How can you convince a random stranger to give you a model release?

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.

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.

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 ….

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

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.

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.

Even having the image of someone without his/her consent can be a crime in the EU, if I read this court report correctly.

Not entirely true. Art and editorial use is protected — the line is drawn at commercial use.

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.

BTW: great site!

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

“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’.