Do subjects ever have an inherent right to a copy of their picture?

[Asher Kelman]

Assuming the picture was legally taken.

Does the subject in a public place (or at a social event) have any inherent right to receive a print copy or jpg copy of the picture taken if they so request? Can they make not for sale personal use copies?


Asher

[Ken Tanaka]

You have delineated two different situations; a "public place" and "a social event".

In either situation the law does not grant someone the "inherent right" to obtain a copy of a photograph taken of them in these settings. Rather, the laws deal with a photographer's rights to make photographs and/or how they may be used.

Get a copy of Bert Krages' book (http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-Liabilities/dp/1584281944/sr=8-1/qid=1170519935/) for a good basic grounding on the topic.

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Ken,

A good reference.

I'm also thinking of the homeless (http://www.picturethehomeless.org/about/request)who are, at least to me, compelling subjects. I can't find anything on any special rights for the homelss.

Asher

[Tom Henkel]

If the shot was taken in a public place where the subject would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, I don't think you have any responsibility to offer copies of your images. It's something you can offer, but I don't think you have an obligation.

Any image you publish on the Internet is basically free for anyone to copy for their personal use. It would be nice if they included your copyright in the copied image, but for personal use it really isn't necessary.

Tom

[Asher Kelman]

I have an issue with my own practice of photographing the homelss, poor and vagrants.

If one asks permission, the shot becomes staged and the magic is often gone.

If one comes to them afterwards with $4-10,000 of camera gear and hands them a few dollars or anyother currency, is one demeaning them?

Asher

I haven't as yet touched on the risks of geting involved with some street people who may then become hostile or worse.

[Kathy Rappaport]

That can and does bring up the subject of TAKING a photograph or stealing an image.

We had this discussion in my Street Portrait class last year. Some people felt that they could shoot away and never ask. Others felt that it was always policy to ask first. We then experimented with both approaches. Some felt it gave photographers a bad name to just take pictures of people without asking.

I have to say that there was one beautiful portrait (a couple with a pregnant girlfriend with her boyfriend's head resting on her swollen belly) I missed during the asking session. I walked into the scene and then had to ask - so I lost the shot.

But if I asked, and started up a conversation, I really did get better photographs of most people. I could actually capture the soul vs just snapping an image. For me, children just loved being engaged in conversation. Some people just flat said no. Some were very flattered I felt them worthy of being captured.

What we did decide was that with the homeless, we would ask and gladly pay a single or two to give them the respect of earning a little something for giving us some of their dignity and soul.

[Tom Henkel]

I have an issue with my own practice of photographing the homelss, poor and vagrants.

If one asks permission, the shot becomes staged and the magic is often gone.

If one comes to them afterwards with $4-10,000 of camera gear and hands them a few dollars or anyother currency, is one demeaning them?

Asher

I haven't as yet touched on the risks of geting involved with some street people who may then become hostile or worse.

I tend to agree with you. Street people can be interesting subjects but, I tend to feel it is exploitive to photograph them if your only objective is an interesting photograph. If you are working on a project that will make a social statement about the human condition, then perhaps it becomes justifiable.

Tom

[Asher Kelman]

My pictures generally require surreoptitious or gurellia shooting.

I photograph just for refining technic, making art and or documenting a social issue.

In each case, the weight of these factors might not be fully admitted or known by me.

Certainly, I always feel like a robber as I take pictures of people without permission but know I have the right to do so as long as I don't block them or interfere switch them.

I photograph the rich and the poor, weak and the tough, the friendly and the hostile.

Not all the beggars are simply poor. Some have complex backgrounds.

I once tracked a beggar to his car, an old Rolls Royce. He packed up his wheel chair in the trunk and scurried to the drivers seet and drove off.

(At that time, my Eos 3 had no fiim left and one can't delete a few frames to make room like in digital.)

I have discovered, for example a mini industry in trained beggars/hoaxers in Europe about which I wil write soon.

However, the majority of street people are in need of support.

Perhaps if there are no rights, then have envelopes ready with cash and just hand it over gracefully.

Still, people, rich and poor, do sometimes object to street pictures. I then offer to send them a copy and let them see the pictures. Sometimes I delete pictures if they are upset. If it's not safe to engage them, I don't wait around to test them.

I feel that people should have the right to at least one copy of one of the pictures we take, however, that's hardly practical to be a general rule.
This is an area I struggle with.

Asher

[Tom Henkel]

My pictures generally require surreptitious or guerilla shooting.

I photograph just for refining technic, making art and or documenting a social issue.

In each case, the weight of these factors might not be fully admitted or known by me.

Certainly, I always feel like a robber as I take pictures of people without permission but know I have the right to do so as long as I don't block them or interfere switch them.

I photograph the rich and the poor, weak and the tough, the friendly and the hostile.

Not all the beggars are simply poor. Some have complex backgrounds.

I once tracked a beggar to his car, an old Rolls Royce. He packed up his wheel chair in the trunk and scurried to the drivers seet and drove off.

(At that time, my Eos 3 had no fiim left and one can't delete a few frames to make room like in digital.)

I have discovered, for example a mini industry in trained beggars/hoaxers in Europe about which I wil write soon.

However, the majority of street people are in need of support.

Perhaps if there are no rights, then have envelopes ready with cash and just hand it over gracefully.

Still, people, rich and poor, do sometimes object to street pictures. I then offer to send them a copy and let them see the pictures. Sometimes I delete pictures if they are upset. If it's not safe to engage them, I don't wait around to test them.

