SPLIT - SE Gathering photography laws and courtesy

[Optimistic Paranoid]

When a "Utube e-begger" films a gathering and posts it on his/her monetized youtube channel, then you're treading into commercial territory.  I wonder how the legal system has handled this so far.

Probably badly.  I suspect that nobody on Youtube is making THAT much money.  (If I'm wrong about that, someone please tell me!)  Which means there is little chance of winning big bucks, so no lawyer will take the case unless the aggrieved party is willing to pay up front, and who's got the money for that, knowing that even if you win, you probably aren't going to collect very much?  So I doubt if it's ever been litigated.

 

[Gunny]

The youtubers who make money are the ones with millions of views and sponsors. There are quite a few but I doubt if many survival type or van-dwelling would generate the views that a clip that gets picked up by Ellen deGeneros (sp) or the like. An example would be Jackie Evancho whose initial video had millions of views and made her wealthy and got her a spot on one of the talent shows. Spectacular voice on a young girl.

A pan shot from NBC of the crowds on their morning shows is an example. Not one of the people gathered around has to sign a release. Any network, I just picked NBC. If you are caught in a reality show like 'What Would You Do' then yes you have to sign a release, just look for the faces blurred and those folks didn't sign.

I agree with Optimistic Paranoid that someone trying to eject me from a public space using force going to be met with like force. I would like to know who wrote that press release or invite. He or she lacks common sense. Or knowledge of the law.

Rob

 

[Wabbit]

...Seems like most people with windows then want to cover them so it's like they don't have windows...

I don't cover my windows for my sake, they are covered for youse all sakes!!!

I feel horrible for further derailing this thread, however not so horrible to not take the opportunity to make a joke..

East coast gatherings need to be encouraged! So more posts about the eastern coast get together. Also, Midwestern gatherings! Not southern gatherings though, that's where I draw the line! Awww, why not, southern gatherings too! Gatherings for everybody! \silliness off

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Guess I'll be one who never goes to an RTR if my privacy isn't respected

As a practical matter, instead of posting an announcement of where and when on a public site where anyone can see it, you could set up a by-invitation-only meeting through PMs and emails.  You send an invitation to a half dozen people you trust, and they each send an invitation to half a dozen people THEY trust, and so on.

 

[akrvbob]

Guess I'll be one who never goes to an RTR if my privacy isn't respected

So let's think about this... someone steals my name and reputation that I have spent years building, shits on it by being a jerk--and now my reputation and hard work is gone? 

"I heard that RTR in Florida was awful--so that one in Arizona must be bad too! I thought Bob was a good guy, but apparently he is a jerk." 

Sounds like a good reason to not let people use my name.

 

[IanC]

There already is a gathering in Florida - members of another vandweller forum. When I was camped at Osceola National Forest I spoke to a guy who was there for it. Apparently a group caravans to various sites around Florida. I didn't even know there was another van dweller forum, but that's what he told me.

 

[Gary68]

Probably badly.  I suspect that nobody on Youtube is making THAT much money.  (If I'm wrong about that, someone please tell me!)  Which means there is little chance of winning big bucks, so no lawyer will take the case unless the aggrieved party is willing to pay up front, and who's got the money for that, knowing that even if you win, you probably aren't going to collect very much?  So I doubt if it's ever been litigated.

for 2015

1. Felix Kjellberg

– $12 Million a Year
Channel: PewDiePie


2. Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla

– $8.5 Million a Year
Channel: Smosh


3. Benny and Rafi Fine

– $8.5 Million a Year
Channel: Fine Brothers Entertainment

http://people.com/celebrity/highest-paid-youtube-stars/


even the modest vandweller channels make pretty good coin

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Well, there you go then.  When one of those bozos violates your privacy, sue the shit out of them!

 

[Cammalu]

So let's think about this... someone steals my name and reputation that I have spent years building, shits on it by being a jerk--and now my reputation and hard work is gone? 

"I heard that RTR in Florida was awful--so that one in Arizona must be bad too! I thought Bob was a good guy, but apparently he is a jerk." 

Sounds like a good reason to not let people use my name.

I don't get it. What does me not wanting to go to rtr because people aren't respecting what you put out about filming without asking have to do with someone stealing your name? I haven't stolen anyone's name and frankly Bob, I'm damned happy you do what you do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hepcat]

Guess I'll be one who never goes to an RTR if my privacy isn't respected


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cammalu,  Like John, I've been a commercial photographer for over 40 years.  I'm in my early 60s.  

