Stock editorial photography in place with stringent privacy laws

[meanderingemu]

how much do you worry taking picture for editorial stock where people are identifiable, though not the subject, in environment where the laws are strongly against the photographers.  I'm currently in Quebec visiting family where jurisprudence is that picture of people is invasion of privacy, and this is probably the first time i'm in such environment since focusing on taking pictures . 

 

Whereas i didn't even think twice about an image like this in the UK, do you worry elsewhere?

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by meanderingemu

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, Lori Rider said:

 

That was interesting reading. So what do you think about the photo that emu posted? To my eye those people aren't really recognizable and I wouldn't have thought there was any issue uploading it.

 

Don't think I would be too worried about it myself. It looks to be a public park, and the people aren't shown in an unflattering way. Also, it's as much an autumn image as it is a people image.

[John Mitchell]

I usually visit Montreal every year, and I don't think about this much when I'm there. However, I try to be sensible and sensitive when including people in my images. There's some useful info on this Quebec website.

[Lori Rider]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

I usually visit Montreal every year, and I don't think about this much when I'm there. However, I try to be sensible and sensitive when including people in my images. There's some useful info on this Quebec website.

 

That was interesting reading. So what do you think about the photo that emu posted? To my eye those people aren't really recognizable and I wouldn't have thought there was any issue uploading it.

[AlexG]

I agree with the above two comments, it seems the focus isn't the people, they only add to the details of the scene. They are hardly or not recognizable at all, unless you are the guy himself. Could be a different story when they are recognizable, but outdoor public shots seem to generally be fine for editorial sale.

[Ed Rooney]

8 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I usually visit Montreal every year, and I don't think about this much when I'm there. However, I try to be sensible and sensitive when including people in my images. There's some useful info on this Quebec website.

 

As you know, John, my son lives in Montreal with his Québécois wife, and I spent the summer of 2018 with them. Lyne's family dates back to the early French fur traders. I was shooting around the city for three months and never had a problem.

 

Ironically, France, the birth place of photography and Street photography, is very hard on people shooting other people, even in a crowded public place. 

 

Edo

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

As you know, John, my son lives in Montreal with his Québécois wife, and I spent the summer of 2018 with them. Lyne's family dates back to the early French fur traders. I was shooting around the city for three months and never had a problem.

 

Ironically, France, the birth place of photography and Street photography, is very hard on people shooting other people, even in a crowded public place. 

 

Edo

 

 

thanks, yeah France was another difficult one, but since i was on a pilgrimage, Stock wasn't really my focus. 

 

as for Montreal, i've had no problem with taking pictures, it was more the stock photo part with recognizability that i find more problematic (and the -25 C of last couple of days,  why did i think a december visit was a good idea)

[meanderingemu]

10 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I usually visit Montreal every year, and I don't think about this much when I'm there. However, I try to be sensible and sensitive when including people in my images. There's some useful info on this Quebec website.

 

thanks John..  i had read the Francophone version, plus the jurisprudence, and it made me more worried than even place like France 

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

ronically, France, the birth place of photography and Street photography, is very hard on people shooting other people, even in a crowded public place.

France is a difficult one I know in terns of laws of privacy,  do you mean hard on you when you're shooting, or hard on you if they are published? I've got quite a few on here with people in, though in general views mostly I think. I've never actually had a problem when shooting but it's generally in tourist areas where everyone has a camera or a phone.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[Ed Rooney]

I meant when shooting, Harry. Twice I had someone yell at me. Lucky I don't speak French. 😎

 

Actually I come down mostly on the side of privacy in this issue.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Ed Rooney

[Harry Harrison]

27 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

I meant when shooting, Harry

Thanks Ed, it is easy to get paranoid about this sort of thing. I'd hope that most people, French or not, would be quite pleased to see themselves in a picture provided they're not shown in a bad light. But when the mind wanders in the middle of the night I think about that chap smoking a cigarette photogenically outside a restaurant with his dog at his feet, does his insurance company know he's a smoker? That attractive couple wandering through the market, is that his wife? Shouldn't he have been at a sales conference in Poitiers?