I feel that people should have the right to at least one copy of one of the pictures we take, however, that's hardly practical to be a general rule.
This is an area I struggle with.

Asher

Part of our responsibility as photographers is to apply some discression to the things we shoot and publish. In general, people on the street do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so one could claim everything is fair game. But scenes that depict human suffering, or capturing people with obvious physical or mental problems feel unconfortable to me. On the other hand, people doing things to attract attention IMO waive any right to privacy.

I don't know what to think about the idea of carrying envelopes of cash to pay for some shots. First, that sounds potentially dangerous. And second, who are you really paying -- the subject or your conscience? I mean, if you see a street scene and you feel you have every right (legally, morally and ethically) to capture the shot -- you really don't owe the subject anything. On the other hand, if you feel in your heart you are doing something wrong by capturing a scene, then any amount of money you pay the subject is really insufficient.

Tom

[Asher Kelman]

I don't know what to think about the idea of carrying envelopes of cash to pay for some shots. First, that sounds potentially dangerous. And second, who are you really paying -- the subject or your conscience? I mean, if you see a street scene and you feel you have every right (legally, morally and ethically) to capture the shot -- you really don't owe the subject anything. On the other hand, if you feel in your heart you are doing something wrong by capturing a scene, then any amount of money you pay the subject is really insufficient.

Tom

The idea of the envelope is that it ready and more civil.

To take a photograph from 500 yards of a couple in each other's arms, or a man asleep on a bench, does not require I make myself kown. The picture will most likely have no identification of them and even so, any image that is, in my opinion, degrading them, I'll not show.

However, if someone catches me photographing, I'll gladly show the image, offer to give them a copy and if they so wish, destroy it.

Now would I destroy a "winning picture"? Well, so far I have had no need to ask myself that question, but I probably would not destroy something that had feelings embeded in. At least I would wrestle with the issue and consider compensation and a release.

If the person is needy, one should give alms anyway. If one stops and engages the person then there is little excuse. If one has the time to take a picture, then one has time to share.

Giving money is no path to my salvation. I don't do it enough and I could not give enough away to deserve a perfect conscience.


Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Back to the orignal topic.

It maybe that people have no right to a copy, but we might give contact information where we feel safe to do so.

Asher

[Erik DeBill]

Back to the orignal topic.

It maybe that people have no right to a copy, but we might give contact information where we feel safe to do so.

Asher

Given that taking polaroids and selling them to the subjects has been a staple for decades at many tourist destinations, it seems like this question was answered long ago. Only the possibility of "free" digital copies would make it otherwise.

Now... should people have an expectation that you delete pictures (legally obtained) if they request it? What if they had given you permission to take them, but reconsidered when they saw them?

[Asher Kelman]

Given that taking polaroids and selling them to the subjects has been a staple for decades at many tourist destinations, it seems like this question was answered long ago. Only the possibility of "free" digital copies would make it otherwise.

Now... should people have an expectation that you delete pictures (legally obtained) if they request it? What if they had given you permission to take them, but reconsidered when they saw them?

Erik,

If they have given no permisson or if they have a written consent no matter, I'll gladly delete them usually.

However, I would be dishonest if I did not admit that I try to retain any image that is really important to me. This is an extremely rare occurance. Most often it's a matter of that's not something I like but you caqn keep it.

Have I ever hid pictures: sure. Taking pictures legally in a public place where a security guard objects, thinking he has the right to boss people around.

I'll flick the wheel to where I know there are flowers and say look!

I don't ever do this to obscure something plain wrong!

Asher

[Kevin Bjorke]

No one has an "inherent" right to prints or to the ability to make pictures. Being a photographer is about making choices. A photo is the ash of moment of relationship. What happens next is a direct result of the nature of the relationship.

Let me rip off Michael Murphy's 2point8 (http://2point8.whileseated.org/) who quoted Dave Eggers:

Woman Waiting to Take a Photograph

The woman is a young woman. She wants to make a living as a photographer, but at the moment she is temping at a company that publishes books about wetlands preservation. On her days off she takes pictures, and today she is sitting in her car, across the street from a small grocery store called The Go-Getters Market. The store is located in a very poor neighbourhood: the windows are barred and at night a roll-down steel door covers the storefront. The woman thus finds the name Go-Getters an interesting one, because it is clear that the customers of the market are anything but. They are drunkards and prostitutes and transients, and the young photographer thinks that if she can get the right picture of some of these people entering the store, she will make a picture that would be considered trenchant, or even poignant - either way the product of a sharp and observant eye. So she sits in her Toyota Camry, which her parents gave her because it was four years old and they wanted something new, and she waits for the right poor person to enter or leave the store. She has her window closed, but will open it when the right person appears, and then shoot that person under the sign that says Go-Getters. This, for the viewer of her photograph when it is displayed - first in a gallery, then in the hallway of a collector, and later in a museum when she has her retrospective - will prove that she, the photographer, has a good eye for the inequities and injustices of life, for hypocrisy and the exploitation of the underclass.

[Steve Quattrocchi]

THis is a very difficult issue. What if you take a picture of a poor person/street person and it becomes successful and you make money from it. Do you have a moral obligation to share some of that success with the subject?

I have sold many drawings and paintings of nudes, where there is an employer to employee relationship, we hired the models. THey were consensual props to our creativity. In the case of street photography it becomes more complex, in many cases no consent was given. Do you own thr rights to your face and figure, or does the photographer?