Please explain to me why you think you have an expectation of privacy outside your own home?  I'm not asking to be a wise-@ss...  the "public privacy" misconception has become really prevalent in the past few years, and I'd honestly like to know how you have come to believe that you are legally entitled to it. 

Honestly, just to be clear, from a legal perspective,  you have no expectation of privacy outside your own home... and even then IN your home only if your blinds are drawn.  You can argue "it's not polite" all day long, but that's not the legal standard.  And, if you don't want to be photographed or filmed, your only recourse is to not go out.  There are now traffic and surveillance cameras that are both government and privately owned EVERYWHERE and more going in all of the time, and you have absolutely no control over how those images are used.  And then, of course, there's Google Earth and Google Streets that violate your curtilage every day. 

As I said, I'm not being argumentative or rude, I'd just really trying to understand how this 'public privacy' thing that is so prevalent and absolutely unfounded got such a foothold.  It's an expectation that cannot be met, and you'll be really disappointed about every time you try to assert it.

Thanks!

Roger

 

[Cammalu]

Roger, I didn't say a thing about the legality of it. I'm quite aware that many people can be very rude and not ask before they jump in front of you and start taking photos. This may not be illegal but it can certainly seem like harassment. I can't see why if someone doesn't want to be photographed why anyone would want to anyway. It's not like I'm a star or anything...

On most of the Indian reservations they don't seem to want to be photographed either. I realize their are security cameras everywhere but I don't think that most of those are plastering me all over Facebook or YouTube.

There are many people who don't want to be found for whatever reason. Posting their faces on the web could cause terrible consequences for them. I suppose they could always wear a disguise everytime they peeked out their window but they shouldn't have to.

Are you saying you would photograph people who politely asked you not to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hepcat]

Cammalu, I have done many, many kinds of photography in my lengthy career including forensic, surveillance, and I've shot for newspapers and magazines..

There are many, many ways to accomplish getting the photo, and yes I've taken photos of folks who weren't happy about it... for a variety of reasons.  And yes, I've photographed people who have DEMANDED in no uncertain terms that I not photograph them, and then DEMANDED that I give them the film.  I have always tried to be as inconspicuous and considerate as I can, but I've actually had folks who were incidental to and walking through a shoot threaten me for taking their photo when it was they who photo-bombed the shot.

I've done work on Indian Reservations, and literally survived the assignment (a long story.)

And there are very famous photographers who, if they violated MY personal space in their own inimitable fashion would likely end up on the ground in an arm-bar come-along because I'd thought they were attacking me.  Bruce Gilden comes immediately to mind.  His style is obnoxious and, to my way of thinking, dangerous.  He certainly has a right to make images, but he doesn't have the right to make folks fear for their physical safety while he's doing it. 

But what I'm saying is that if folks expect privacy in public, they're not going to find it, and it's not reasonable to expect it.  I just don't understand what has led folks to believe that they have some kind of right that they shouldn't be photographed in public.

 

[akrvbob]

I don't get it.  What does me not wanting to go to rtr because people aren't respecting what you put out about filming without asking have to do with someone stealing your name?  I haven't stolen anyone's name and frankly Bob, I'm damned happy you do what you do.  

I'm sorry, I didn't communicate well. I was using what you wrote as an example of lumping all events together if one behaves badly. 

However, the truth is it's simply a legal fact that no one can stop others from taking your picture no matter where you are. People have asked me about it at the RTR and I tell them I have no power to stop others from taking your picture--in fact, NO ONE does.

So I tell people, if you can not have your picture taken, do not come to the RTR. Of course that can be expanded to say do not walk out of your house if you can not have your picture taken, but the odds are much greater at a large gathering. 

But, it has nothing to do with the RTR, any large gathering will have the exact same problem so you can't go to any of them.

 

[akrvbob]

I don't get it.  What does me not wanting to go to rtr because people aren't respecting what you put out about filming without asking have to do with someone stealing your name?  I haven't stolen anyone's name and frankly Bob, I'm damned happy you do what you do.  

I'm sorry, I didn't communicate well. I was using what you wrote as an example of lumping all events together if one behaves badly. 