 

Etc. Etc.

[Ed Rooney]

 

Ouch, I don't know about all that, Harry -- but I'm sure of one thing: I miss Oxfordshire. I lived in Woodstock, Charlton-on-Otmoor, and in Summertown.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Thanks Ed, it is easy to get paranoid about this sort of thing. I'd hope that most people, French or not, would be quite pleased to see themselves in a picture provided they're not shown in a bad light. But when the mind wanders in the middle of the night I think about that chap smoking a cigarette photogenically outside a restaurant with his dog at his feet, does his insurance company know he's a smoker? That attractive couple wandering through the market, is that his wife? Shouldn't he have been at a sales conference in Poitiers?

 

Etc. Etc.

 

Yes, those are valid questions, the kind I find myself asking more often these days. The nonstop posting of images on social media has totally changed the landscape for street photography. These days, you really have to "use your loaf", as one UK forum contributor put it in an earlier conversation on this topic, when it comes to photographing people in public. HCB and all those other wonderful street photographers who everyone now admires were lucky to live when they did.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by John Mitchell

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

As you know, John, my son lives in Montreal with his Québécois wife, and I spent the summer of 2018 with them. Lyne's family dates back to the early French fur traders. I was shooting around the city for three months and never had a problem.

Edo

 

I've had a couple of issues in Montreal markets but nothing serious. People in Montreal do seem more sensitive to being in photographs than they used to be, so I'm extra careful now. This guy got a ticket for taking a photo, but was acquitted.

[sb photos]

18 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I usually visit Montreal every year, and I don't think about this much when I'm there. However, I try to be sensible and sensitive when including people in my images. There's some useful info on this Quebec website.

 

I would have no issues with what's listed on the Quebec website, their exceptions would be typical editorial photography I shoot:

 

Here are some examples of exceptions. In other words, your permission is not needed to publish pictures taken of you in these situations:

• You are in front of a historic monument or public place, such as the Eiffel tower, where you are sightseeing along with other tourists.
• You’re  a celebrity  and it is therefore normal that your picture be taken! Society generally believes that famous people or people in public roles must accept to give up some privacy. This could apply to hockey players,  artistic performers and politicians, for example.  
• You’re in a picture that is used to inform the public. This type of situation is referred to as the "legitimate interest of the public." For example, pictures of a witness in a major  court case can be published without  permission.
• You’re  in a crowd. For example, if you are at a hockey game or other public event, such as a student demonstration, pictures of you at these events can be published without your permission.

I can see how this could hinder publishing traditional street photography, unless after shooting you were able to gain permission from the subject.

[sb photos]

49 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Ouch, I don't know about all that, Harry -- but I'm sure of one thing: I miss Oxfordshire. I lived in Woodstock, Charlton-on-Otmoor, and in Summertown.

 

I love Oxfordshire, I live only a 30 minute drive away from Oxford's park and rides. I can understand how you miss the area. I plan to shoot more there, having sold a few images from Oxford and Kidlington. The last was a high iso shot of local resident George Monbiot, journalist and environmental activist, speaking in Broad Street's Blackwells book store.

Edited December 21, 2019 by sb photos

[Ed Rooney]

I did a shoot for Blackwell's once, Steve. It took me up to the Lake District. 

 

The Oxfordshire I miss is probably long gone and I would not know most of what's there now. I'm glad to be back in the UK, although this dark, rainy winter is not much fun. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Ed Rooney

[John Mitchell]

Here's a shot from a holiday trip to Montreal a couple of months ago when the weather was still civilized. Some of the people are recognizable, but they are part of a crowd. I've got other images that I probably should be more concerned about, but I can't imagine them offending anyone. Also, since I took them with editorial use in mind, I feel that they would be used primarily to inform. Newspapers, magazines, etc. couldn't function in Quebec or elsewhere if strict privacy laws were actually enforced.

