Candid Photos of People in the Phillipines

[Ed Endicott]

Looks like the Phillipine government is looking at banning the capture of candid photos of people - this includes images of other people in the background

 

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/03/the-philippines-is-looking-to-implement-an-anti-selfie-law/

[John Mitchell]

I think that we're going to see more laws (or attempts to pass them) like this now that we live in such a snap-happy world. It's a pity but understandable. Invasion of privacy has become rampant, and people are increasingly worried about how their likenesses will be used and where they will show up. I know that I take fewer candid shots than I used to.

[Bill Brooks]

The responsibility for invasion of privacy, because of image use in commercial sales, falls on the photographer and always has.

 

I once asked a very nice couple on a beach in Mexico to sign a model release. They were a couple of lawyers from Los Angeles on holiday. They signed my model release and then posed willingly. However they told me that any model release was of very little value if a non professional model was determined to sue. Non professional models can always claim that they did not understand what they were signing, and that they were mislead by the photographer.

 

For commercial use it makes sense to use professional models, and carry errors and omissions insurance, and get a signed model release. With today's image prices, I can't afford the first two options.

 

It is all about risk and return.

[Ed Rooney]

I haven't looked at a model release recently, but the ones I was carrying when I did airline shoots . . . well, anyone who would sign one of those would have to be insane. More than once I had account people tell me to "find some models around the island resort." And I would have to explain that there were two ways to do this shoot: 1. we hire pro models with a contract to the airline and take them down with us, or 2. I go down alone and shoot palm trees, sunsets, shrimp dinners and colorful cocktails. 

[Bill Brooks]

I agree with Ed.

 

The other thing is that the photographer should be honest and upfront with the subject about possible image use .

 

A model released image could be used for sensitive subjects like religion, sex, health, criminality. People should know that.

 

Don't downplay possible usage. What is said only verbally at the time of signing, could become part of the contract.

[John Mitchell]

Recently, a well-known US travel magazine posted a brief on an image request service that I subscribe to asking for images with people in them. There had to be no recognizable faces, and any hired "talent" (such a phoney term) had to be model-released. This was for editorial use, not commercial. They actually shortlisted one of my unreleased photos of a dancer with head down and wearing a Batman-like mask. I've seen a number of other editorial requests on this website and elsewhere for images with no people in them. Methinks that things may be changing in the editorial publishing world. Publishers seem ever more fearful of possible litigation.

[York Photographer]

I was approached by a well known skint bank a while ago to do a shoot in a branch, I pulled out when they asked me to get the people in the pictures to sign their model release. It was asking them to agree to be used in their marketing (for free!), if they had ever been bankrupt or done for drink driving, and demanding that they would never say anything bad about the bank! This was the bank that was well known for its terrible attitude to customers and their money. Seemed to me they hadn't learn't any lessons!