Pictures Taken In Public - With A Twist

[gbugbear at gmail.com (Tim Mugherini)]

Robert,

Sorry I misread and thought you were referring to the attorney of the
photographer who took your sons picture. All the same sucks.

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Michael Miller
<mike.mikemiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> So I forwarded this e-mail to my brother who is a professional
> photojournalist. ?I'm going to include his reply below to my question
> which was "Do you have people sign a waver for release when you do
> work for the AP and newspapers?"
>
> <Professional photojournalist>
> In response to your question, no release is necessary or required.
> Editorial content does not require a release, as it is not using the
> individual, subject, or property to promote a product or idea.
>
> In terms of the individual's issue with privacy rights, in public you
> have very few rights in regards to your image being used for editorial
> content. ?If you did then it would be impossible for people like me to
> do their job, inadvertently there are people or things that are owned
> that are going to appear in photographs. ?99% of the time an image you
> see in a newspaper is never used again, however with the advent of the
> internet it will live online in some form of digital format until
> deleted. ?No different i guess then the microfiche of old.
>
> As to the child's photograph, it is usually good form on the part of
> the photographer to find the child's immediate caregiver or parent and
> ask for consent. ?This way you get the consent of an adult and you
> don't inadvertently piss someone off, like the individual in the
> email. After all who knows, maybe the child is in protective custody
> or the spouse is separated from an abusive wife or husband and hiding
> themselves and their child. ?In this day and age its tough to tell, I
> was taught to do my best to obtain verbal consent. Even in a classroom
> setting I almost always ask if there are any kids that shouldn't be
> photographed for that exact reason. ?If the parent is concerned they
> should let the child know that they don't want them to be photographed
> and to have the child let photographers know that, if the situation
> should arise again, and inform the child's teachers/school.
>
> As to the image of child being sold online, most likely the paper will
> never sell a copy of that photograph. ?The one paper I worked at that
> sold "fine art" prints did so mostly to people that had some kind of
> connection to the original story, or occasionally images that were/are
> beautiful in their own right and not connected with a story at all.
> I'm sure if the individual called the paper and asked nicely the image
> would most likely be taken down. ?If that didn't work, I'm sure if
> they suggested that they were going to take legal action to have the
> image removed from the site, the paper would simply remove it rather
> than deal with going to court over an image they will never make any
> money off of.
>
> I do take umbrage to the suggestion that the photographer and or the
> paper are exploiting the child in the context of the article on saving
> the library. The image is not being used in a campaign to save the
> library, it simply depicts a child using the library resources. ?The
> story and the photograph are not about the child, its about the
> library and the loss to the community if it isn't there. ?The story is
> about the library which is why the child in the photo could be
> replaced with anyone or not have anyone at all. ?The child in the
> photo just makes the photograph more interesting and gives context to
> the potential loss of the library, it tells a story.
>
> As to the persons concern about a child predator, I suggest they stop
> watching the evening news and Nancy Grace. ?The odds of the child
> being kidnapped, molested, or abused by a stranger are far less than
> the kid getting in a car accident, let alone having a stranger take
> the child's photo and sell it to fellow perverts. ?The media fills
> people with irrational fears, and people need to wake up to the fact
> that what the media portrays and sensationalizes is not the norm but
> rather the abnormal and unlikely, which is why they, the media and
> viewers, fixate on it.
>
> In all of my travels and work as a photojournalist I have found one
> commonality, people on a whole are good and tend not to do evil
> things. ?If it were the opposite I think the world would be a very
> different place, so people should stop living in fear and treating the
> world and those around them as though they are going to rob, rape, or
> kill them because of what they see on the 5 o'clock news. ?Be
> cautious, aware of your surroundings, and don't do stupid things and
> most likely you'll live a carefree life.
>
> </professional photojournalist>
>
> enjoy,
>
> -mmiller
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Robert Miller <arch3angel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > While I know this is going to boil down to it happened in a public place
> > stop my whining... but this still upsets me and I have no legal recourse WTF
> >
> > <rant>
> >
> > A few weeks back my son, 12 years old, was at the local library after
> > school working on the computer when a local newspaper reporter came in
> > and took pictures of the people in the library using its services. ?The
> > story was regarding the fact that my county is considering closing some
> > of the libraries. ?Now after the interviews were completed and the
> > pictures were taken, the reporter told my kid to tell his folks his
> > picture would be in the paper that coming Sunday. ?So as any parent who
> > gave a flying crap about their kid would pick the paper up to look at
> > the article. ?As said to my son his picture was nice and big with his
> > first and last name along with a little blurb about why he don't want
> > the library closed.
> >
> > At first this really pissed me off since my son is under age and no one
> > asked for my permission, let alone offer a business card or a means to
> > contact anything about the article. ?After a few days of mumbling, and
> > some deep investigation I found that I have ZERO legal recourse for this
> > happening so I rolled with the punch and picked my self up telling my
> > kid he displayed himself very well and expressed himself in his
> > statement like a young man should. ?Then it hit me...
> >
> > I was on the local newspapers website and noticed my son's picture in an
> > article, not written the same as the newspaper itself but still
> > displaying my son's picture, well now I get concerned and begin to do
> > some digging on the metadata (thanks larry) to find misc normal data but
> > nothing too detailed. ?Then it smacked me in the face like a truck load
> > of bricks! ?Those (stealing a statement from Jack's comments earlier
> > just because I can :-) ) "... monkey sodomizing rat bastards..." have my
> > son's picture posted on the website for sale. ?They are selling my son's
> > picture for profit, WHAT IN <many fool words omitted for John's safety>
> > gives these people the right to make a profit off my 12 year old son!
> >
> > Well I had sent an email to a well known photographer regarding this and
> > he consulted his lawyer only to find these newspaper organizations can
> > take the pictures of children and then sell them on their website as
> > "fine art", while I love my kid to death he is far from "fine art". ?The
> > response this person got from their attorney was that unless a local law
> > prohibits the taking of children pictures in public places and selling
> > them I have no leg to stand on, which I have faced the fact. ?It just
> > burns my butt that a child who knows no better, well didn't at the time,
> > was exploited to save a library and someone else NOT trying to raise the
> > money for the library is making a profit off this, no matter how small
> > that profit might be. ?The attorney said if you want privacy don't leave
> > your home, WHAT THE HELL IS THAT CRAP, he is a child! ?Does this mean a
> > child predator can sit 100 feet from a school and take pictures of
> > children walking home from school, throw up a website, call themselves a
> > freelance photographer, and sell these pictures as "fine art".
> >
> > We can borrow money from China and bail out businesses that made bad
> > choices but we can protect children from the basic protection of
> > exploitation for any reason, so long as that reason is a sad story of a
> > library closing and the newspaper can sell a couple prints.
> >
> > </rant>
> >
> > Sorry all this one just really hits me hard that a newspaper /
> > freelance photographer has all these freedoms to exploit citizens while
> > we fight to protect so much...
> >
> > - Robert
> > arch3angel
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com