Street photography and the law
A lot is said and written about photography and the law – and to be honest, you’d be mad to get involved in the fray. Of course, I am that mad, which is why the Rights vs Respect in Photography ended up published here on the site.
Now, the other day, one of my readers, Brad, posted a rather fantastic and soberingly clear comment about what the law actually means to photographers. It was written from an US point of view, but frankly, the law is similar in much of the world. Beyond the law, however, you should be looking for a helping of ‘common sense’. This ‘common sense’ thing isn’t as common as its name would indicate, so hereby; a healthy dose of common sense and a quick refresher of what you can and can’t do when you’re out and about with your camera…
I was so happy to find this in my comments, that I figured it’d be a crying shame if it stayed hidden away as a comment on a long-forgotten blog post, so hereby, republished in all its glory. That means that some of the comments (where they are replying to other comments) are a little out of context, but I’ve linked directly to the correct comment where possible, to clarify.
Take it away Brad:
The law can essentially be summed up like this:
1. You can take a picture of anything you see – especially when you are in public.
2. You CANNOT take pictures where there is an expectation of privacy such as in a rest room or locker room. (more about Expectation on Privacy on Wikipedia)
3. You cannot legally trespass, but if you are on a side walk and you were so inclined you can photograph people in their back yards or on their porch. I think the back yard is over the line though.
4. You can take pictures of people or children in any public context. BUT DON’T FOLLOW LITTLE KIDS OR YOUNG WOMEN AROUND AND SCARE THEM. Legally though, you can follow people to get that shot – remember the Princess Diana chase. Perfectly legal.
5. You cannot profit from your work without signed releases. But to restate, feel free to snap away. It is only your commercial use that is limited.
6. You NEVER have to surrender your camera to or discuss the nature of your photography with anyone without a court order.
The photo with the guy wearing the ‘I ♥ Michelle Obama’ shirt is Me to, brother. Me too. by Photocritic.org, on Flickr. It was taken street-photography style without permission – but sits very nicely in my portfolio, which is perfectly legal.
Protecting your right to taking photos
I hate government oppression too. I was oppressed last summer at a pool. The Captain of the Guard approached me and asked me about the nature of my photography. I advised him that it was none of his concern as I was in a public place photographing what is in the public view. Furthermore, I told the “Captain of the Guard” to call the police expecting them to tell him there was nothing they could do about it. Without rehashing the whole story, the police can stay there and observe you. They may lie to you and try and intimidate you even making threats such as banning you from a public park (which they cannot do). Luckily, I happened to be on the phone with an attorney at the time. As an aside, you ARE required to provide police with valid ID if asked.
In a case like this, take pictures of the police officers, their badges and their cars. Indeed, take pictures of all the people involved and go public with it. Continue taking pictures of your original subjects. It is perfectly legal, they cannot prohibit it unless you are on a restricted government property or at a nuclear facility. You can also take as many pictures as you want of whatever and whomever you want including the person escorting you out of a private place(for example you are at a mall and being escorted out). If you are alone, get somebody on the speakerphone as a witness to what is being said.
Assault (fear of harm), Battery (physical contact), Terrorist Threats (threats of violence), vandalism (damage to your property) are serious offenses. If someone like an angry spouse or parent threatens you with harm or attempts to seize your equipment calmly offer them the opportunity to stand down and walk away. Suggest that they call the police or their attorney. If they do not stand down, call 911 and press charges.
How to avoid being photographed
For better or worse a person’s sole recourse is to seclude themselves should they wish to not be photographed.
So:
1. When you are in public, dress and behave appropriately or you may find your picture on MySpace or something similar. I don’t know what your son was doing when his ex photographed him, but if they are all appropriate the pictures may convey a different sense than the words the ex is using. Whatever the pictures convey however, is true for that moment in time.
2. Dress your young children appropriately even at the pool. They may be photographed. You CERTAINLY DO NOT want them to appear older or sexually appealing.
