Charlatan, I think you posted before checking into the legal issues involving photography and public view (at least so far as US law is concerned).
People do not have a right to thier image, and can not stop you from taking thier picture when they are in the "public view." However, there are restrictions on what you can do with such pictures.
From the ""Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). You can't use it to sell something, however."
Also:
Quote:
In the United States, anything visible ("in plain view") from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices and images. It is not uncommon for security personnel to use intimidation or other tactics to attempt to stop the photographer from photographing their facilities (trying to prevent, e.g., industrial espionage); however, there is no legal precedent to prevent the photographer so long as the image being photographed is in plain view from a public area.
In recent years, some building owners have claimed a copyright on the appearance of their building — such landmarks as the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, Pittsburgh's PPG Plaza, etc. United States copyright law, however, explicitly exempts the appearance of standing buildings from copyright protection. See United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 120.a.
§ 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. — The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
Publication
In general, one cannot publish someone's image to endorse a product or service without first acquiring a "model release," which is usually a contract between the publisher or photographer and the subject.
Defamation
It is somewhat difficult to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which a photograph, by itself, would be defamatory, since the key element of defamation is falsity. Perhaps if a person was photographed in such a way that made them falsely appear to be engaging in some indecent activity, it could qualify as defamatory. Digital editing of photographs certainly opens the floodgates for defamation, because it is easy to turn a formerly "true" photograph into one that does not depict anything near the truth.
Photographing someone in front of an adult bookstore even though they were just walking by would be an example of possible defamation of character. It implicitly associates the person with the act of purchasing pornography when he was merely innocently walking by.
|
Link to source.
So, now we've gotten our facts straight for the purposes of discussion.