Street Photography - Right or Wrong and When Does it Cross the Line?

[Busted Knuckles]

1st. Denise "spark" is something you definitely did

There are so many lines that we trundle upon in modern society. Privacy vs. public right to know - at what point does privacy rights overtake knowledge rights? Document vs. Assist? Commercial censorship vs absolute censorship - do we draw the line differently if it is someones profession i.e. Kennedy Assisiation vs. Princess Di?

I think there are very few situations that can get answered from a single perspective. I believe the direction I prefer, however distasteful at times, is sharing knowledge - censorship is a personal decision whether or not to share. Freedom of experession is not free, one must be willing to face the consequences of the expression - be it a Pulitzer or being ostracized. If you are unwilling to face the consequences, clearly your expression is not free.

Raid makes an interesting point. The subject is most likely not at all aware that a photo has been taken, her life is not pinched or harmed in anyway.... Until Raid shares. At that point the consequences begin.

IF the subject is aware of the photo, the consequences have already begun.

Lastly, intentions are largely meaningless - no intended for Princess Di to crash - it the consequences that we must face. If you are content with facing the consequences, please share - I can look away if I choose.

[ddt0725]

1st. Denise "spark" is something you definitely did

Just call me sparky!

This thread and all the comments above definitely has me searching the web for info on laws, etc. Apparently the guy that I mentioned above was completely within his legal rights to take those photos at the beach and plaster his house with them ...it's everything else they found in his home that sent him away for quite awhile!

I was reading this article ...

http://www.webdesignshock.com/photog...release-forms/

and I found these statements interesting (yet confusing to some extent) ...

"You can photograph anybody who’s is in public view and doing anything not considered private. People on sidewalks, parks, beaches and other public spaces are considered subject of legal photography."

"Yes you can take pictures of children without their parents permission, but as long as you are not invading the child’s privacy. And as long as your photos are for private use only."

"You are ok to sell your photographs of people without any release forms if your photographs features unrecognizable subjects, (crowds for example) or your photographs have editorial, factual, and newsworthy purposes."

To make sure I have this straight from a legal standpoint, for personal use anything is fair game as long as it is an "in public" shot.

Recognizable shots of people can be sold as long as it is as stated above "newsworthy" etc. EXCEPT when it comes to children, then you need a parents release? What about all those shots posted of Suri Cruise?

What about photos that you take and post on the web ...on flickr, facebook, TDP, etc just for public viewing but not for commercial profit? They are obviously more than for personal use but you are not selling them. For instance, I have a photo on flickr of a cute little girl that I took on kite day down by the lake, it is just a cropped photo of her looking upward but nothing else is in the photo, no other people, no kites. She is recognizable except for the sunglasses she is wearing covering her eyes. It's a public event but you couldn't tell that from the photo because it is cropped. So, this photo is illegal? People are posting photos all the time of recognizable people on subways, at a bus stop walking down the street. Are they all illegal once they hit the internet for public viewing but not for sale? Yet the guy that takes a shot up the 16 year olds dress in Target for his "personal use" is not illegal?

Either I am really confused or the laws are really messed up!