3. Encourage your teens to dress and behave appropriately. They may be photographed. Do NOT buy them clothes that you do not want them seen in.
4. Do NOT threaten or harass a photographer. You may find yourself in front of the magistrate if you do. You most certainly will if you threaten me.
5. Be conservative. Do NOT make yourself into an irresistible subject.
As for the lingerie store worker: The contents of the store are NOT copyrighted works. That is not what would prohibit this person from entering the store with a camera. Indeed, unless it is posted otherwise, he can walk into the store with his camera. He CAN be ordered to leave and must comply since it is PRIVATE property. He can enter in the first place by virtue of being a store open to the public. Permission to enter is implied. That is why your store my wish to post a prohibition notice against photography inside the store.
Now, if this is in a mall, mall security can escort him out. He can of course take as many photos of anyone or anything he wants while he is being escorted out of the store or mall.
If he is on the side walk outside the store unfortunately, you are out of luck. He does not need your coworker’s permission to photograph her.
Good photographers are ALWAYS looking for a good photo opportunity. That could be a beautiful woman, a handsome man, a child playing (some facial expressions are golden), an animal, sunset or barn. Who knows.
Young Jealousy by Photocritic.org on Flickr – an example of a street photograph involving children. As I do not have model releases for them, I cannot sell it as stock, but (at least in the UK), I can use it in a newspaper article related to the event in which it was taken (St Patrick’s day parade), or I could post it on Flickr and use it as part of my photography portfolio.
I recommend getting your shot and moving on though. The longer you stay, the more likely you will be noticed.
I don’t know what this guy was doing at your store. If it was a one time thing hopefully he just found her an attractive subject, But admittedly, it sounds “creepy.”
There are times when I may sit or stand somewhere for more than an hour or two just taking pictures of people maybe trying to catch their expressions on an amusement park ride or a water slide. Little kids ooing at zoo animals and the like are awesome shots.
Advice, if someone is trying to seclude themselves from you (the photographer) such as moving to an area out of your view, though it may still be public, respect their privacy. If someone POLITELY asks you not to photograph them or their children you should respect that. If they are rude, screw them. Do what you want. NEVER FOLLOW A LITTLE KID AROUND.
Lastly, there is no expectation of privacy when you are in public. That is why I suggest being conservative. A “peacock” will almost always get its picture taken especially if it spreads its tail. If someone is taking your picture and you do not like it:
1. Politely ask them to stop
2. Leave if they won’t
Consult your attorney if you have any questions.
Brad
Closing notes
Please note:
This post was excerpted from a comment of the ‘Your Rights as a Photographer‘ post, and was republished as an alone-standing article with permission from the original poster.
Please note that nothing on this blog can be considered legal advice – if you have a query, please contact your attorney.
The photo at the top of this post is Boston Police – Special Operations, by Paul Keleher on Flickr. The photo is Creative Commons-licenced, which is why I used it; I have no opinion on whether the Boston Police force is better or worse when it comes to matters of bothering photographers, so it serves purely as an illustration image.
My day job, if it can be called that, is being a writer. I've got one book out there so far and it's awesome, so go ahead and buy a copy! It's available from 
In front of you, five hyperactive men with guitars, drums, and microphones. Behind you, five thousand fans. In your hands, a camera... You're going to need more than just a little bit of good luck to pull this one off. That's where this book comes in.
Take a Canon EOS 450D. Attach a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. Hit the streets of London. See what happens.
Insights, suggestions and comments
Sadly Brads No6 is no longer the case in the UK:
“You NEVER have to surrender your camera to or discuss the nature of your photography with anyone without a court order.”
Anti Terror legislation in the UK allows for the confiscation of your equipment and memory cards.
We have been fighting this but on the 16th Feb 09 it actually got worse when they Police were given permission to arrest you if you photographed them.
Otherwise, good guildines…especially the ‘helping of common sense’.
