Winogrand, Evans, et al, and the legalities of street shooting...

[flamingo]

So, Garry Winogrand, Walker Evans, Robert Frank, etc. published thousands of shots and sold countless prints in galleries for profit by anonymously "street shooting" people from all walks of life. And they did this without getting people's permission ?

What if, years later, you're in a Barnes and Noble thumbing through one of their books and you see a picture of yourself (or a family member or friend), clearly identifiable ? Does that person have the right to sue his estate, or if the photographer is still living, sue him ?

Or is it legal to publish and sell people's photographs in "art form", (note I say art form, not journalistic, or news form) without their permission as long as the photo is taken in a public place ?

Sounds like a tricky legal and ethical issue to me.

What are the legalities of "street shooting" and subsequent publication for personal profit ?

Or did Evans, Frank, and Winogrand chase people up the street after shooting their picture waving a model release asking them to sign ?
Seems highly unlikely, yes ?

To anyone's knowledge,has this topic ever been discussed regarding Garry Winogrand or for that matter, with Winogrand himself or any of the other famous published street photogs ?

I have always been curious about this, as I am sure many of you have. Seems to be one of those taboo topics nobody likes to discuss. Anyone ?

[kbg32]

This always a thorny issue. It depends on how the image will be used. It is legal to photograph anyone on the street. You just can't falsely represent who they are. Check out the PACA website for legal issues. www.pacaoffice.org (Picture Agency Council of America)
.
There was an instance some years ago, the cover of the NY Times magazine. A photographer photographed a man in a business suit walking around Wall Street for an article on black men working in finance. The man sucessfully sued the magazine. He was not a businessman and did not work in finance. He claimed he was falsely represented by the image.

Cheers,

Keith

[einolu]

Just an anecdote:

my sister would take the subway to school every day. one time we went to the harvard film archive where they have random art displayed. one of them was a photograph of her waiting for the subway, it was quite interesting.

who is going to sue in that situation and on what charges? if a person is in a public place I dont think there is any law saying you cant take their picture. I think release forms are more for models that you shoot in a studio, weddings you shoot on private property or advertising.

[gns]

I'm sure Winogrand never bothered with any form of consent or release. If you are working in public, well what's the definition of public? Not private. No need for release forms. At least in the past. Laws are always changing, though.

[Pherdinand]

[QUOTE=flamingoWhat if, years later, you're in a Barnes and Noble thumbing through one of their books and you see a picture of yourself (or a family member or friend), clearly identifiable ? Does that person have the right to sue his estate, or if the photographer is still living, sue him?[/QUOTE]

No,no,no. I have no right to sue anyone if i see my big ugly face in such a beautiful creation. Noone else should have the right to sue anyone, including the Queen of England (sorry brits, just a random picking). If someone is so handy that he makes money on taking my picture, good for him; I feel flattered and not robbed.

I have never understood this crazyness about sueing people. Today you can hear people sueing each other for every sh|t they think of. What's the result? Inscription on the coffee mug saying "warning: the content might be hot". It makes me feel stupid and think the whole society is stupid.

[Sean Reid]

Usage is the key to this. If the pictures are going to be used to sell anything (shaving cream, soda, etc.) then the recognizable people in them are effectively acting as models and model releases are needed. If the pictures are for exhibition and/or publication (non-commercial) then a release is not required. So Winogrand's non-commercial work needed no releases but his commercial work did. Photojournalism technically does not require releases, for example, but some magazines may ask for them anyway, depending on the picture, etc. And...nothing's iron clad and a judge or jury could make a surprising decision in spite of the law. For an excellent guide to this, see Bert Krage's info at: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Cheers,

Sean

[Pherdinand]

"The man sucessfully sued the magazine. He was not a businessman and did not work in finance. He claimed he was falsely represented by the image."

See, that's what I mean. The man found a backdoor (or, his lawyer did) and took the hard earned money of the magazine without any real harm happening to him.

[Justin Low]

What's the result? Inscription on the coffee mug saying "warning: the content might be hot". It makes me feel stupid and think the whole society is stupid.

Bravo! I agree. :)

[flamingo]

Okay, let's look at it for a moment from the subject's perspective.

Let's say Winogrand (or whoever) did take your photo in a public place, without your knowledge. You never signed any model release or permission to publish your image. By nature you are a very shy person and just don't like having your picture taken.

Now let's take it further. Let's just say that it was your[/B] expression or action in that photo that "made" the shot and Garry, or his agent, or Joe Blow whomever, decided in editing he was going to include it in his next book. Or, he decides to print a signed "limited edition" of 300 prints and gives them to his gallery agent to sell, who, let's say, gets $1,500 per print.

So, now, years later, Winogrand's estate, and the agent have made a combined total of four hundred and fifty large off of a photograph of you. You never knew anything about this, the fact that you were the subject of the said image and it was your image that in fact made it sell so well. Is this considered "commercial use" ?
I would think that "commercial use included any use that made a profit, no ?

I understand the right[B] of the photographer to take any photograph he/she wants to in a public place, but to reiterate, as Sean said above, "Usage is the key to this". If the photo sits in your private photo album or slide carousel at home for the next 50 years, fine. No harm done. Perfectly legal.

So if, in supposition[B], Winogrand, Evans, Frank, Friedlander, or even Cartier-Bresson for that matter, had been doing this for years, how were they able to do it ? How did they get away with it for so long ? Were they ever sued ? Or is it simply that, the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's were a different time, a different era, when society was not as litigious as today ?

[einolu]

But you were not used to sell anything. For example they didnt edit in a cigarette into your mouth or the like. People can look at you on the street and take pleasure in it if they wish, this is just taking that a bit further.

[RayPA]

...

So if, in supposition[B], Winogrand, Evans, Frank, Friedlander, or even Cartier-Bresson for that matter, had been doing this for years, how were they able to do it ? How did they get away with it for so long ? Were they ever sued ? Or is it simply that, the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's were a different time, a different era, when society was not as litigious as today ?

Walker Evans held onto his subway portraits for 20 years out of fear he would get sued, so I don't think the times have changed much. It was a concern back then, too. In reality you can sue (or atttempt to sue) anyone for anything. I think the reason why these photographers haven't been sued in the past is because it has been so difficult to set a precedent for it. Setting a precedent for a suit would open a can of worms. There really isn't any convincing argument to sue. Even the one you proffer it seems could easily be argued out of court.