However, the truth is it's simply a legal fact that no one can stop others from taking your picture no matter where you are. People have asked me about it at the RTR and I tell them I have no power to stop others from taking your picture--in fact, NO ONE does.

So I tell people, if you can not have your picture taken, do not come to the RTR. Of course that can be expanded to say do not walk out of your house if you can not have your picture taken, but the odds are much greater at a large gathering. 

But, it has nothing to do with the RTR, any large gathering will have the exact same problem so you can't go to any of them.

 

[Gary68]

so i know out in public people can take your pic but if said pic is used for profit they would need you to sign a release and/or cut you in on the profit?

are not blogs and utube for profit?

 

[jimindenver]

And people wonder why I stick to snowflakes and bugs. I tell them anything more and it bugs the flakes.

 

[hepcat]

so i know out in public people can take your pic but if said pic is used for profit they would need you to sign a release and/or cut you in on the profit?

are not blogs and utube for profit?

Well, actually, no.  Generally photos taken in public don't need to be released, even if for profit.  There are some complications to that that have been subject to interpretation by the courts and so it's gotten a little muddier of the years as some publications require it...  and some require location releases for publication; but from a purely statutory perspective,  if you can see it from a place you can lawfully be, it's fair game (subject to civil suit later under some circumstances.)  The exception would be using a famous person's image to advertise a product.  The courts have held that their image has value because of their social status, and so they must give permission for their image to be used.  Pretty much anything else is fair game though.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Roger, I didn't say a thing about the legality of it.  I'm quite aware that many people can be very rude and not ask before they jump in front of you and start taking photos.  This may not be illegal but it can certainly seem like harassment.  I can't see why if someone doesn't want to be photographed why anyone would want to anyway.  It's not like I'm a star or anything...

On most of the Indian reservations they don't seem to want to be photographed either.  I realize their are security cameras everywhere but I don't think that most of those are plastering me all over Facebook or YouTube.

There are many people who don't want to be found for whatever reason. Posting their faces on the web could cause terrible consequences for them.  I suppose they could always wear a disguise everytime they peeked out their window but they shouldn't have to.

Are you saying you would photograph people who politely asked you not to?

Just for the record, since I'm the one who started this whole conversation, I would indeed respect anyone's request that I not photograph them.

I was reacting to the announcement that FORCE would be used to remove anyone doing any photography.

 

[hepcat]

Just for the record, since I'm the one who started this whole conversation, I would indeed respect anyone's request that I not photograph them.

I was reacting to the announcement that FORCE would be used to remove anyone doing any photography.

Thank you, John... and I should also say that were I making photographs for my own pleasure, I would respect that as well.  There's a difference for me between making photos for myself, and being on paid assignments.  I'm not interested in making anyone uncomfortable or upset for the sake of principle.

One personal project I've undertaken I've entitled 'transformatives' and involves turning pieces of art into other, different kinds of art through photography.  It's another controversial subject for artists...  and I do it merely for pleasure, not profit... but it often involves photographing people as they add value to the piece they're looking at.

This is a link to my "Transformatives" album.

 

[LeeRevell]

Cammalu, I have done many, many kinds of photography in my lengthy career including forensic, surveillance, and I've shot for newspapers and magazines..

There are many, many ways to accomplish getting the photo, and yes I've taken photos of folks who weren't happy about it... for a variety of reasons.  And yes, I've photographed people who have DEMANDED in no uncertain terms that I not photograph them, and then DEMANDED that I give them the film.  I have always tried to be as inconspicuous and considerate as I can, but I've actually had folks who were incidental to and walking through a shoot threaten me for taking their photo when it was they who photo-bombed the shot.

I've done work on Indian Reservations, and literally survived the assignment (a long story.)

And there are very famous photographers who, if they violated MY personal space in their own inimitable fashion would likely end up on the ground in an arm-bar come-along because I'd thought they were attacking me.  Bruce Gilden comes immediately to mind.  His style is obnoxious and, to my way of thinking, dangerous.  He certainly has a right to make images, but he doesn't have the right to make folks fear for their physical safety while he's doing it. 

But what I'm saying is that if folks expect privacy in public, they're not going to find it, and it's not reasonable to expect it.  I just don't understand what has led folks to believe that they have some kind of right that they shouldn't be photographed in public.

People have been told they have all sorts of "rights" that only exist in their minds. Check out most any "special interest group". Nuff said.