I hope the day never comes in the U.S. when we would be required to surrender our equipment. Hopefully, you would not not find yourself having your equipment seized unless you happen to be in a high security area.
I suppose that would happen here in a restricted area and as long as it is posted and restricted to EVERYONE I would not have a problem with obeying the restrictions and thereby avoiding the seizure.
It is when you try and single ME out that I would have a problem with it.
Photography has commonly been construed in the U.S. as a means of expression or an extension of our first amendment right to freedom of speech. We also have a freedom of press (access for news reporting)in the U.S. Unfortunately, all over the world it seems slowly but surely we are being asked to forfeit more and more rights in the name of antiterrorism.
By the way, my comments in the original post assume you are in a public place or on private property where permission to enter is implied (ex. a shopping mall) and for the latter, no prohibition against photography exists such as there might be in a museum.
I really hate any form of government interference in my life. Sometimes I find myself taking pictures just because I can which essentially takes away from the art. That is a shame and amounts to what is essentially a passive aggressive act daring them to challenge my right to take photos of virtually anyone, anywhere and anytime I want within the context of the law.
However, ethics should prevail. That is why I suggest not intentionally following people around. Unless it was newsworthy, I cannot think of a time I would photograph someone in their back yards either. I would not photograph people sitting on their front porch either without their permission. Though either is legal, I don’t think it is ethical. I certainly would not take kindly to someone standing on my sidewalk photographing me and my family in my back yard or even on my porch.
I had a friend a long time ago who gave me some great advice: Don’t go looking for trouble or it may come and find you.
Brad
pretty interesting: but which countries are your referring to?
In UK they have more restrictive laws, in Italy we have even more restricitve ones (basically: don’t take pictures of people unless you have their consent), but we don’t have the dreaded take-away-forever-anything-withour-explaination laws at airports! However consider that our burocracy is slow enougth to ensure that you don’t want your equipment to be seized by police :-/
But about US: what about the extra limitations in the 100Miles from coast zone?
BTW: great site!
You actually don’t have to give ID if requested by police, in the US. You do, however, have to give your name. The court case that defined this requirement was Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
It’s possible that giving ID when requested would help keep you from being further hassled, but you are not legally required to do so.
“5. You cannot profit from your work without signed releases.”
Not entirely true. Art and editorial use is protected — the line is drawn at commercial use.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=845521&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
Even having the image of someone without his/her consent can be a crime in the EU, if I read this court report correctly.
I think its great that you, and others on the web, are helping photographers to understand their rights. However, I’d like to start seeing some posts on what is decent. How to be a friendly photographer.
Its just a suggestion, but if I were to push half of the things you posted here in an actual day on the street, I’d be acting like a complete jerk of a citizen. What about having some respect for your fellow man/woman? Why shoot photos of folks just because you can?
This world is full of awesome things to shoot, and there are plenty of willing property owners and models. Personally, I think folks that need this type of guide are picking the low hanging fruit due to an inability to develop sites and models.
Thankfully most folks would be embarrassed to snap photo’s while getting escorted out off private property, or while refusing ID to an officer keeping the peace.
Thank you VERY much for posting this!
I was blasted by folks on a bicycle website where I posted two things on two different posts:
1. a 4 minute video of two 20-something guys talking on a sidewalk and gawking at a hot car that pulls up while ignoring a lovely girl walking by.
2. a very far away telephoto shot of a young man waiting at a bus stop and talking on a cell phone. You could NOT recognize who it was, way too far away.
Both posting were “positive and upbeat and anything but rude or degrading. They both had story lines to go along with them that was complimentary to the subjects.
I was reamed up on side and down the other that I was taking advantage of “teenagers” as well as being reverse-sexist in mocking young men for gawking at cars and not girls. They also opined that it was illegal to post those photos. Oh yeah, and they also informed me that I was gay-bashing for implying that the guys didn’t like girls.
