• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

An expectation of privacy?

Forums New posts
M38A1

M38A1

Admin
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
22,155
Reaction score
4,083
Location
North of Weird
First Name
Scott
For those that do photography full-time, where does Texas law stand on an expectation of privacy and being photographed? Today I was out at the bicycle veloway, a public, free access, city owned/operated facility photographing cyclists as they rode by. Most smiled and waved, but one guy looped back and asked I delete all the shots of him. I replied "they weren't going anywhere like the internet and it was for my own practice on moving objects and blurring backgrounds". He again asked me to delete them and I said the same thing where he rode off. They were not great shots so I deleted them anyway when I got home.

But what is the expectation of privacy in a public space? I know from a criminal perspective, there is no expectation of privacy under the plain-view doctrine - if it's in plain sight it's fair game. But in a public space, what can you shoot under the primary perspective of it's not for profit? I imagine the for-profit opens up a different can of worms.

.
 
I don't believe he had any legal right to have you delete them. If it was me and I wanted them deleted, I would have just politely asked you if you would. If he has that much of an issue with it, he needs to order a stationary bike or bike trainer from QVC and stay in his house with the blinds shut.
 
If it's in public, at least from what I recall, there is no expectation of privacy. An example given during my intro to business law class at A&M was about the folks that would randomly streak across campus for protests, shiggles, whatever. At any rate, one occasion led to folks streaking through the MSC breezeway, including an individual on motorcycle. The bike died, and from the description given by the prof, was a kickstart only. The guy's photo was plastered on the front page of the Battabloid. He threatened to sue for invasion of privacy, and well, he had no leg to stand on, and it had to drop.
 
Great question Scott. I have often wondered the exact same thing myself.
 
A few years back, while on an overnight at LAX, my first officer was threatened by the LAPD for taking pictures of one of our own airplanes flying overhead on approach. He was on a public street about a mile from the runway. I did a bit of research, and found this in one of the major photography magazines.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

I carry a copy of it in my camera bag. I've never been bothered, but I'll certainly stand my ground if it ever happens.
 
aggie81--Thanks. Will add copies to my camera bags.
 
Remeber the prison photo project? Just taking photos of the facilities from the street generated problems. I know individuals are a different proposition.
 
M38A1 said:
Most smiled and waved, but one guy looped back and asked I delete all the shots of him. I replied "they weren't going anywhere like the internet and it was for my own practice on moving objects and blurring backgrounds". He again asked me to delete them and I said the same thing where he rode off. They were not great shots so I deleted them anyway when I got home.
Click to expand...

The bike rider knew he shouldn't be out in public wearing spandex :eek2:

784951538_FtBf6-M.jpg
 
Last edited:
If someone is in public you may take their photo without consent. However, if you want to sell that same photo you must have a model release.
 
To take this another step how does something like Killboy or any of the others work.
They take pictures of Jo Q Public, no one signs a release and the pictures are for sale to any one on the web.
Personally I have no problem with it, Just curious about the law.
 
kurt said:
Remeber the prison photo project? Just taking photos of the facilities from the street generated problems. I know individuals are a different proposition.
Click to expand...
Interesting. The guards here were watching me, but no one approached or ever said anything.

IMG_1794.JPG
 
Do those type of people have an issue with their pictures being taken by the hundreds to thousands of security cameras all over every city snapping pictures and video all the time? If you are out in the public space, then you pretty much gave up the right to "expect" privacy. To me the paparazzi shooting pictures from a hilltop looking into someone's backyard is over the line and different than shooting pics of someone walking into a public establishment.
 
M38A1 said:
Most smiled and waved, but one guy looped back and asked I delete all the shots of him. I replied "they weren't going anywhere like the internet and it was for my own practice on moving objects and blurring backgrounds". He again asked me to delete them and I said the same thing where he rode off. They were not great shots so I deleted them anyway when I got home.
Click to expand...

You really need to quit stalking Matt McConaughey. :rofl:

Public means, well, not private, right? :brainsnap

I personally have no issue with photos of me being used in non commercial interests. There again, I've never been approached to be a model either. :rofl:

But I did make the front page of the Statesman when I was in College and was not asked to sign a release for my image. Ok, so I was in the background and got busted for playing hackysack on Jester Beach instead of studying or going to class, that's beside the point. :lol2:
 
Hairsmith said:
To take this another step how does something like Killboy or any of the others work.
They take pictures of Jo Q Public, no one signs a release and the pictures are for sale to any one on the web.
Personally I have no problem with it, Just curious about the law.
Click to expand...

