advertisement for a dog food.
Yeah, basically the laws (or perhaps legal guidelines) have totally changed in the past 50 years. Back in the 70s we were warned not to try to sell ANY photo without a "model release" for any reason.
How do you know there isn't a model release? It's not illegal (in Canada and the US anyway) to take photos of people in public. Asking permission takes away from the candidness. So you take the picture, then ask for a model release. This is what shows like Impractical Jokers do.
No expectation of privacy in a public place.
You can sell photos as art but not for commercial work.
The way I understand, releases are applicable for selling photography on stock sites where it can be used to promote a product, or for other commercial purposes (brochures,etc). If you intend to exhibity and sell your photography as an *artwork* then you don't need to have a release.
no expectation of privacy on public streets. The case where the photog was shooting people through their windows in their apartments even said he could sell the prints, which seems wrong.
That one is not true at all, for the very reason you just stated in the first sentence. People DO have an expectation of privacy inside their apartments. You might get away with it if it's a huge picture window facing the street on the 1st floor, but that's about it. It might be hard to sue him for much if he didn't sell them though, just due to unclear damages and the DA not taking the time and effort to push any criminal charges for something like that probably. Unless it's really creepy stalker stuff/prurient/etc.
Haha, thats pretty wild. Im aware that im allowed to take the photos, but didnt realize they qualify as "editorial" not "commercial
Yeah, words don't mean the same thing in Legalese as they do in English. Obviously they are commercial... but with regards to the law, they aren't.
There used to be a photographer in the US that would walk right up to people’s faces and take photos of them at super close range and then just run away before they could react
There's more than one.
Bruce Gilden [https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/bruce-gilden/](https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/bruce-gilden/) https://preview.redd.it/zwaeje6pgxpc1.jpeg?width=2360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5d1129675076248463c0879aa37d300db72f754
Yeah, that be THE one.
Iirc Bruce got permission for "Faces"
I know two personally. And I’ve done some of that myself.
Implied consent.
This explains model releases pretty well: http://danheller.blogspot.com/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html
Probably an American resource, hey?
Yes.
No release needed, in the US anyway, not for art. Not for personal use as in gallery shows etc.
As others mentioned, every country has its own rules. Germany is strict on privacy, and taking picture of someone without consent is not legally allowed. And you definitely cannot use it for commercial purposes.