My washing machine's spin cycle is broken now so I guess I am going to have to wear dirty clothes or hold the sopping wet ones in my hands and spin around really fast. FAHK.
If you take a picture of someone unknowingly, can you use it as art? Can you sell it? The paparazzi do it so I guess I answered my own question. Or maybe not. Do you own your own image? Anybody?
This is a post from last night...and I took out the barfing part because obviously it wasn't clear.
I am tired because some nimwit thought that Monday morning at 5:45 a.m. was a GREAT time to start up HIS really loud machine. I know it was a him, I just know it. If I had a gun in my house, you know for protection from burglars and stuff, there is no telling what I would have done.
5:45
A.M.
12 comments:
I know a girl who loves doing laundry, but only because her machine spins so violently that it scuttles across the floor and she likes to ride it like a bull.
I'm fairly certain newspapers and such have to get permission before posting a photograph of someone, but only out of goodwill. The guys they snap at court who have been arrested for kiddy porn are never asked, of that I'm sure.
I think you need a release for people who aren't celebrities or aren't for some reason considered in the public domain.
As for the gun, I think we can pretty much tell what you would have done. Still, I'd have sent you some care packages during the trial.
Tis easier to say your sorry and plead ignorance than to ask permission in the first place ... or so I'm told. And besides. What are the chances she knows Johnny Cochran or some superlawyer like that? Course Cochran's dead so it doesn't matter if she knows him or not. I say shoot the moon ... and your neighbor. Trust me, you'll feel better in the morning. Have a great one Binsk.
TG
There was a court case in New York a while back where a guy photographed a bunch of pedestrians as they walked by; without their knowledge. Then he used it as art -- a big photo gallery. Someone tried to sue him and failed, because he hadn't made money off their images or used the images for commercial purposes, and because there's a reasonable chance you'll be photographed in public these days.
I agree with Screetus -- as long as you're not using it for profit, I think it's fair game legally speaking.
Ethically is another thing, though. Most photographers ask people if they can take photos before they do it. It's a question of artistic integrity, so the people who have none probably don't exercise it.
I can't believe you have barfing photos. That would make a pretty impressive action shot.
I have a picture in my head of you spinning around really fast with a bunch of flailing clothes in your outstretched arms and a big goofy grin on your face cuz you know you would laugh if you really did it. ;)
Generally accepted photographer code of conduct:
You can make an image of any person you want, if you are in a public place, on public property. That does not mean that your subject will not beat your ass if they do not like you doing it.
If you make an image of someone in a public place and use it for financial gain commercially (such as advertising, branding, or even a photo contest where there is a tangible prize), you need a model release. If you don't have one, you are at risk of getting sued and then the courts will beat your ass.
If you photograph someone in a public place, and you are a fine-art photographer, i.e. not selling your work to promote a brand or product, but primarily showing the work in galleries and museums, you are generally exempt from conditions above. Please see the link to a NYT story where this very issue - a challenge to photographers' freedom of expression everywhere - was recently brought to light. No pun intended.
Do they have freedom of expression in Canada?
Oh, one more thing. If you photograph celebrites and politicians, you may use their image for financial gain; typically, it is accepted that as part of choosing to be a celeb or politician, you are giving up parts of your rights to privacy (at least in public). That doesn't mean, though, that their body guards or the Secret Service won't beat your ass.
- Jeff
www.postnuclearart.com
NYT LINK:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19phot.html?ex=1300424400&en=f7e05d1e10cf9b14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
I was wondering the same thing myself today. I was taking tons of pictures and this lady kept staring at me like I was taking them of her. I really wanted to take one of her too which was weird. But I kept thinking she might flip out if I did.
I think it is a struggle for many photographers who do street photography, including myself. You see a subject you want to shoot - but don't want to offend. In my experience, when I identify an interesting subject, most likely that person is sufficiently "different" or "unusual" and in which case I always afraid that I am exploiting the person. I think that in general, better photographs result when you are directly engaging your subject (of course this isn't always true.) An example is photographing a homeless person or otherwise eccentric individual. Some photographers I know have the courage to approach their subjects, have a conversation, reduce any suspicion, and then it's like they get a free pass to shoot as many pics of the subject as they'd like. I wish I had that level of confidence.
Hey Binsk? or Robin Alexa? :)
Jeff pretty much covered the rules when taking pictures. What I wanted to say is if the color image along the right, the caricature style one, is something you drew its fantastic. Best of luck to ya.
Thanks for stopping by.
Cheers,
Ooooooooh look at all the AWESOME photgraphers in one comment section.
Thanks for all of your advice.
Hey, the dirty clothes will harbor pheromones which might reduce the need for the dating site. There is of course a fine line between that and attracting homeless men who identify with you.
Post a Comment