Here check this one out and tell me if this person has grounds to sue:
Penny Wood (http://www.crackcocaineincamden.co.uk/pages/drugs/what%20crack%20can%20do%20for%20you/the%20results%20of%20meth.htm)

[Roger Hicks]

Depends on where you live.

Cheers,

Roger

[FrankS]

It's weird that on such a basic question, there is no answer. These photographers sold prints for profit, with images of people for which there are no model releases.

[Little Prince]

..."Inscription on the coffee mug saying "warning: the content might be hot". It makes me feel stupid and think the whole society is stupid."

Can't remember the number of times I have commented on this to other people. It's just funny. But when you see 'do not put children inside' on a washing machine, you start getting concerned :confused: . Only logical conclusion one can draw is that the IQ of the average person in our society is about that of a 3 year old. (note: that's not too bad if the average age is 3 years :) ). The bright side is I can consider myself a genius. Let alone children, I wasn't even going to put a dog inside the machine.

"People can look at you on the street and take pleasure in it if they wish, this is just taking that a bit further."

Ah! That keeps happening to me all the time :D . Only no one's taking it any further.

BTW, sorry for all the OT nonsense. It's a rainy day here and I'm bored.

[jan normandale]

I'm not a lawyer. Still the law usually settles issues by allocating some type of compensation usually money. If the defendant doesn't have deep pockets the matter usually ends up with a 'wrist slap' and don't do it again. If a lot of money is available then the game changes. Thats why McDonalds has a warning on coffee and the local diner doesn't.

It's all about money. Sorry.

Jan

[Pherdinand]

I know that the rules are different everywhere. What I was talking about is how I feel myself about somebody doin' it. Just moralities.
As said above, if it's in a derogatory way of course the subject has all the moral right to take the step.
But then, i would ask: There are stupid commercials involving children. Fifteen years later the grown-up kid might feel stupid that he/she played in such a commercial. I myself thought about it and I would feel stupid now if i was playing in the AH meet-check commercial (just an example) in place of the small girl. But what can SHE do about it? Her parents agreed, they have got some $ for it (i hope), but what about her?

And there are many more cases where the regulations, the laws make stg perfectly ok but i would question it morally. Participating in an average public street photo of a great photographer, I don't think it's one of them.

[Pherdinand]

And i don't mind about McDonalds being sued, not at all :D

[Pherdinand]

It's weird that on such a basic question, there is no answer. These photographers sold prints for profit, with images of people for which there are no model releases.

True, Frank. However, if my house burns down and I stand there outside in my underwear with smoke on my face, the evening news will be happy to show the images with or without my consent. They make big bucks out of it. AND, they show me in a not too flattering way. I'd still prefer to see myself at an exhibition of HCB instead of the evening news.

[Sean Reid]

So, now, years later, Winogrand's estate, and the agent have made a combined total of four hundred and fifty large off of a photograph of you. You never knew anything about this, the fact that you were the subject of the said image and it was your image that in fact made it sell so well. Is this considered "commercial use" ? I would think that "commercial use included any use that made a profit, no ?

I should have said in my first post that the law I'm referring to applies in the USA. With respect to USA laws, the usage you describe above is not commercial even though the prints and books, as art, may make money. But the moment someone uses a Winogrand photo to sell breakfast bars for busy people...commercial use begins. But again, this is the law as written (as I understand it having had to deal with these issues for many years). A judge or jury will sometimes make decisions that don't seem to follow the law as written.

Again, Bert Krages is a good resource for this.

Cheers,

Sean

[Pherdinand]

So, now, years later, Winogrand's estate, and the agent have made a combined total of four hundred and fifty large off of a photograph of you. You never knew anything about this, the fact that you were the subject of the said image and it was your image that in fact made it sell so well. Is this considered "commercial use" ?
I would think that "commercial use included any use that made a profit, no ?


No, i would disagree. If they made a pic out on the street and I'm on it, and it turns out to be such a good photo, even if because of me looking funny, that brought them hundreds of thousands, i say good for them. I will not try to go sue them to get "my share" of something I never worked for. My pure existence does not empower me to gain $ from everything it's related to me.

Now, if they took a photo of me in my home in that bubble bath with Milla Jovovich, that's another story:D (Sorry this idea comes back in my brain.) I'd probably pay for that photo myself.

[flamingo]

Walker Evans held onto his subway portraits for 20 years out of fear he would get sued, so I don't think the times have changed much. It was a concern back then, too. In reality you can sue (or atttempt to sue) anyone for anything. I think the reason why these photographers haven't been sued in the past is because it has been so difficult to set a precedent for it. Setting a precedent for a suit would open a can of worms. There really isn't any convincing argument to sue. Even the one you proffer it seems could easily be argued out of court.

Here check this one out and tell me if this person has grounds to sue:
Penny Wood (http://www.crackcocaineincamden.co.uk/pages/drugs/what%20crack%20can%20do%20for%20you/the%20results%20of%20meth.htm)

No. I would say she has no grounds to sue. She signed an agreement in return for reduced prison time.

And Ray you bring up a point. Walker Evans apparently took deliberate action and was welll aware of what he was doing (using peoples photos wothout their permission) for profit or fame. In other words, to put it bluntly, he was sneaky. Yes he used to rig a camera inside his coat with the lens poking through a buttonhole and using a shutter release, would seize the moment. Was it ethical ?

[aizan]

sure. the sneakiness was to get natural expressions.

[James Burton]

What's the result? Inscription on the coffee mug saying "warning: the content might be hot".

Tee hee hee. Put a DYMO sticker on the front of your camera saying

"WARNING: your likeness may appear in ART"

(add the word 'pseudo' if you suffer from lack of self-confidence like me.)

James

[RayPA]

No. I would say she has no grounds to sue. She signed an agreement in return for reduced prison time.

And Ray you bring up a point. Walker Evans apparently took deliberate action and was welll aware of what he was doing (using peoples photos wothout their permission) for profit or fame. In other words, to put it bluntly, he was sneaky. Yes he used to rig a camera inside his coat with the lens poking through a buttonhole and using a shutter release, would seize the moment. Was it ethical ?

On the Wood issue, I agree. I brought her situation up because I was discussing it the other night with some friends who felt she was misled. Apparently, (and this is not covered in THIS article) she was led to believe that her image would be used in a low-key fashion and only at some local drug treatment programs. The posters ended up being plastered all over her home town and are now out on the 'net, causing her public humiliation.

