"Do Not Photograph List"

[Jay968]

Sorry for responding to the thread. My mistake was in not looking at the date.
Yes I did say that photographers can be sued. You elaborated by saying that it depends on what is photographed and where. I know that military installations, copyrighted objects and things taken on private property are problematic. It is also not ok to photograph something in a way that impedes with other's rights. But to say that a person may not be photographed and the photo published without that person's permission (as was mentioned earlier in the thread) is just too simplistic.
Again, sorry for resurrecting this thread. I will stay away from it.

 

[quincy]

... But to say that a person may not be photographed and the photo published without that person's permission (as was mentioned earlier in the thread) is just too simplistic.
Again, sorry for resurrecting this thread. I will stay away from it.

I don't think anyone said what I've bolded above in your post, although getting releases from those you photograph will prevent lawsuits that might otherwise arise from your photographs, so they can be smart.

Your own thread should be moved to this section of the forum before too long.

 

[Jay968]

Agreed, but never meant to imply that you said that. I was referring to what a couple of others said earlier in the post.

 

[quincy]

Agreed, but never meant to imply that you said that. I was referring to what a couple of others said earlier in the post.

Fair enough.

I know that many (most) photojournalists who work for news organizations will get releases from those they photograph when it is practical to do so (many times it isn't), this even though photos used to illustrate news are given wide latitude under the law. A signed release is just an added layer of protection from a lawsuit in this litigious society of ours.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Fair enough.

I know that many (most) photojournalists who work for news organizations will get releases from those they photograph when it is practical to do so (many times it isn't), this even though photos used to illustrate news are given wide latitude under the law. A signed release is just an added layer of protection from a lawsuit in this litigious society of ours.

I was a reporter and videographer at two different TV stations in my younger days and I never once got a release while covering a news story and don't know ANYONE in the news biz that ever did. I did from time to time shoot under restrictions while on certain private property or schools where I agreed to not show faces but other than that nothing.

 

[quincy]

I was a reporter and videographer at two different TV stations in my younger days and I never once got a release while covering a news story and don't know ANYONE in the news biz that ever did. I did from time to time shoot under restrictions while on certain private property or schools where I agreed to not show faces but other than that nothing.

I was editor for a national news organization. Releases are recommended when practical to get one.

 

[not2cleverRed]

And I realize that this is an old thread, resurrected today, but I disagree with the other answers to this question:

Thanks. So therefore the county music organization does not need any permissions to photograph?

As a parent of a child who has performed in a event sponsored by "the county music organization" in NY state, I can attest that, at least in my county, included in all the paperwork associated with agreeing to perform is a form for the parent to give/deny permission for the child to appear in photo(s).

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I was editor for a national news organization. Releases are recommended when practical to get one.

So one of the photogs is out at a location where something is happening and they are supposed to get releases from anyone they happen to photograph? I'd really like to see the release and the policy if you still have a copy of it. You can PM if you like.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

And I realize that this is an old thread, resurrected today, but I disagree with the other answers to this question:



As a parent of a child who has performed in a event sponsored by "the county music organization" in NY state, I can attest that, at least in my county, included in all the paperwork associated with agreeing to perform is a form for the parent to give/deny permission for the child to appear in photo(s).

That is different. That is a private organization. But if the news happens to come and photograph the event it would be up to the organization, not the news photographer to make sure a child didn't get photographed.

 

[quincy]

And I realize that this is an old thread, resurrected today, but I disagree with the other answers to this question:



As a parent of a child who has performed in a event sponsored by "the county music organization" in NY state, I can attest that, at least in my county, included in all the paperwork associated with agreeing to perform is a form for the parent to give/deny permission for the child to appear in photo(s).

Releases are generally required of parents/guardians when there will be any photographing of minors, especially if these photos will be publicly published.

 

[Jay968]

And I realize that this is an old thread, resurrected today, but I disagree with the other answers to this question:



As a parent of a child who has performed in a event sponsored by "the county music organization" in NY state, I can attest that, at least in my county, included in all the paperwork associated with agreeing to perform is a form for the parent to give/deny permission for the child to appear in photo(s).

Not knowing this organization and whether or not it is a private one, all I can say after being in the profession for as long as I have is that anyone can have a parent sign a form at any given time but this does not necessarily mean that it usurps the right of a photographer to take such photographs. It is only for covering the butts of the organization just in case someone causes grief. I have been told many times that I cannot take photographs when I have. I have always known my rights and stuck to them. People like to intimidate. Usually when asked, I will not photograph. I am a decent person. But could I if I wanted to? Unless I am on private property, or photographing a military installation, or using a photo of someone to sell a product, or impeding on someone's rights, or harassing them, or reproducing coyrighted material, I sure do have the right to photograph..just as much a right as someone has to ask me not to.

 

[Jay968]

https://www.asmp.org/strictly-business-blog/really-need-release/

 

[quincy]

With photography, you have the right of free expression versus a whole host of laws that limits this right. You mentioned a few of these.

There are privacy rights that can indeed "trump" the right of free expression. You cannot, for example, take up-skirt photos or photos in dressing rooms. You are restricted when taking and publishing photos of crime scenes and accident victims. You have restrictions on photo-taking in courthouses, in museums, in hospitals, at some entertainment venues. There can be safety concerns and there can be national security concerns that can limit photographing in airports or train stations or subway stations.

I could continue with the limitations placed on "free expression" that apply even to the news media.

Bottom lines: Photograhers should know the laws. And release forms can prevent lawsuits so it is smart to have a release signed when it is possible to get a release signed.

 

[Just Blue]

I thought this thread was locked?