Geeeeeeeshhhh, you would have thought I murdered someone.
Well, Ptttttt to them all. Needless to say, I don’t post there much anymore.
Lets remember to use some common sence people. If you take a womans picture and her husband comes up and tells you to stop… don’t be that guy who starts snapping photos and yelling about your rights as a photographer. You may be right… but if the husband knocks you on your butt and takes your camera… all you end up with is a medical bill and several hours of filling out useless police reports. (Cops aren’t going to call in all the cars just to find some guy who punched you when you were being a jerk). Remember the old rule of thumb when it comes to personnal rights… your rights end where mine begin.
Interestingly, Rob, I fiercely agree and vehemently disagree with you.
If I asked someone to stop taking photos of me, then I would expect them to respect that.
On the other hand, if I was taking photos of what I deemed an interesting situation (say, the wife was causing a massive scene with a Parking attendant, which I thought to be very photogenic / interesting), and got punched in the face for it, I would definitely press charges.
I guess it depends on the situation…
- H
Thank you for this post, but the more I think I understand the related laws the more I get confused!
I’m in the U.S. and still have a couple of questions:
First, if you derive any compensation from your photography, aren’t you still profiting from the not-for-sale photographs in your portfolio? I might choose to hire you because I like your “I (heart) M.O.” t-shirt guy. So wouldn’t you need a model release?
And Brian Auer posted that I might not need a signed release for “art and editorial use.” So, if I had taken that “I (heart) M.O.” t-shirt guy photograph and later sell it as “art” then I don’t need a release? I’m so confused.
Next thing you’ll be telling me is that I need to pay a fee to the government for photographing a model in a national park. Wait ….
I admit it IS a little bit confusing. I can sell the I ♥ Michelle t-shirt in some conditions, but the key thing is that what I can’t do is sell it as stock or as an advertising photo, because the person in the picture hasn’t agreed for me to use his likeness to promote, say, sunglasses, hairdye, or venereal disease testing – just to pick a couple of examples out of the air.
Are you allowed to place it in an art gallery? And if so, are you allowed to sell prints of it?
How about being reasonable and accepting a person’s request not to have their picture taken or even accept deleting images in a calm and grown-up manner?
The article sounds quite confrontational and contrary to being a decent human being, in many instances it could be beneficial for your portfolio to to be humble and friendly instead of asserting your rights and ‘the law’.
Rob – I guess it gets complicated when we’re trying to lump ’street photography’ and ‘photojournalism’ – obviously, the two are closely related.
Imagine you’re a photographer who spots someone beating someone else up, and you snap a photograph. They tell you to stop taking photos, so you do.
What if the person beating someone else up was a famous actor or a politician?
What if the person getting beaten up was a child?
I guess there’s a lot of nuances which might affect whether or not you take photos in the first place, and whether you decide to yield to the requests to stop taking photographs, or whether you feel it’s important enough to continue.
@Danferno the EU case you site refers to pictures taken in a private clinic not a public place and is irrelevant to this discussion.
Gallery exhibition is OK as long as you don’t misrepresent those in the photograph, you may sell the prints as long as you don’t imply any endorsement of a product which is what would make it a ‘commercial’ use.
thanks for sharing these photographies and news, very interesting, lov it
i love photography …. thanks for share your articles about photography…
Gallery exhibition,that’s good to show our portofolio..
What exactly can you do with street photos without a model release?
How can you convince a random stranger to give you a model release?
thank you for sharing this helpful article is vry helpful.. candid photography is lot of fun for me..wen i photograph people the expression in the face makes me laugh a lot..wat i do while photographing people is not askin n takin thr pic..the best way is to lie to dem..like tell dem dat u will count till 5 keep ur shutter speed ready wit the highest of speed n click b4 or aftr countin till 3..the confused look will giv u a wonderful image n thr wnt b any frowns in ur subjects face..
Share your wisdom