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by John Mitchell

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

The Oxfordshire I miss is probably long gone and I would not know most of what's there now

As Steve says, Oxford and Oxfordshire is still beautiful. Oxford is very busy, a huge tourist destination all the year round, and you really wouldn't want to drive anywhere in it as they keep thinking of new ways for you to break the law. I'm South of Oxford so don't know Charlton-on-Otmoor but I know there is a lot of pressure to build and no doubt planning regulations are due to be relaxed even more in the brave new world after Brexit. There is a plan for a major new link between Oxford and Cambridge which bizarrely is supposed to impact on the countryside well South of Oxford as well.

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

I would have no issues with what's listed on the Quebec website, their exceptions would be typical editorial photography I shoot:

 

Here are some examples of exceptions. In other words, your permission is not needed to publish pictures taken of you in these situations:

• You are in front of a historic monument or public place, such as the Eiffel tower, where you are sightseeing along with other tourists.
• You’re  a celebrity  and it is therefore normal that your picture be taken! Society generally believes that famous people or people in public roles must accept to give up some privacy. This could apply to hockey players,  artistic performers and politicians, for example.  
• You’re in a picture that is used to inform the public. This type of situation is referred to as the "legitimate interest of the public." For example, pictures of a witness in a major  court case can be published without  permission.
• You’re  in a crowd. For example, if you are at a hockey game or other public event, such as a student demonstration, pictures of you at these events can be published without your permission.

I can see how this could hinder publishing traditional street photography, unless after shooting you were able to gain permission from the subject.

 

 

example that i see it blocks from stock, is traditional weather news image with people in them, as well as people on private property (like outdoor patio, food market)

[meanderingemu]

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I've had a couple of issues in Montreal markets but nothing serious. People in Montreal do seem more sensitive to being in photographs than they used to be, so I'm extra careful now. This guy got a ticket for taking a photo, but was acquitted.

  yeah i was walking Carré Saint-Louis around on tuesday and got many suspicious looks, of what are you taking pictures of - was mainly looking to have human presence on snowy streets,,,  this is what lead to the query

[zxzoomy]

It's worth reading up on each country. In Germany I gather it's illegal to publish photos of people without their consent unless they are just an accessory in the photo. Photos of women without consent in South Korea risks a fine and prison as 'sexual aggression'. In UAE palaces and some bridges are out. In Thailand publishing photos of alcohol (eg on social media) is illegal since 2008. 

[Allan Bell]

Regarding the French privacy laws and the French people.

 

Some time ago I was in Rose Crescent in Cambridge taking photos for stock and in one instance I raised the camera to my eye to take a photo with a group of people coming towards me but not specifically of them when they started ranting in French at me and saying "NON". Now I speak very little french but understand what "NON" means. I had previously read an article about the French privacy laws so guessed what they were referring to but took the shot anyway thinking,  "You are visiting England so learn our laws before you come here" and just smiled at them after lowering the camera. They continued along Rose Crescent talking loudly to one another and looking back with daggers in their eyes. The best part is that I did not use that shot as there were better in the bunch.

 

Allan

 

[spacecadet]

21 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

"You are visiting England so learn our laws before you come here

As no doubt you do when you travel abroad!

However, since French law wouldn't have given them a veto over the publication of an image made in public, what's your point? Got something against the French?

Edited January 9, 2020 by spacecadet

[Allan Bell]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

As no doubt you do when you travel abroad!

However, since French law wouldn't have given them a veto over the publication of an image made in public, what's your point? Got something against the French?

 

NO! Not now.

NO! Just commenting on an experience I had.

 

Allan

 

[Harry Harrison]

57 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

I raised the camera to my eye to take a photo with a group of people coming towards me but not specifically of them when they started ranting in French at me and saying "NON"

Perhaps they were law students...  I've never even had that happen in France.