Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Photographer's Rights
Posted by Suhit Gupta in "ARTICLE" @ 10:00 AM
"Celebrities, politicians and other sought-after sources of news would appear, by their routine claims that members of the media have violated their privacy, to understand precisely what is private and what is public, or newsworthy, information. Journalists, however, often possess different notions of privacy and newsworthiness, and know that the question is more complicated. Reporting news stories in a way that serves and informs the public will often entail publicizing facts or displaying images that will embarrass or anger someone. To make privacy matters even more difficult for journalists, courts constantly redefine what is private based upon interpretations of the elusive legal standard of a "reasonable expectation of privacy.""
USA Today has an excellent overview by Andrew Kantor of what your rights are as a photographer including links to the Photographers' Guide to Privacy. Apparently, aside from sensitive government buildings (e.g., military bases), if you're on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. Read on more about the limits to that but this has always been a sticky point with me, i.e. how the subjects of photographs seem to have fewer rights than photographers. Remember the story about that guy who took photographs of everyone that walked over his painted X on a sidewalk, and then got sued? I still feel that even though people are in public, they should have clear rights to have the option of not being photographed. Yes, I realize it is near impossible to enforce and maybe exceptions should be made for particularly scenic or historic areas. Basically, I wish there were some way where instead of having the "Photography Disallowed" signs, by default that should be enforced unless there is a "Photography Allowed" sign. Or do you guys feel that that is too naive?
USA Today has an excellent overview by Andrew Kantor of what your rights are as a photographer including links to the Photographers' Guide to Privacy. Apparently, aside from sensitive government buildings (e.g., military bases), if you're on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. Read on more about the limits to that but this has always been a sticky point with me, i.e. how the subjects of photographs seem to have fewer rights than photographers. Remember the story about that guy who took photographs of everyone that walked over his painted X on a sidewalk, and then got sued? I still feel that even though people are in public, they should have clear rights to have the option of not being photographed. Yes, I realize it is near impossible to enforce and maybe exceptions should be made for particularly scenic or historic areas. Basically, I wish there were some way where instead of having the "Photography Disallowed" signs, by default that should be enforced unless there is a "Photography Allowed" sign. Or do you guys feel that that is too naive?