Her situation is not too far removed from images we might take and post here of a homless person or any other individual whose condition, or situation, when uploaded to a publically viewable website would cause them shame or humiliation. That picture that we took of that kissing couple on a park bench, who we thought created a romantic composition in our viewfinder, could in fact be a couple having a clandestine affair. If our posting that image here creates a catastrophic situation for one or both of them, are we liable. (I'm not asking for an answer—just adding a wrinkle to the discussion).

Anyway...good thread. :)

[TPPhotog]

....... And Ray you bring up a point. Walker Evans apparently took deliberate action and was welll aware of what he was doing (using peoples photos wothout their permission) for profit or fame. In other words, to put it bluntly, he was sneaky. Yes he used to rig a camera inside his coat with the lens poking through a buttonhole and using a shutter release, would seize the moment. Was it ethical ?I consider taking street shoots in public places as fair game as long as the pictures not not intended for commercial use as in advertising a product or to mis-represent those people in the picture.

Using a hidden camera is as un-ethical and immoral as hidden speed cameras. I always have my camera in full view, which I consider is fair game. If people don't want to be photographed they have the option to turn away or move out of shot.

I have many pictures stored and on use with the local photographic archive. They include the area and the people of the area. As such any pictures exhibited or sold are as pictures of the area even if one person is the focal point. Happily in the UK for the moment that is acceptable use.

[RayPA]

sure. the sneakiness was to get natural expressions.

Evans' situation is probably permissable for the above reason: artistic license (whatever that means!). It wasn't like he had a camera in his shoe looking for some upskirts shots. :)

[RayPA]

...Using a hidden camera is as un-ethical and immoral as hidden speed cameras. I always have my camera in full view, which I consider is fair game. If people don't want to be photographed they have the option to turn away or move out of shot....

How ethical is the "hip-shot" then? In this situation the camera is "pretending" to be unused, yet in plain view. The purpose of a hip-shot is really no different from a hidden camera.

[TPPhotog]

How ethical is the "hip-shot" then? In this situation the camera is "pretending" to be unused, yet in plain view. The purpose of a hip-shot is really no different from a hidden camera.Having tried it on one outing I came to the purely personal decision that it depends on the subject.

If it's to capture someone I know either for fun or to prove to them they are photogenic then it's acceptable. They also have the option of the print being used or not as part of my work.

If it's people I don't know then it doesn't feel right to me. I'd rather stand there in full view and grab the shot looking through the viewfinder. OK I accept that the action of taking the shot only gives people a couple of seconds, however on the other hand I'm doing it in full view.

Wise man says if you don't like being photographed beware of anyone with a camera in the street, especially tourists ;)

EDIT: I guess the real difference between a hip shot and a concealed camera is that if a camera is on view any idiot knows it can be used at any time. But with a concealed camera no-one knows the camera is even there.

[Little Prince]

I don't know, this is so touchy that I can't form a definitive opinion. In any case opinions were asked for so that's what I'll provide.

Ray, I know you didn't ask for an answer, but just my thoughts to serve as an example:

"That picture that we took of that kissing couple on a park bench, who we thought created a romantic composition in our viewfinder, could in fact be a couple having a clandestine affair. If our posting that image here creates a catastrophic situation for one or both of them, are we liable."

If it was clandestine and they didn't want to risk exposure (no pun intended), they should have taken due care. If they pursued it in public, well they're game. I'm not being a jerk here. I feel my argument is valid because we aren't in any position to make a judgement on these people (in terms of right or wrong). To put it very abstractly, if they were right (whatever that means) we shouldn't be risking their situation and if they were wrong (again abstraction) we should be. This particular example may seem dodgy. Instead consider a criminal act in progress that you have the chance to shoot. Should you or should you not? Then remove yourself to a case where an act is being performed that may be criminal or may not (depending on data that you have no access to). A random example is a person withdrawing some money from a safe. The man may be the owner of the money or not. You don't know. There is an analogy here with the couple.

What I'm trying to say is that often these things are subjective and dependent upon such abstract notions as right and wrong which may vary from person to person. It is precisely to remove such subjectivity that some rules (laws) exist. Therefore, we would all be making it much less chaotic if we just stuck to the laws (assuming they were formed in the right way). Hence, if the law says you can shoot in public and so forth, go for it (if you have the guts - me, I don't/ haven't had so far). If you are able to remove self-doubt and stick by your lawfully defined right, you're not being a jerk.

I hope I didn't come off as too argumentative. It's just that discussing these things makes it all sound too serious. There's no easy way of dealing with some things.

[canonetc]

INteresting how releases of the basic kind enable photographers to license the photo to anyone for anything, including Hustler, Apple or Kentucky Fried Chicken. Public Domain means public, but the "public" know little to nothing about photographer's rights or their own. Takes research. Okay, aside from the obvious, an example such as Steve McCurry and National Geographic making megabucks on the Agfhan orphan photo is an interesting one too. He later (either from guilt or simply for a good story idea) tracked the girl, now a grown woman, down and then he establlished a "fund" to help with women's education, I believe. So, he gave back......eventually.......

I think if you became a "big" name artist, the persons photographed in the street/public would not only want a print, but would brag to their friends.. "I was photographed by so-and-so, and he/she is famous!"

We're in the world. if you don't want to be photographed, then don't leave your house. We're watched all the time anyway. I find it interesting people will complain about being photographed on the street, but don't say a thing about how often they are violated by simply surfing the web (personal info, identity theft, marketing studies, etc). Big disconnect! They/we accept that as, "well...that's just the way it is.....". How confused is that!?!

cheers,

chris
canonetc

[jan normandale]

Random thoughts

1 I recently watched a short documentary on cameras in public space, specifically to monitor and record all people in the range of the lens. Obviously the companies and owners don’t care what I think about my rights.

2 I take a picture and randomly capture someone’s image. I don’t make a fortune, probably they will never care or notice. I take a picture and randomly capture someone’s image and make a fortune. I’m not a professional. I get a letter. I either retract the pix or agree to some compensation that is ‘normal’ for a pro model. I can handle that.

3 I take a picture and randomly capture someone’s image. They are doing something visible in public. They are ‘embarrassed’ or ‘caught’. I am/was not the only one to have been present. They have engaged in risky behaviour. I’m not on the line for their acts, they are.

