I recently had an interesting discussion with a person who had some very strict views concerning taking photos of people. I am wondering if anyone knows of any books or sources on the Internet that deals with this subject. I did a thorough search of all the topics this person mentioned and didn't find anything that related to our discussion.

This person said a person could instantly be arrested for simply taking a photo of someone with out their or the legal gardian signing a release. I've heard that people can be sued in certain cases but I've never known that it was cause for imediate arrest and distruction of cameras and film as this person insisted.

Bobby.

Maybe in Iran or someplace; definitely not in the US, unless posted otherwise.

Not in Portugal either, but there might be some countries that it is possible.

This person went even further to state that if someone took a photo of another person and got a release, I, or a portrat artist, still had to get a release from the person in the photo, even if I got permission from the photographer, in order for me to legally draw the portrait of the person in the photo.

I tried to get this person to tell me where I could get documentation of these laws but they simply said they had taught phography for so many years and knew the law.

I didn't debate the issue with this lady. And I didn't take her photo either.

maybe I'm mistaken on this, but paparazzi take pictures of celebrities all the time without their consent; And then sell them to magazines! The whole debate on refrence photos has me confused though. Ive always been told that as long as you have written concent from a photographer you could use the reference.
Now people are saying that only if you take the photo yourself can you use it. But this is taking it one step further, and honestly, there has to be a way to use the technology modern day artists have to their advantage without all the debate on laws and such.

This is as close as I have come so far in finding any law related to what the lady was telling me but this is definately not the way she explained it to me. This is the way the law reads but it clearly pertains to the right to privacy, and not a photograph taken in public and doesn't say anything about public photography or filming.

Tennessee Code Annodated 39-13-605. Unlawful photographing in violation of privacy. —
(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be photographed an individual, when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor’s parent or guardian, if the photograph:
1. Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if such person appeared in the photograph; and
2. Was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.
( As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission of any individual so that the individual is readily identifiable.
( c ) All photographs taken in violation of this section shall be confiscated and, after their use as evidence, destroyed.
( d )
1. A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
2. If the defendant disseminates or permits the dissemination of the photograph to any other person, a violation of this section is a Class E felony.

Hi,

I came across this. It's not a legal site but seems to cover the subject well and I can understand the language.

Site Link to Photo Secrets (Law)

Thanks for the link. This makes sense. It is also supported by some words from laws.

Bobby.

I have a slight knowledge and some experience in this area, as a photographer, I have come across this issue before.

What follows is my own limited view and personal perspective.

It is an increasingly confused area, but I can say with I think reasonable conviction that it is not under any circumstances illegal to take a photograph of someone without a release. Thats complete nonesense I have heard of no law supporting this.

It is however illegal to sell or profit from an image without the consent of the model in the image, this is the purpose of the release, to release the rights to the image held by the model.

A release covers the rights of the model to share in or to lose any revenue from the photograph. Typically a magazine would demand a release so that they know the photographer and then the magazine posesses all rights the the image, and the model has none. A release could however also protect the rights of the model to a share of the profits.

In many areas of the world rights of privacy exist to protect the individual from intrusion, but this applies only to their own personal areas and property, and may ultimately be difficult to enforce, as it depends upon the interpretation of intrusion.

There are general laws covering *********** and decency, and these laws apply to all areas, and I presume that these issues are not the subject of this discussion.

In some states in the usa, and australia, local authorities have enshrined in law, restrictions on photography in council owned public spaces, this applies to local parks, gardens, buildings, offices, and national parks.

Where these laws exist, permits also exist and can be purchased to allow photography in those areas, and also at certain events at the discretion of the councils involved. Were I to vacation around australia for example, I would have to obtain a permit to photograph for each and every state visited, some £2000 plus dollars, or risk the confiscation of my equipment.

The authorities in general and the police in particular seemingly however have little knowledge of the law in this area, and usually incorrectly support a complaining resident when a camera comes out and a complaint is made.

I have personally been interviewed searched and criminalised by police in a public space when innocently taking pictures of a fountain where families were also present. I was advised by the police to move on when they found I had nothing to hide, and when I asked how to prevent this unpleasant experience from happening again, they advised me to obtain a false identity card so that the families would assume I am an official photographer and then not complain. This in itself would I believe be an offense, so I am left confused by the advice.

The situation is deteriorating and it is very possible that penal restrictions on photography will be introduced throughout the western world in the not too distant future with heavy fines and possible jail terms.

I am already seemingly regarded as a criminal when I take out a camera in the presence of others, and I regard it as bizarre that I might be classed with knife wielding or gun toting hooligans if I should point my lens in public.

The world would then truly be going mad, but for now thank god, such draconian laws dont exist.

Brian