wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: WWP Performing Arts - Written Permissions - Photo Releases
texas360dave 2009-Aug-30 19:06:00
Good on-topic discussion. I agree with you.
From the WWP site the WWP is a "not for profit" organization. While the WWP Foundation Corporation is generous, it is also charitable in its activities... free web server etc serving the public panorama community. For this 'WE the community' thank you.
Quote - WWP website page.
"The World Wide Panorama events were originally sponsored by the Geography Computing Facility at the University of California Berkeley, and hosted by The Geo-Images Project. The WWP is now run by the World Wide Panorama Foundation, a California Public Benefit Corporation.
This is a non-commercial project, done simply to create enthusiasm for VR photography, and provide an outlet for our collective creativity."
End Quote
--- In #removed#, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
>
> Sometime around 30/8/09 (at 14:36 +0000) texas360dave said:
>
> >Might need written/verbal named person authority, permission, model
> >releases, for Photo's taken on/of:
> >
> >private property
> >government sites and buildings where performances are given,
> >privately owned performance halls or buildings
> >professional performers
> >candid street performers
>
> Not really, although your list does cover quite a few things.
>
> The most important thing to remember is that the WWP is a registered
> charitable organisation. The work that is exhibited in the WWP site
> is explicitly non-commercial. That allows almost all things that
> could possibly lead to problems, including shots with people. You do
> NOT need to blur faces, obtain model releases or do similar things if
> your work is not going to be published in any commercial context.
> Let's look at the above list item by item...
>
> 1)
> If you shoot ON private property then you have to abide by whatever
> restrictions or bans the property owner imposes. If your shots
> include private property BUT you shot them from public property then
> you are free to publish them - although in a few cases you need to
> take care if doing that commercially.
>
> 2)
> There are a few places around the world where photography is
> restricted for official security reasons. (There are many more where
> security guards incorrectly claim it is restricted, but that's a
> different issue.) You should exercise care, tact and diplomacy when
> considering shooting in and around those sort of places.
>
> 2b) and 3)
> Places where performances are given - assuming this isn't on public
> property then you are restricted by whatever rules and regulations
> the property owner chooses to impose; see (1).
>
> 4)
> Professional performers cannot prevent you from taking photos and
> using them in non-commercial contexts (or 'editorial' contexts) if
> they are shot from public property. On private property, the final
> word lies with the property owner; see (1).
>
> 5)
> Candid street performers are generally professional performers who
> operate with a different kind of business model; they solicit
> donations for their performance rather than asking for tickets to be
> purchased first. See (4). But do consider throwing money into the hat
> (or whatever equivalent there is), as that's how the performer makes
> their living. If you do this first and then ask if you can take a
> shot you'll probably get actual cooperation, too.
>
> ----
>
> Sometimes you might be approached by people who think they have a
> right to challenge your right to take photographs. Assuming you
> aren't on private property and being stopped by someone in authority,
> are standing on sensitive government property, or are witnessing a
> mugging and being 'approached' by the perps, then it is worth
> memorising the following text or keeping a printout in your camera
> bag. This is UK-specific, so please amend as appropriate. To my
> knowledge it doesn't differ significantly in any western country.
>
> (BTW, I didn't write this, it can be found all over the place online.)
>
> 1) You are reminded that under UK law there are no restrictions on
> taking photographs in a public place or on photography of
> individuals, whether they are adults or minors.
> 2) There is no right to privacy in a public place, although
> photographers are of course subject to the usual libel laws in the
> same way as any other citizen and should observe them.
> 3) Equipment or film may not be confiscated, or images deleted by any
> person or officer, unless a warrant for such action is issued. Any
> attempt without a warrant is considered assault under UK law.
>
> ----
>
> >For some reason, "Tripods" are a mark of a professional photographer
> >who is taking photos to make money. Could be that Private owners
> >want their fair share of your earnings as a FEE for property access.
>
> This is just an assumption, although an annoying one. Sometimes SLRs
> are seen as the distinguishing mark of a professional, but that's
> becoming an increasingly weak argument. It can help to explain what
> you're doing and why, and I sometimes show panoramas on my iPhone to
> get the idea across.
>
>
> >I am reminded of the time when we were takings panoramas at a
> >popular resort in Mexico - "That fellow next to the lady, might not
> >be her husband" AND they would not like to see their photo on the
> >Internet ! Its a privacy issue.
>
> Sure is. But to be blunt it isn't *your* issue. If they're in public
> they have no right to refuse to be in a photo. And if you're not
> using it in a commercial context then you have the right to publish
> it.
>
> Dave, thanks for bringing this up. I hope I've helped to clarify
> things somewhat.
>
> k
>