wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: WWP Performing Arts - Written Permissions - Photo Releases
Keith Martin 2009-Aug-30 17:26:00
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