So go take a picture. If you want to make money ask for permission and a release. If not post on the web. Pay if you make money, don’t if you don’t.
Retract if asked or settle.

My daughter who is in documentary film advises that now there are so many permission issues even for amateur film makers based on these issues that many are going to throw in the towel until this economic / legal freeze is resolved. The arts are losing to corporate commoditization of public property.

To Quote Big Boy Caprice ‘Upsetting…’

[Heath]

Tee hee hee. Put a DYMO sticker on the front of your camera saying

"WARNING: your likeness may appear in ART"

(add the word 'pseudo' if you suffer from lack of self-confidence like me.)

James

Better still, put that slogan on a T-shirt.

Heath

[TPPhotog]

Better still, put that slogan on a T-shirt.

HeathAt first glance I laughed at this one, but on second thoughts I like the idea. "Warning Aspiring Street Artist At Work". Might even bring a smile to some of the people being shot ;)

[James Burton]

At first glance I laughed at this one, but on second thoughts I like the idea. "Warning Aspiring Street Artist At Work". Might even bring a smile to some of the people being shot ;)


Or even just "Watch my aspiration" ... for the t-shirt you know.


James

[taffer]

Now, if they took a photo of me in my home in that bubble bath with Milla Jovovich, that's another story:D (Sorry this idea comes back in my brain.)

Hey ! You too !? Geesh !!! :p

We're in a world where somebody falls on the street and the first thing he/she thinks about is to demand somebody else. We always want a responsible. We demand the photographer that took that photo but we know that our personal information is used in thousands of databases and bomb us with advertisings and we agree with that and say nothing.

I'm sorry but if I had to think about all the possible legal/ethical problems when taking a picture, I'd rather be leaving the lens cap on and moving to another field like flower photography or something. And that would be until somebody would come up with a ban for environmental reasons.

"W.ww.w.what !? Did you take my picture !!?"
"No. I just captured some of the fotons you were reflecting"

:p

[kbg32]

From: http://www.answers.com/topic/street-photography


Legalities

Your rights as a Street Photographer

General

Photographing without permission

In the United States, anything visible ("in plain view") from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices, and images. It is not uncommon for security personnel to use intimidation or other tactics to attempt to stop the photographer from photographing their facilities (trying to prevent, e.g., industrial espionage), however there is no legal precedent to prevent the photographer so long as the image being photographed is in plain view of a public area.

On public property

See above.

Publication

In general, you can not publish someone's image to endorse a product or service without first acquiring a "model release," which is (usually) a contract between the publisher or photographer and the subject.

Defamation

It is somewhat difficult to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which a photograph, by itself, would be defamatory, since the key element of defamation is falsity. Perhaps if a person was photographed in such a way that made them appear to be engaging in some indecent activity, it could qualify as defamatory. Digital editing of photographs certainly opens the floodgates for defamation because it is easy to turn a formerly "true" photograph into one that does not depict anything near the truth.

Invasion of Privacy

In 1890, Samuel Warren and future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis published "The Right to Privacy," which made their case for recognition of invasion of privacy as a legal tort.

Fifteen years later, in the case Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Company, a Georgia court was the first to rule on the balance between the right to privacy over freedom of the press, when it found that Mr Pavesich had been wronged by the appearance of an unauthorized advertisement in which his photograph appeared. The court at that time ruled that commercial usage did not have the same press protections as other forms of use.

Earlier, in 1893, the case Corliss v. Walker had set the related precedent that non-commercial use, in this case an unauthorized biography, was indeed an example where press freedom's inherent public interest could not be overruled by the right to privacy. These two cases along with the abovementioned "The Right to Privacy" have become the basis for almost all US law with respect to the balance between freedom of expression and individual privacy.

Some other restrictions of photography exist in the US, but most have to do with either commercial use of a space (such as forbidding photography inside a private building) or national security (such as restrictions on airport security areas or military installations).

Also have a look at http://www.photopermit.org/

Cheers,

Keith

[sooner]

Great thread, but I feel compelled to make a couple of points:

1) The McDonalds hot coffee case is not as absurd as it sounds. Apparently McDo served coffee so hot that it would cause third degree burns within 3 seconds, and knew it, and continued doing so after receiving countless complaints, so the jury slapped a big punitive damages award on them to make them care about burning people for no good reason. Now, their coffee is just so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns within half a minute--or plenty of time to do something about spilled coffee.

2) Warnings are only required when there is a danger that is not open and obvious or known to the "reasonable person." What is reasonable is subjective, of course, meaning what does a judge and jury consider reasonable. Most companies post warnings even where it is obvious just to be safe, legally speaking. But many do so after ignoring many complaints and reports of problems.

Sorry to be so serious and non-photography related here, but I'm only reacting to some cavalier attitudes on this thread about "frivolous" lawsuits. Most are not so frivolous, and the alternative seems to be Congress restricting our rights to sue big companies that would rather keep making an unsafe product than spend an extra dime to make it safe.

[T_om]

Great thread, but I feel compelled to make a couple of points:

1) The McDonalds hot coffee case is not as absurd as it sounds...


Well, yes... it IS as absurd as it sounds. The lady involved played the jury lotto and won.


... served coffee so hot that it would cause third degree burns within 3 seconds, and knew it, and continued doing so after receiving countless complaints


"Countless" complaints. Please. This is pure hyperbole and exaggeration.

In the trial it came to light that McDonald's had received 730 TOTAL complaints during a ONE YEAR period. Do you have any idea how many cups of coffee McD's serves in a year? Do you have any idea what percentage of coffee sold the 730 complaints about it being too hot represent? 730 'too hot' complaints is statistically as important as a pimple on the ass of a flea biting an elephant.



...so the jury slapped a big punitive damages award on them to make them care about burning people for no good reason

"No good reason"? Do you know why the coffee was that hot to begin with? Apparently you think it was deliberately aimed at burning some old bat that was stupid enough to put a cup of hot coffee between her legs and open it in a moving vehicle. Do you seriously believe this? Your flippant "make them care" remark shows the bias in your attitude about this. Hate big corporations, do you?

The jury took one look at the old lady, felt sorry for her, and believed her lawyer when he framed the whole lawsuit as an attack against a "huge" corporation that could afford to pay for this nonsense. They swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker.

This was not only a frivolous lawsuit, it was the poster child of frivolous lawsuits and is now being taught to every up and coming ambulance chaser shyster in every law school in the world.

