Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Jeff

Street shot postings

Recommended Posts

When posting pictures from the streets without people knowing about it, please respect peoples privacy and make faces unrecognizable before posting the pictures here or they will be removed. Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry about that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff! Whilst hugely respecting your monumental contributions as Webmaster etc., can I ask you to reconsider that "No faces in streetshots" ruling, in the light of the following: Readers may be interested to know that a special thread already exists for this topic. It was begun sixteen months ago in July 2003, and contains a pretty exhaustive in-depth debate on the ethics and law re. street-shots. It's called "Streetshots" and I've just brought it back up to the very top of "For Everybody" for you and others to peruse. For my part: In British (and other European) we can all take shots of others, including faces, and publish them, as long as the subjects are photographed in a public place. However, as soon as one person wishes to take a photograph of another on private property, then that's different, and to remain legal, permission must be obtained. I agree with the law as it stands. It has evolved over many decades, and I think it is very fair, sensible and even-handed in these respects. Basically, before going into any public place, each of us decides what to wear and whether to dress soberly or outrageously. Now, once we step out into in the public domain, we stand up to be counted. We have gone public, which can and often does include people snapping away with their cameras. So to me, it is entirely irrelevant whether I am seen first-hand, or via a publically taken photograph. It's all equally PUBLIC. As Firefox says, it would contravene certain laws to cause a nuisance by sticking a camera up someone's skirt, or subsequently publishing the photographs in a way that would cause defamation or malignment to the subject. But apart from that, as an enthusiastically up-beat and optimistic sort of chap, I assume that each of us should be PROUD to be seen in what we wear, otherwise why wear it? Also, if photographed, why not feel even prouder still! The one thing that gets up my nose is the growing Nanny State where we can't do this and we can't do that and our children can't have school photos taken any more etc. etc. etc. etc. If it gets to the stage where we can't even photograph a fashionable person walking along a public street, then it surely it would be time for us all to think about topping ourselves! It would sadden me if we are to be prevented from doing something on this board that is fully legal and acceptable under the law. Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the law depends on what country you are in. While pics taken in public places England are perfectly legal even if the face is shown, that may not be the case everywhere. With the English pics, you can't use them for any commercial purpose (advertising) without getting a signed "model release" from the subject Also, it's not legal to post pics in such a way to defame or libel the person in question, or show them in some unfavourable light. So, tread carefully :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it is legal or not doesn't matter. Whereas moviestars and other celebreties make a distinct choice to be out in the public everytime they hit the streets, you're average jane-or-john-doe does not. And making pictures on the street of people is one thing, publishing them throught whatever medium you can think of is something completely different. If people go for a walk down-town, they don't expect to be up on the internet the next day. While some maybe don't care, others will, and imho we should respect that. I for one make the assumption that most people wouldn't like to have their pictures published without their knowledge and thus think you should have peoples permission before publishing their pics with them recognizable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are the shots of movie stars at some premier or public party and then there's a different category sometimes called "candids" where the star is photographed secretly when they were shopping or in a park or on the way to the premier etc. It's an interesting thought that if you asked the stars whether they would like the candid shots published, they would almost certianly say no, just the same as a member of the public. Although the stars have a public image, they also have a private life too. Many of the shots we see around are the unofficial ones taken without their consent. In this way there's no difference between the celebrities and members of the public if you follow the same argument of consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum's management can make and publish a policy about street shorts where they can say --"it is the policy of this forum that when taking street shots of people that are not aware that they are being photographed, or have not consented to being photographed, or having their photographs published or otherwise used, all face shots or other significant identifying characteristics or features will be deleted or blacked out." Or, something like that.. simple solution and will eliminate all questions concerning legality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go along with something of that sort, Bubba. Cheers--- Dawn HH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted my opinion in the other thread http://hhplace.org/hhboard/viewtopic.php?p=87332#87332 so I won't repeat it here.

But you will note there that I've argued it makes no difference if you blank out the face. If you follow the strict moral argument, you would still have to ask the person if you could use the image of their body/clothes. They can easily be identifiable by their clothing, their shoes, and the context of the street scene so (if you follow the moral argument) you must still ask even if you use the shot with face blanked, or other features removed.

