Girls

[Nnnnsic]

Yes, I already know about the post in the first one. It's irritating and it shouldn't be there. There isn't a lot I can do about it. I still like the image.

[ABG]

Now there's a title that's guaranteed to get my attention

Yes, I already know about the post in the first one. It's irritating and it shouldn't be there. There isn't a lot I can do about it. I still like the image.

Beat me to it I like the first shot a lot, other than the damn post. The other 2 don't do much for me

[mattyjacobs]

a bit too voyeuristic for me ... kinda bordering on creepy ...

[cawdor]

The last one just feels.......wrong. Shot from behind the subject a good distance away, it feels like a papparazzo shot. Hope you weren't hiding in the bushes

I like the first shot, real shame about the pole.

Is there a privacy issue here with candid potos of people being shared without their knowledge/consent? Just curious.

[Alpha_7]

Cawdor - They are all in public places as are most the candids posted here, is your concern more directed at the subject matter rather then the fact they are taken candidly ?

[cawdor]

I'm curious what my rights as a photographer are in regards to candids. I thought that if I take a photo of a person in a public place (not a crowd shot) I need a release form, even if I'm not using the photos commercially.

Say for example I'm at a beach and see an opportunity for a nice shot, and the subject happens to be a beautiful girl in a bikini. She sees me, calls the cops. Am I obliged to delete the shot or can the argument "it's a public place, if you don't want your photo taken don't come here" apply?

I guess my other point is that the girls in the above photos may have been unaware they are being photographed and may have objected to their photos being taken and shared here. Is it "tough luck" for them or do they have a legal right of privacy when it comes to photos of themselves?

Edit: sorry if this hijacks this thread a bit.

[norbs]

A great site re. your rights is here.

http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml

But I tend to agree with cawdor, the last one especially feels wrong. I know if that was my wife/daughter/mother I would be rather pissed off.

[stubbsy]

The site referenced in the post above is an essential read.

Short summary
- if you can see it from a public place you can photograph it with impunity (see below though)
- Unless you intend to use an image commercially (to promote a product since it implies the person endorses what you're selling) you don't need a model release
- NO model release is required if you are selling or exhibiting your photos (this is art, not commerical use)
- the fact you can legally take pics from public places DOESN'T mean you can do naughty things like photographing topless bathers (lewd behaviour - nothing to do with photography) or snapping kiddy pics for paedophile purposes (also not a photography thing)
- for commercial use (product promotion again) pics of some buildings and structures may also need releases for your work (eg sydney Opera House)

But above all use your common sense. If you take a pic of someone and they don't like it the fact you are legally entitled to do so won't stop them punching you or smashing your gear.

[sirhc55]

But above all use your common sense. If you take a pic of someone and they don't like it the fact you are legally entitled to do so won't stop them punching you or smashing your gear.

That would be assault - remember that Labor fella

[Reschsmooth]

- the fact you can legally take pics from public places DOESN'T mean you can do naughty things like photographing topless bathers (lewd behaviour - nothing to do with photography)

My reading of that was if it was on a public beach, there was no issue - granted, I was trying to read it as fast as I could at that stage.

P

[Reschsmooth]

- remember that Labor fella

I think very few people do!

[stubbsy]

- the fact you can legally take pics from public places DOESN'T mean you can do naughty things like photographing topless bathers (lewd behaviour - nothing to do with photography)

My reading of that was if it was on a public beach, there was no issue - granted, I was trying to read it as fast as I could at that stage.

P

Yes and no Patrick.

Like kiddy pics it comes down to what you intend to do with the pics. The act of taking the pics is fine - it's the use that matters and OTHER laws that apply. If I take a pic of your son or daughter on public land I have done nothing wrong. If I then put it on a a paedophile site I've broken the laws against that kind of grubby behaviour. Similarly if I submit a pic of your wife sunbathing naked somewhere to some skin mag along with some dirty comments I may be prosecutable under defamation laws

[Reschsmooth]

- the fact you can legally take pics from public places DOESN'T mean you can do naughty things like photographing topless bathers (lewd behaviour - nothing to do with photography)

My reading of that was if it was on a public beach, there was no issue - granted, I was trying to read it as fast as I could at that stage.

P

Yes and no Patrick.

Like kiddy pics it comes down to what you intend to do with the pics. The act of taking the pics is fine - it's the use that matters and OTHER laws that apply. If I take a pic of your son or daughter on public land I have done nothing wrong. If I then put it on a a paedophile site I've broken the laws against that kind of grubby behaviour. Similarly if I submit a pic of your wife sunbathing naked somewhere to some skin mag along with some dirty comments I may be prosecutable under defamation laws

Peter, that is why I selectively quoted you - solely relating to the act of photographing semi-naked people/adults on a public beach, which I understood in itself was not problematic. Granted, if you posted/sold those photos for the purpose of 'sexual gratification' or some such thing, then that would be completely different.

The issue of defamation, as I understand it, is something else - depending on what you say, but dirty comments in themselves, along with a pic as described would not, I think, amount to defamation as you have not defamed my wife. That doesn't mean you haven't broken other laws by doing so.

P

[terminaltackle]

Looks like someone has gone to the beach( lucky b@#!*@#d)

Brett

[radar]

Leigh,

interesting thread

I like the first one, the b&w treatment works well with it I find. No comments on the post

The last two don't do much for me.

Cheers,

André

(PS: myself, I don't see a problem with the contents of these photos (even if they would be my wife/daughter/friend), they are in public afterall)

[Reschsmooth]

My personal view, and not wishing to be a wet blanket, is that the last photo looks like a pic of a girl without her knowledge for the sake of voyeurism or because it is not illegal to do so. I know this could easily open an argument about 'what's the difference between this and a candid photo of any other complete stranger?', the answer to which I don't know.

The second I 'dislike' less, and the first one is a good image, in my opinion.

But, that's just my view, and can be discarded like anyone else's.

P