Get rich quick. Play the jury lotto. You have a MUCH better chance winning the jury lotto than the megabucks drawings.

Tom

[flamingo]

From: http://www.answers.com/topic/street-photography


Legalities

Your rights as a Street Photographer

General

Photographing without permission

In the United States, anything visible ("in plain view") from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices, and images. It is not uncommon for security personnel to use intimidation or other tactics to attempt to stop the photographer from photographing their facilities (trying to prevent, e.g., industrial espionage), however there is no legal precedent to prevent the photographer so long as the image being photographed is in plain view of a public area.

On public property

See above.

Publication

In general, you can not publish someone's image to endorse a product or service without first acquiring a "model release," which is (usually) a contract between the publisher or photographer and the subject.

Defamation

It is somewhat difficult to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which a photograph, by itself, would be defamatory, since the key element of defamation is falsity. Perhaps if a person was photographed in such a way that made them appear to be engaging in some indecent activity, it could qualify as defamatory. Digital editing of photographs certainly opens the floodgates for defamation because it is easy to turn a formerly "true" photograph into one that does not depict anything near the truth.

Invasion of Privacy

In 1890, Samuel Warren and future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis published "The Right to Privacy," which made their case for recognition of invasion of privacy as a legal tort.

Fifteen years later, in the case Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Company, a Georgia court was the first to rule on the balance between the right to privacy over freedom of the press, when it found that Mr Pavesich had been wronged by the appearance of an unauthorized advertisement in which his photograph appeared. The court at that time ruled that commercial usage did not have the same press protections as other forms of use.

Earlier, in 1893, the case Corliss v. Walker had set the related precedent that non-commercial use, in this case an unauthorized biography, was indeed an example where press freedom's inherent public interest could not be overruled by the right to privacy. These two cases along with the abovementioned "The Right to Privacy" have become the basis for almost all US law with respect to the balance between freedom of expression and individual privacy.

Some other restrictions of photography exist in the US, but most have to do with either commercial use of a space (such as forbidding photography inside a private building) or national security (such as restrictions on airport security areas or military installations).

Also have a look at http://www.photopermit.org/

Cheers,

Keith

Flamingo here, the starter of this interesting moral, ethical, and legal discussion. I must say I am glad to see the wide range of responses that I knew this thread would incite. Stimulation of the brain is good, as well as seeing everyone's viewpoints.

So do I understand correctly ? These are Federal LAWS and cases, Keith, that you cite above ?
So not only was Winogrand, Evans, et al, acting in an unethical manner with their sneaky "ambush" tactics, but by not obtaining proper signed model releases they were also breaking the law, as is any other photographer who acts in a similar manner today.

Once again, as I mentioned earlier, and going back to the gist of my original question, is not the simple act of a photographer publishing, marketing, and selling a book of his street photographs as "art" taken of people without their permission, whether the photos were taken in public or not, isn't that act in and of itself considered endorsing a product, as specified in the "Publication" clause, that Keith quotes above ?

[RayPA]

...is not the simple act of a photographer publishing, marketing, and selling a book of his street photographs as "art" taken of people without their permission, whether the photos were taken in public or not, isn't that act in and of itself considered endorsing a product, as specified in the "Publication" clause, that Keith quotes above ?

I would say that it is obviously not.

[sooner]

Tom,

We agree on one thing, and that's the notion that most juries are incapable of analyzing complex sets of facts and "playing the jury" is the result, a crap shoot. But I disagree with several of your points, and the vehemence with which you make them and accuse me of bias suggests you aren't coolly neutral here. Hit a hot button, did I?

-- 730 complaints may not be countless but it's a lot. Why should it matter what percentage this is of total cups of coffee sold? If someone reported a gas leak in a McDo restaurant, and the management ignored it for a year until it exploded, would you still say 730 was an insignificant number? The point is someone should have realized there was a problem and they should just set the microwave down a few seconds.

-- I don't hate corporations or think they do these things on purpose, at least regarding the coffee. But they do make cost-benefit analysis decisions about safety features, and have been known to compromise safety for a few dollars or even cents saved. Corporations also tend to be impersonal, making it harder to force corporate officials to take action. And it's well known corporations don't promote and give bonuses to the guys looking out for the consumer, even if it costs a few more bucks. Quite the contrary....

-- My "make them care" remark only meant that punitive damages are assessed to punish for willful, wrongful actions, and the bigger the corporation the more money it takes to make them care (see point above, it's all about the bottom line). One criterion for how much damages to award is size and ability to pay.

Lastly, the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits go out fairly quickly in a motion for dismissal or summary judgment, way before it gets to a jury, so your panicked notion of a coming tidal wave of suits from this McDo coffee business is overblown.

Have a great day.

[kbg32]

I would agree with Ray. It is not endorsing a product. I was trying to clarify this by citing some examples and pointing you towards information on the net that is available for these issues.

If you photographed for stock, even for editorial usages, most agencies would not take the images into their collection without a model release. We live in a litigious society in litigious times. People will take avantage anyway they can.

Keith

[aizan]

So not only was Winogrand, Evans, et al, acting in an unethical manner with their sneaky "ambush" tactics, but by not obtaining proper signed model releases they were also breaking the law, as is any other photographer who acts in a similar manner today.

Once again, as I mentioned earlier, and going back to the gist of my original question, is not the simple act of a photographer publishing, marketing, and selling a book of his street photographs as "art" taken of people without their permission, whether the photos were taken in public or not, isn't that act in and of itself considered endorsing a product, as specified in the "Publication" clause, that Keith quotes above ?

Taking street photos to publish a work of art is not illegal. It's not endorsing a product in an advertisement, and the photos in a photo book aren't endorsing themselves, are they? :) They don't need model releases because their subjects aren't models in a legal sense. They're "models" in an artistic sense, which is where you're getting confused.

[Sean Reid]

There's nothing unethical in the way that Evans or Winogrand worked.

Sean

[T_om]

Tom,

We agree on one thing, and that's the notion that most juries are incapable of analyzing complex sets of facts and "playing the jury" is the result, a crap shoot. But I disagree with several of your points, and the vehemence with which you make them and accuse me of bias suggests you aren't coolly neutral here. Hit a hot button, did I?


Guilty as charged. You sure did hit a hot button.

