NatureScapes.net Forums

I took a few candid images of people while on a birding trip in Morocco recently, using my telephoto gear. Some of them show close ups of faces, mostly elderly men, whose face I found interesting or photogenic. None were of children, or women in burkas etc. who obviously didn't want to be seen. I did not obtain permission to take them, but they were in public places. It is extremely unlikely that the subject will ever see these images on line. Is it legit. to post any here in the Travel and Culture gallery, or is that an unwarranted invasion of privacy? Does Naturescapes have a policy on this?

Thanks,    Richard

Richard,

I have found this document about photographer's rights extremely helpful. I don't know if it applies directly to your question, but it might help.


http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Mark you may want to post this question in the Business Topics Forum. Carolyn E. Wright is the moderator and she is a lawyer who is very knowledgeable about photography law.

Some slightly different rules in Canada - and there are variations between provinces, so check.

http://ambientlight.ca/laws/

http://o.canada.com/news/pen-canada-public-photography

In general, as long as you're not using the photos for commercial purposes, you can use them pretty much anyway you want if the photos were taken in public places and the subject matters were also in public places. Many street photos have human faces in them but that does not mean they were portraits, which sounds like the kind of photos yours likely belong to as the person in your photos are the primary subject matter - sounds like you were sniping  -  as opposed to a photo of a parade in which no one particular individual is the main subject, for example. You can even photograph police in action as long as you're not in their way or obstructing them one way or another (so don't get too close).

I heard that Quebec has some strange rules so.

As for the policy here on Naturescapes I wonder why no moderator has responded yet

But, a casual looks of the photos posted under Travel gallery you can find pictures of humans being there, too, so that should give you some idea.

First, it is very considerate of you to even question the morality as well as the legality of posting such images. From a legal standpoint, I think you are free to share them (unless requested not to) if they were photographed in a public space. You would not be permitted to sell them for use in advertising however.

Some stock sites require model releases for any person or part of a person if it can be even remotely identified - if someone photographed my hand and it had a birthmark, scar, or pattern of freckles that would make it possible for me to identify it as my own hand a model release would still be required. Other stock sites don't require model releases, but only permit editorial sales of images of people's faces or where the person would be easily identified by another person. So the guidelines really vary.

This is one of the reasons photographing landscapes and wildlife is so much easier in some ways!

baldsparrow wrote:Some slightly different rules in Canada - and there are variations between provinces, so check.

http://ambientlight.ca/laws/

http://o.canada.com/news/pen-canada-public-photography

I recall reading a case where a publication photographed a lady sitting on the steps of a library in Montreal and used the photo in a newspaper or something.  She sued and won.  I found that case odd as the steps of a library, at least that one, she had a reasonable expectation to privacy.  This goes back maybe 8+ years now.  

OntPhoto wrote:

baldsparrow wrote:Some slightly different rules in Canada - and there are variations between provinces, so check.

http://ambientlight.ca/laws/

http://o.canada.com/news/pen-canada-public-photography

I recall reading a case where a publication photographed a lady sitting on the steps of a library in Montreal and used the photo in a newspaper or something.  She sued and won.  I found that case odd as the steps of a library, at least that one, she had a reasonable expectation to privacy.  This goes back maybe 8+ years now.  

I read that in Quebec rules are different: your street photos cannot show faces (probably especially if you want to publish them in some way). Any photos that are to be used for commercial/marketing purposes you need the consent of the persons in the photos.

DChan wrote:

OntPhoto wrote:

baldsparrow wrote:Some slightly different rules in Canada - and there are variations between provinces, so check.

http://ambientlight.ca/laws/

http://o.canada.com/news/pen-canada-public-photography

I recall reading a case where a publication photographed a lady sitting on the steps of a library in Montreal and used the photo in a newspaper or something.  She sued and won.  I found that case odd as the steps of a library, at least that one, she had a reasonable expectation to privacy.  This goes back maybe 8+ years now.  

I read that in Quebec rules are different: your street photos cannot show faces (probably especially if you want to publish them in some way). Any photos that are to be used for commercial/marketing purposes you need the consent of the persons in the photos.

I found the following via the great legal expert, Dr Google ... this relates to the law in Quebec and applies to people here of your photo of bird includes a person in the frame:

Quote:

[font='Proxima Nova', 'helvetica neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif] [/font] The new Civil Code Article 36 that applies here was quoted by the Court:

"the use of a person's name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public is an invasion of privacy."

That's it. That's the law you are working with. This is the law which protects the subject of the photo. 

Next, there is the right of freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter of rights. This right protects the photographer.

According to the Supreme Court, these two rights must be balanced against each other. In other words, neither is absolute. So the court states that the right to take the picture overrides the right to privacy, only where the public interest element of the photo outweighs the person's right to privacy.

So, for example, Jean Charest's right to privacy may be outweighed by the public's interest if he were to be photographed giving a speech in a public place. That's obvious. Less obvious is a non-celebrity's right to privacy if he or she is part of a news story.

Other examples given by the court are where a person is part of a crowd or is incidental to a photo of a public place, such as a building, or, perhaps a lake up north??

The court also addressed the public's need for "social" interest. This means, "art". Is an artist's right to display his art socially beneficial, and thus falls into the realm of "public interest" The court said no. This right does not override the right to privacy. So all you artists who think you are benefitting society by publishing photos of your neighbour's daughter, think again.

Finally, we must understand that it is not the taking of the photo that is against the law. It is also not against the law to publish a photo. It is only against the law where the photo infringes on a person's right to privacy. Furthermore, the infringement on the person's privacy, in and of itself is not against the law, unless that person can prove he or she was predjudiced in some fashion. In other words, he or she must prove damages.

In this case, it seems it didn't take more than her friends laughing at her for the "victim" to prove damages. The original court awarded her $2,000, but the Supreme Court said this seemed high. (Didn't lower it, though).

In the world of damages, there are two types: Patrimonial (financial) and expatrimonial (non-financial). In this case, expatrimonial damages were sought, although the court stated she could have also claimed compensation for what a model could have made.

So, to sum up, I think you can snap away. I don't think there is any law that allows anyone to touch your camera or prevent you from taking their picture. I don't think you need to ask permission to take a photograph (although it may be more polite). But once you have the photo, you would need permission to publish it in a public forum. If you don't get such permission, think about whether you want to publish it. Is it in the public's interest? If not, could it cause damages to the subject? If so, keep it in your camera.

It's been a while since I heard this story, so I may be off on one or two points.

A photographer was on a group safari in Africa. He took some pictures of their cook, a beautiful local woman. Back in New York, the photographer sold a picture of her to be used on the box of a high-end perfume. He had no model release but knew the woman would never see the perfume with her picture on it.

A few months later, the woman rushes home very excited, that is, her new home in New York, and showed her new husband, a very successful and high-end lawyer, the perfume box with her photo on it.

You know the end of the story.

You never know who will see your published images, so I strongly suggest that you have a signed model release for any images of people that will be used commercially.

Have Fun,
Jeff

But remember the above is only true if the photo is used to market something, then for sure a model release is needed. BUT if the photo is NOT USED commercially and the photo was taken in a public area, NO release is needed in the US under most circumstances of displaying the photo in a gallery. This assumes that the photo depicts the subject in a favorable way and is not demeaning. If a model release was needed for pictures of people in a street scene there would be no Street Photography.