Personally, I would be against any restrictive policy on the grounds explained in the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've expressed my opinion on street shots previously. So let's keep it simple. Jeff has the right to make the rules here. Those that don't like the rules have the right to leave. Ellen-Jay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heelfan, You've got it wrong. If you publish a picture of someones face without their consent, you are breaching privacy laws and can be prosecuted for it. An example here is speed cameras. They don't take pictures when you're facing them. It's the same law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came across this by accident.

Very classy and organised site that has a number of street heel pictures organised into the 4 seasons and photographed in the streets of Paris.

Each picture is classified with when it was taken , and location in Paris where it was shot. The Site owner has recieved many good reviews for his site from a number of respected sources ie French newspaper LeFigaro, AOL.FR, RTL.FR etc.

Bruno Gregoir (who's the web master) appears to be a highly respected photographer according to the site.

Unfortunately it has been a while since he updated.

Very nice anyway.

A paris, LesElegantes

http://www.loveonthebeach.com/LesElegantes/fr/presse.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The finest photo of a ladies feet are Kim Raver, Lipstick Jungle on the Screen Actors Guild red carpet in 2005. I've been doing this since the Thigh High magazine and this shot is magnificent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that pic myself. He looks quite confident in what he is wearing. Cheers--- Dawn HH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,being from nyc i'll tell you that whats so great about wearing heels in the city, is that you will barely find some one who notices what he has on unless they too are into shoes and heels ..indeed a great picture..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heelfan,

You've got it wrong. If you publish a picture of someones face without their consent, you are breaching privacy laws and can be prosecuted for it.

An example here is speed cameras. They don't take pictures when you're facing them. It's the same law.

Wanna Bet! I've got a nice one of the front of my 4x4 from the police and you can make out who was driving.

It depends on which country you are in and even sometimes state/province. I believe in Australia we have no laws making it illegal to photograph adults undertaking legal public activities provided they are not to be used for profit etc. Not sure how this applies to TV new footage where you have TV footage showing peoples faces. They even show faces behind windows in news stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heelfan,

You've got it wrong. If you publish a picture of someones face without their consent, you are breaching privacy laws and can be prosecuted for it.

An example here is speed cameras. They don't take pictures when you're facing them. It's the same law.

Sadly your not right about this, the reason speed camera's flash from behind "mostly" is so that the flash doesnt cause you to have an accident if it goes off in your face, leaving you blinded (Mostly) but there are a few camera's that do face the driver, but these are typically in locations where it would or might be difficult to position a camera facing traffic that has gone past, or where painting the white stripes for the camera would cause confusion over junction markings or other important road markings.

As for publishing pictures of people, the only thing somebody can prosecute you for is making false allegations or stating derogatory inaccurate facts.

You can photograph people all you like, but the minute you start slandering them, or making claims about what they are doing without their consent or accurate information that can be proven, thats when you will land in hot water.

There have also been several occassions in the past where news papers have published pictures of people, specifically, as a competition and give a prize to a specific person circled in a picture if they saw it and came forward... I know the Metro ran that competition many years ago, back in the day when I had a dayjob...

Was this you coming out of x tube station, if so, call us and win £50!!! sort of thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the US, it depends on what state you are in. If you watch the show "Cops", sometimes they show the face, and sometimes they don't. It's due to the different laws in each state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, in th US, you have no expectation of privacy while outdoors. In a house, it's different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the US, it depends on what state you are in. If you watch the show "Cops", sometimes they show the face, and sometimes they don't. It's due to the different laws in each state.

Yes but on a show like "Cops", everybody other than the "cops" are normally being arrested, or involved in trouble, thus, until proven guilty, identities are protected.

If it were a gardening show, or a documentry on roads/shopping centres, then nobody would need to be blurred out as the show by its very nature would not be incriminating anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed to a point, but sometimes they do show the person's face, and other times they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nice picture from a newspaper. Unfortunately the picture is in Flash format, which I couldn't figure out how to save. So, go to the link, and click the right arrow next to the "1 of 3" (to bring you to page two).

One nice thing about Flash: if you place the cursor anywhere on the picture, then right click, you can zoom in on it.

http://www.philly.com/philly/gallery/20100120_Changes_in_store_for_Shops_at_Liberty_Place.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever happened to the vast collection on flickr that firefox started ages ago. There used to be links to it from here but I cannot find anything that relates to it now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using High Heel Place, you agree to our Terms of Use.