It is hot because it is thrown into my face every day in the form of higher prices charged simply to ensure there is enough money available in case companies lose the lawyer lotto. It is easily thrown in everyone's face when they read all the nonsense legal jargon and stupidly obvious "safety" warning on everything from ladders to aspirin bottles. Lawyers effectively killed general aviation in this country and the businesses and jobs disappeared along with the industry.

A legal system that allows unscrupulous shysters to profit by displaying injured morons to juries (who in many cases are themselves below average in intelligence) in a circus atmosphere is broken.

But enough. This is thread hijacking and I'm done.

Tom

[kbg32]

There's nothing unethical in the way that Evans or Winogrand worked.

Sean

Absolutely!

or Klein, Friedlander, Faurer, etc. !


Keith

[kiev4a]

No matter what the current law, I think you will see it change in the next few years. One reason is picture phones. Some states already are drafting legislation to prevent phone users from shooting photos of people out in general public unless that person is aware they are being photographed--the charge being such action is an invasion of privacy. What is the difference between a picture phone and a camera? Nothing, really.

People are becoming more aware that their privacy is being attacked in a multitude of ways.

When I was a newspaper photographer 30 years ago our general rule was there was no problem with shooting any event that qualified as news that occurred in public because anyone passing on the street could see the same scene as the photographer. But even then we were cautious about shooting photos of people just minding their own business in public or shooting and publishing photos of specific residences unless they figured prominently in a news story.

Frankly I don't have a problem with limiting photography in general public without the person's permission (if they are identifiable). I also believe you should have to get that permission before taking the photo. (fire away, boys) Maybe it would be a good first step in restablishing the rights of individuals to some privacy.

Taking pictures of anybody, anytime, isn't a god-given right. I think when we thump our chests and claim it a Constitutional freedom we look awfully full of ourselves.

[flamingo]

No matter what the current law, I think you will see it change in the next few years. One reason is picture phones. Some states already are drafting legislation to prevent phone users from shooting photos of people out in general public unless that person is aware they are being photographed--the charge being such action is an invasion of privacy. What is the difference between a picture phone and a camera? Nothing, really.

People are becoming more aware that their privacy is being attacked in a multitude of ways.

When I was a newspaper photographer 30 years ago our general rule was there was no problem with shooting any event that qualified as news that occurred in public because anyone passing on the street could see the same scene as the photographer. But even then we were cautious about shooting photos of people just minding their own business in public or shooting and publishing photos of specific residences unless they figured prominently in a news story.

Frankly I don't have a problem with limiting photography in general public without the person's permission (if they are identifiable). I also believe you should have to get that permission before taking the photo. (fire away, boys) Maybe it would be a good first step in restablishing the rights of individuals to some privacy.

Taking pictures of anybody, anytime, isn't a god-given right. I think when we thump our chests and claim it a Constitutional freedom we look awfully full of ourselves.

Thank you Kiev4a. I agree with your view of things. Nitpicking the legalities aside, I believe that the decent, moral and ethical way to approach street shooting WITH THE INTENT TO PUBLISH OR PRINT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT is to get the subject's signed permission to use their image. Anybody who did it otherwise, "Artiste" or not, IMHO, was simply taking the lazy, cheap, antisocial way out. And all you "chest thumpers" out there who say otherwise, let's see how different you may react if you walked into MOMA one day or some art gallery and there was a 20 X 30 framed print of you hanging on the wall taken 5, 10, or 20 years ago and if you requested a copy of the print, you might rudely be told,
"Sure, you want a print of that picture of you ? That will be $2,500 for a 16 X 20.
Will that be cash, check or charge ?"

[RayPA]

... And all you "chest thumpers" out there who say otherwise, ...

ok...way to end your thread. nice.

[aizan]

yowch. chest thumpers everywhere. :D

recently there was a nyt story on diane arbus. her estate gave some subjects prints valued at $15,000 or something. i'm sure others have done the same, but it's just being generous. while their image is being used to make money, artists are protected by fair use to publish books, exhibit galleries, and sell prints. an artistic practice is a business, all the way from sole proprietorship to corporation, and have to be protected. the laws are different for photojournalists working for newspapers and magazines, which is where you might need model releases. as mentioned earlier, you need model releases for things like advertising and stock photography.

you may not realize this, but being in public is one of the most social things to do. the antisocial thing is to create legal bubbles to shut out society. what would you have us do, travel the streets in steel balls?

[flamingo]

you may not realize this, but being in public is one of the most social things to do. the antisocial thing is to create legal bubbles to shut out society. what would you have us do, travel the streets in steel balls?[/QUOTE]


Ah-h-h-hhh, now I see. So Walker Evans was being very social by hiding his camera under an overcoat on the NYC Subway system for years, clandestinely snapping pictures of unknowing subjects, and then waiting 20 years to publish the photos, for fear of being sued.
And that wasn't a subtle form of antisocial behaviour, perhaps even bordering on some type of perverse harassment ?

So let me see if I understand you.
The rights of the street photographer to publish and exhibit for profit supercede the right of privacy of the individual.

Please correct me if I'm reading you wrong.

I seem to remember a case in the courts say about 30 or 35 years ago, entitled "Gallella vs. Onassis". It was an extreme case of Right to Privacy of the individual vs. The Photographer's right shoot in public, but nonetheless, the courts and the jury sided with the right to privacy of the individual.

[back alley]

So let me see if I understand you.
The rights of the street photographer to publish and exhibit for profit supercede the right of privacy of the individual.

i'll correct you!
every time we step outside we are giving up some right to privacy, yes.
how could we not?
in your system of thought we would all be subject to jail time or time with our preachers for sneaking a shot of someone.
that's not even practical. law enforcement can't keep up now, imagine the photo police trying to...

joe

[kiev4a]

Legislation and new laws aren't the answer to everything. The problem could be solved by "street photographer" excercising what used to be called common courtesy. Unfortunately, courtesy isn't what it used to be. Everyone suffers because of individuals who use their cameras--be they Leicas or cell phones --to be vouyers rather than artists. Today you can be sitting on a park bench, absentmindedly stick your finger up your nose and five minutes later internet users all over the world can be laughing at the picture. The fact that you are in a public place doesn't mean you should be subject to that sort of ridicule.

"Chest Thumping?" Sorry about the term but I believe it fits when it comes to today's media issues. The chest thumping has been going on since ever since journalism schools started trying to make ever student the next Woodward or Bernstein. "The public's "right to know" is probably one of the most abused terms in the English language and the term media types always fall back on when someone tries to put some reasonable limits on their power. But at least in most cases the journalists are going after public figures--people who chose to put themselves in the limelight and then complain when the exposure is negative rather than positive.