That's because they are selling the images to Jo Q Public. Buying your own shot more or less means you agree to the photographer making a profit. Publishing the images on a website is not normally a problem although you may have some rare situation where a person complains. In that case you take down the image. Selling an image of a particular person in most cases would require a release although news agencies have been getting around that for quite some time.

With the scare of terrorism everywhere photographer's have to be very careful where and what they shoot. This is a big issue in the UK and becoming more troublesome here in the US.

The only issues I've had were from a few LEO's and farmers that told me I needed to go away. Some situations, I've offered a free print or two and it usually eases the situation. Keep your cool and don't be rude. As long as you aren't trespassing or violating someone's privacy(Telephoto lens through their bathroom window) then it's fair game.
 
To add another wrench to this, what about all the pics we take at our pie runs, group rides, ect. and post them on the Internet? I have never gotten a release form to sign or to have sign.
 
FJR Bandit said:
To add another wrench to this, what about all the pics we take at our pie runs, group rides, ect. and post them on the Internet? I have never gotten a release form to sign or to have sign.
Click to expand...

Publishing/posting on the internet is not a problem. The issue is if you try to sell the images and someone complains. People do have rights to their own image.
 
I don't like to be photographed in public nor do I want to be on security cameras. What do I do? Stay home?

forget the law and just remember good manners and the golden rule.
 
Brief synopsis from DGrin thread. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As the photographer, you have full copyrights to your photos.
Taking pictures in public -- no prob
Publishing those pics on the web for your own personal pleasure and anyone else that can view it. - no prob
Offering to sell that digital image or a print copy -- possible prob. At that point, you have become a Publisher for profit.
Sell a pic to a Publisher-- not a prob for you; it COULD be a prob for the Publisher unless THEY have the model release. Usually, they'll ask you to provide it. I you can't, good chance they won't buy it. If it's really, really good, they might try to get the release themselves, but I understand that's the very rare exception.

As I understand it, the issue is 2-fold
1. Publishing for profit or not?
2. Who's the publisher for profit? Even though you got paid by the publisher as the photog, the responsibility's on them.
 
Interesting thoughts. Mine are along the line that the guy should not have been there and wanted no proof that he ever was. Could be any of the following.

Wanted by the law
Playing hookey from work
Playing hookey from SO.
Exercising with a workmans comp claim filed
Undercover CIA, FBI, SWAT, LEO, etc
Private detective

Call me cynical, but except for the last lines, I can't see why he would object
legitimately, unless he had something to hide.
 
M38A1 said:
Most smiled and waved, but one guy looped back and asked I delete all the shots of him. I replied "they weren't going anywhere like the internet and it was for my own practice on moving objects and blurring backgrounds". He again asked me to delete them and I said the same thing where he rode off.
Click to expand...

From a legal perspective, I believe that as long as you aren't selling the pictures you are okay.

From a moral perspective, I feel differently. This could have been a person who has been stalked before, or a person who may be doing something they shouldn't be (playing hookey from work, fraudulent workman's comp claim). What if this was someone who is in some sort of witness protection program or a public official of sorts?

Also, what if someone was taking pictures of your family, or your children. You know, just to capture a candid shot for practicing photography, but you got a bad feelign from them? I'd have not problem asking someone to delete the photos.

In my opinion, if someone takes offense to you taking their picture & asks you to delete them you should do so.
 
// I like the way Eric thinks.
 
That's why I started carrying professionally produced business cards for my photog business/hobby. My plan is that if I want to take pics of kids, I'll hand the parent a card and explain what I'm doing with an offer of a free print. Maybe they'll like it and purchase more; maybe not. :shrug:

I will argue that by default, the copyright of the pics is owned by the photog, unless he assigns them to someone else. They are his/my livelihood.
 
Eric2Tex said:
Interesting thoughts. Mine are along the line that the guy should not have been there and wanted no proof that he ever was. Could be any of the following.

Wanted by the law
Playing hookey from work
Playing hookey from SO.
Exercising with a workmans comp claim filed
Undercover CIA, FBI, SWAT, LEO, etc
Private detective

Call me cynical, but except for the last lines, I can't see why he would object
legitimately, unless he had something to hide.
Click to expand...

Witness protection... LOL
 
NUTT said:
// I like the way Eric thinks.
Click to expand...

I'm with you and Eric! But morals do come into the picture also. I guess each case must be taken on its' own merits. In the 50+ years I have been snapping, I've never had anyone ask me not to, well except when trying to get shots of Jim Cary making the movie about "The Majestic". (In my home town-guess they were afraid I was gonna make some coin rather than put in scrapbook[which was my intention].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top