Rules for photos with people?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Mohamed Ellozy

Well-known member
VFTT Supporter
Joined
Sep 3, 2003
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
180
Location
Brookline, MA
Today I was hiking the Greeley Ponds Trail and took a photo of three hikers crossing the river where the bridge used to be. It shows the condition of the crossing much better than any of my other photos, but I hesitate to post it as I do not know what rules (legal or simply ethical) govern this. Two of the three are probably unrecognizable, but one is taken in profile and should be recognizable by his friends, if not by software.

I could crop it removing their heads ... not a pretty picture but would clearly illustrate the conditions while protecting their privacy.
 
People are fair game in public places as long as,not used for commercial purposes.
We are talking US laws. Germany is different for.example.


It is perfectly ok for you to post it. For more information google Street Photography privacy laws....or something like that.


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

But you can still get your a$$ kicked by unhappy campers ;-)

f
Today I was hiking the Greeley Ponds Trail and took a photo of three hikers crossing the river where the bridge used to be. It shows the condition of the crossing much better than any of my other photos, but I hesitate to post it as I do not know what rules (legal or simply ethical) govern this. Two of the three are probably unrecognizable, but one is taken in profile and should be recognizable by his friends, if not by software.

I could crop it removing their heads ... not a pretty picture but would clearly illustrate the conditions while protecting their privacy.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the prompt response! Wikipedia puts it this way:
Members of the public have virtually no privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, or inside a private residence. This legal standard applies regardless of the age, sex, or other attributes of the individual.
 
Mohamed, I love this topic. I've thought about this also. I'm not so much interested in the legal aspect of it. But the murky ethical side of it can be a great debate. This ethical part of it might go under the heading of "Obedience to the Unenforceable".
Here's my take:
(1) If a person(s) is not the focus of my photo, but is incidental to it, then I have no qualms about posting it. Exceptions of course for women in revealing positions or anybody in a horribly unflattering position or situation....those photos I won't post.
(2) If a person(s) is the focus of my photo, I'll ask permission first. Example, ice climbers on a small cliff along the Kanc...I stopped, got out of the car, and asked.....he said yes.....no issue, end of story.
(3) Exception to number 2 above......if the person is the focus of the photo but is 100% unrecognizable....I have no issues posting that pic. Example, standing on Lonesome Lake (winter), and saw a hiker coming from the opposite side of the lake........nice shot, tiny tiny spec of a hiker walking across the lake with Franconia Range behind.
So many other too-close-to-call situations.
Great topic.
 
Two of the three are probably unrecognizable, but one is taken in profile and should be recognizable by his friends, if not by software.

I could crop it removing their heads ... not a pretty picture but would clearly illustrate the conditions while protecting their privacy.

(2) If a person(s) is the focus of my photo, I'll ask permission first. Example, ice climbers on a small cliff along the Kanc...I stopped, got out of the car, and asked.....he said yes.....no issue, end of story.
(3) Exception to number 2 above......if the person is the focus of the photo but is 100% unrecognizable....I have no issues posting that pic.

Billy:

I would like your comments on the second photo in this post. On my computer you can definitely recognize the middle hiker if you zoom in, did not try to download the uploaded image to see how recognizable he is. As I noted in my original post, I could crop the picture to remove their heads. It would be an ugly picture, but would still make the point.
 
talent release

Interestingly, just today I was reviewing the new BSA Health and Medical Record form that all scouts and adults need to complete prior to attending summer camp activities. The form is huge at 14 pages long (though mostly instructions), much larger than in previous years. It now includes the following section:

"TALENT RELEASE AGREEMENT
I hereby assign and grant to the local council and the Boy Scouts of America the right and permission to use and publish the photographs/ film/videotapes/electronic representations and/or sound recordings made of me or my child at all Scouting activities, and I hereby release the Boy Scouts of America, the local council, the activity coordinators, and all employees, volunteers, related parties, or other organizations associated with the activity from any and all liability from such use and publication.
I hereby authorize the reproduction, sale, copyright, exhibit, broadcast, electronic storage, and/or distribution of said photographs/ film/videotapes/electronic representations and/or sound recordings without limitation at the discretion of the Boy Scouts of America, and I specifically waive any right to any compensation I may have for any of the foregoing."

Of course this is so the BSA can create brochures or videos for promotional purposes, if you happen to be included by accident or otherwise. What this has to do with the annual Health and Medical form, I have no clue. But since each scout and adult must complete this form each year, I guess it is a good way to catch everyone.
 
Last edited:
Timely thread as so many of us can post photos online if we choose. I recently had several photos of mine on exhibit in the second floor hallway at UNHM where I work. One of the pictures showed a woman meditating off Mt. Chocorua. Her face doesn't show, but her friends would probably recognize her. Coincidentally, this woman's form also strongly resembles a co-worker. I expected a few comments or questions but there were none. Still I felt awkward about displaying a private moment. That trepedation vanished with the magic of the scene but remains an ethical question for me.
 
Would have done so if I knew how to :confused:

Picassa can't do it (best I can tell) and, while I own Photoshop Elements, I have not yet started learning how to use it.

Suggestion for quick and dirty solution: In PSE, zoom in close to the hiker's face, then click on the clone tool, then hold down "ALT" key and click on the hiker's chin or cheek, then (with ALT key released) click on hiker's eyes/nose area. Oh, be sure your pixel count (the circle your cursor is controlling) is small. This will essentially pixelate his face by painting his chin or cheek (whichever you chose) onto his eyes/nose/mouth area. If your pixel count circle is small enough, it's an easy way to obscure his identity. When you zoom back out, it should be unnoticeable. There are probably much simpler ways, but this is one way.

Here's a bunch of youtube hits which will explain it better than I can
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+use+clone+tool+in+photoshop+elements&oq=how+to+use+clone+tool+in+photoshop+ele&aq=0w&aqi=q-w1&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=6828l20953l0l23625l52l43l4l12l13l3l828l5749l0.1.6.3.4.1.1l16l0
 
Would have done so if I knew how to :confused:

Picassa can't do it (best I can tell) and, while I own Photoshop Elements, I have not yet started learning how to use it.

Don't do it. You will ruin the photo for no reason.

People think these kind of photos are about them...they are not. The people just complete the photo of the scene. Just one piece in the composition.
 
Don't get your legal advice from e-How.

This particular article is basically correct though it omits some things that may be crucial in particular cases (e.g., what if the photo was taken prior to the most recent revision of the Copyright Act; what is "fair use") or even in most cases (the actual term of copyright in the US as opposed to under WIPO). Not that I've done much of a survey, but this is possibly the most accurate article on any subject I've seen on e-How, which is a click farm of the worst order. More typically, their articles are like the linked article "how to copyright-protect photos", which is just garbage: nearly useless for the most part, and just plain incorrect almost as often as it is right.

Here's a more reliable source: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
 
Last edited:
Top