The man or woman or child walking down the street, or visiting the zoo may be in public but they aren't "public figures" in a journalist sense. The act of stepping outside your home shouldn't mean you give up your rights to a certain amount of privacy.

[back alley]

i'm not talking papparazi type invasion here or holding people up for ridicule. i will not shoot the 'standard' homeless man shots, that is part of my ethic and my choice when out on the street.

but that lovely woman & child at the zoo is fair game for my 'art' as they become figures in public when out & about.

joe

[kiev4a]

i'm not talking papparazi type invasion here or holding people up for ridicule. i will not shoot the 'standard' homeless man shots, that is part of my ethic and my choice when out on the street.

but that lovely woman & child at the zoo is fair game for my 'art' as they become figures in public when out & about.

joe


Joe:

See. You are exercising "common courtesy." Unfortunately a lot of people don't. And there's nothing wrong with shooting a mother and kid at the zoo if they are made aware they have been photographed (maybe see if they would like to receive a print).

[back alley]

it's the making them aware part that we disagree.
that would completely kill the spontanaity of the shot.
if i'm 'caught' i usually try to save the situation with a smile and a nod to my camera 'asking' for permission to shoot but i reaaly would rather not.

take the shot and move on, that's how i like to work.
joe

[gns]

I'll repeat myself. Public means - Not private. Look it up.

We live a lot of our lives in public and hence, must put up with the behaviors, actions, etc. of others to some degree. That's inevitable. I guess society willl always be changing what is considered acceptable and what is not.

If someone takes my picture in public and makes money off of it, great for them. Who has time to worry about it. If that picture makes me look bad (say I'm scratching my butt), well- I WAS scratching my butt. I just don't see what the big deal is.

For some real entertaining thoughts on this stuff, look up Fran Liebowitz and her views on smoking bans.

Happy shooting (and watch out where you scratch your butt).

Cheers.

[flamingo]

i'll correct you!
every time we step outside we are giving up some right to privacy, yes.
how could we not?
in your system of thought we would all be subject to jail time or time with our preachers for sneaking a shot of someone.
that's not even practical. law enforcement can't keep up now, imagine the photo police trying to...

joe

So, you're correcting me now, joe ? Sorry Teach, it won't happen again....teheehee.

And no, the "system of thought" you portray me of having is incorrect, joe. I don't recall mentioning anything about jail time or going to confess to our preacher.....

I am all for street photography. Capturing the moment in a candid way is indeed a gift of the talented shooter. That's why we are all here, yes ? My simple point follows and I believe I as well as other people have said it in one form or another several times during the course of this thread. I agree precisely with Kiev4a's point of view.

And that is, out of common courtesy to a fellow human, ask for their signed permission to use their photo in the future, AFTER the moment has been seized. If the picture is going to sit in your slide tray for the next 20 years with nobody but your family and friends viewing it ocasionnally, no harm done, no permission necessary.
That is what I would categorize as a "snapshot".

However, by being social with the person and perhaps offering them a free print, or simply a dollar bill, or a future signed copy of my book (if their picture makes it's way into the book), then in my opinion, that it is the DECENT thing to do.


I am not against shooting a person's picture in public.
Indeed, I make my living in the television news business.
I do still photography strictly as a hobby as an outlet for my creativity,probably just like most of us here.

I do believe that true journalists and the media should have a seperate set of rules since, in most news stories, the public's best interest does outweigh the individual's right to privacy. That's why we have News Directors, Editorial Directors (in the case of print), and Producers making those decisions on a daily basis. The general public has no idea how much gory, sensationalistic footage actually does end up on the cutting room floor. Then on the opposite extreme, there are the "tabloid" TV shows that are simply making a quick buck simply on the basis of sensationalism and exploitation, a la papparazzi. In some cases this can also be downright dangerous. Look at what happened to Princess Di because of the bloodthirsty Packwolves.....

However, in a professional business environment there are and should be ethics involved as well as legalities both in television news as well as print news as well as , say, the future Garry Winogrand or Walker Evans or Robert Frank or HCB, that is in regard to shooting one's photo in public without permission to publish or sell it for personal gain.
In the case of those particular photographers, what was served other than to put money in the photographer's pocket as well as to feed their own ego and create fame for themselves ?

[gns]

[In the case of those particular photographers, what was served other than to put money in the photographer's pocket as well as to feed their own ego and create fame for themselves ?]

Uhm? - they created some great art?

[flamingo]

[In the case of those particular photographers, what was served other than to put money in the photographer's pocket as well as to feed their own ego and create fame for themselves ?]

Uhm? - they created some great art?

Here, I'll publish a book of my snapshots I took over the past 20 years and get myself an agent and sell it and call it "art". NOT.

Art, shmart.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you like the work, then by all means buy it and good luck with it !!! Buono Fortuno !!!

Yes, no doubt Garry Winogrand was a brilliant street shooter, HCB had great vision, no doubt. I love those guys' work. But I open the book, "Many Are Called", by Walker Evans, and you know what I see ? I see a coward who was out to make a quick buck. I don't see any artistic vision there. That's my opinion.
It looked to me like exactly what it was. A Voyeur with a camera hidden behind his overcoat and a shutter release up his sleeve clicking "snapshots". The mere fact that it took 20 years to publish says something....

[back alley]

so, flamingo, this work that you do in tv journalism, is it volunteer work or do you get paid?

your statements confuse me as they seem contradictory. it's ok for the public's best interest (as determined by who?) to outweigh privacy rights but not for me the casual shooter who might put a book together and sell it?
and i'm sure all those editors are thinking only of the best interest of us all and not ratings or selling soap.
balderdash my friend!
joe

[RayPA]

In the case of those particular photographers, what was served other than to put money in the photographer's pocket as well as to feed their own ego and create fame for themselves ?

The work of Winogrand and Evans are not only invaluable record of the times, but monumental works of art in photography. In the case of Walker Evans' subway shots, his work is an advancement in the argument/discussion of portraiture. The hidden camera was integral to his concept and pursuit of real, honest portraiture, the type diameterically opposite of say Penn or Avedon (who came much later, I know). That concept was fairly unique for the time. He set out with this premise in mind when he tucked his camera into his coat (for anyone interested get the Evans book, The Hungry Eye—excellent and inspiring).

I understand your argument. However, when I look at the photo on the cover of the Winongrand book "The Man in the Crowd" (IIRC) and think that Winogrand would have had to chase down every person in that image to get permission, I groan, and thank someone/something for the fact that there is some practicality and commonsense that allows such images to be published.

I think Karen Nakamura at Photoethnography(.com) advocates asking permission intially, prior to snapping a picture, for her academic work. That's her approach. You should check out her site.

[gns]

Well Flamingo, you asked. But I agree with you that's not really the point. Whether it is good art or bad art or not art does not matter.

The bottom line is that I think we should all have the right to do what we please in public as long as it does not harm others. I guess that's the can of worms... defining harm to others,
but I don't think taking a picture of someone and publishing it in a book does any real harm to them. Now maybe you can come up with some special circumstances that I would concede on, but for the most part I don't see any problem.

[flamingo]

[QUOTE=backalley photo]so, flamingo, this work that you do in tv journalism, is it volunteer work or do you get paid?

I did say, "joe", that I make my LIVING in the television news business, as I have for the past 23 years. What does that tell you ? For some reason I detect a very thinly veiled attempt at a character assassination here in your past 2 comments directed at me from you.

You wouldn't happen to be a registered Republican now, would you ?(double rimshot). Ohhh.. Geez I forgot. You're the moderator here, so you hold the power to cut me off. Forgive me.. Please.

[kiev4a]

Probably time to let this thread lie for awhile.

This should put to rest and claims that the Rangefinder forum is made up of folks who never disagree. Life would be pretty dull if nobody had an opinion.

[back alley]

flamingo,

i'd never cut you off for engaging in a reasonable discussion.
no assination attempt either, just really bad sarcasm.

i was talking about profiting from photography and how in art/news/hobby there can be profit made.

and living in canada i no longer belong to any american based political parties.
i can tell you this, i vote every election and watch as many talking heads as possible on both sides of the border.

i like this discussion, i just happen to think i'm right and you are wrong.
likely you feel the same in reverse.

joe

[flamingo]

flamingo,

i'd never cut you off for engaging in a reasonable discussion.
no assination attempt either, just really bad sarcasm.

i was talking about profiting from photography and how in art/news/hobby there can be profit made.

and living in canada i no longer belong to any american based political parties.
i can tell you this, i vote every election and watch as many talking heads as possible on both sides of the border.

i like this discussion, i just happen to think i'm right and you are wrong.
likely you feel the same in reverse.

joe

Well thanks, no hard feelings.
Yes it was interesting and I agree once again with Kiev4a that maybe we should let sleeping dogs lie. Fortunately, someone else shares my viewpoint !

[kiev4a]

Let's not get into dogs. I could give you soome real biased opinions on beagles and why they should be genetically modified so they can't live past age 10:)

[back alley]

i love my border collie!

joe

[kiev4a]

Obviously off topic but the best dog we ever had was a border collie. Our daughters considered her a sister when they were growing up. No other dog we have had has come close -- especially the beagle!!

[back alley]

my only problem is it's kind of embarassing having a dog that's smarter than i am...

joe

[gns]

I too had a beagle (as a kid). That thing was always running off.
Now happy with a GSP.

[Little Prince]

You have a Border Collie? That's very :cool:. A friend of mine has a German Shepherd that I'm on great terms with. Manhandle her all the time (for that fur) and she's totally cool with it. When I do get that scanner and fix that camera, I will make sure to post a pic.

[hinius]

In 18 months I've taken hundreds, if not thousands of photos of people in the street. And never once have I asked someone for permission (while I've had maybe half a dozen people ask me to take their photograph). With regard to Walker Evans in the subway, have the "chest thumpers" considered that he might have wanted to capture people in the moment, and avoid another one of those genteel, dull, posed and self-concious portraits that infest the world of photography as it is? That he might have, god forbid, wanted to take a good photograph?

I'm sorry if I come off sounding rather strong and indignant, but the act of asking anyone and everyone in public for permission before taking their photograph is at an artistic level, patently absurd. You can see some of my better photographs here (http://pbase.com/hinius/favourites) , you can argue about the legailty, invasiveness and voyeuristic nature of them, but there's one thing I can almost certainly guarantee, they're a hell of a lot better than you could ever do. And if you end up living in a society where permission must be asked for and granted in every case, that's as good a reason as any to pick up sticks and move to a better country!

[aizan]

kiev4a:
I also believe you should have to get that permission before taking the photo.

flamingo:
Thank you Kiev4a. I agree with your view of things. Nitpicking the legalities aside, I believe that the decent, moral and ethical way to approach street shooting WITH THE INTENT TO PUBLISH OR PRINT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT is to get the subject's signed permission to use their image.
[...]
And that is, out of common courtesy to a fellow human, ask for their signed permission to use their photo in the future, AFTER the moment has been seized.

Although I don't see the need to get permission either way for artistic purposes, I'm glad that you have some appreciation for candid photography by asking for a release afterwards. What I don't get, then, is why you don't like Evan's "Many Are Called", for example. That's candid portraiture at its best, documenting people and their emotions without bias, the likes of which had never been seen before. His delaying publication for 20 years (to avoid being sued is an allegation I'm not sure about to begin with) means he preserved their anonymity and privacy for a good long while, doesn't it? And he didn't make any money until then. Slow bucks...very, very slow.

Don't forget his work for the FSA, either. He's always worked to reveal human nature and the landscape of American society.

I'd guess you much prefer the approach David Alan Harvey uses. Roughly paraphrasing, he creates a life somewhere, then photographs that life. Everyone he photographs is basically his friend, or part of the community he has temporarily joined. Just understand that it's not the only social, ethical way to photograph people.

[Pherdinand]

Hinius, you are some real good photos in the gallery you've linked.

If somebody's interested, also the in=public gallery is great (www.in-public.com) .

I don't think one has to ask for permission when doing street photography. Common sense should tell people when NOT to take a photo. It happened to me at a large gathering that I did not take a photo of a certain person in a certain environment because of the sign she made to me when i pointed the camera on her. Pity, for sure, but i don't like to push things.

[flamingo]

Something of interest I came across as a footnote to this long and tiring thread, regarding Winogrand's shooting style. Written by a former student of one of his workshops:
http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/xtol1.html