Hi, I love photography and take quite a few pictures when traveling and at home. I have just received today a very angry email from a woman who claim to be related to a person I took a picture of during an outdoor public performance. She demands that I remove the picture from my blog. The picture is respectful and show the performer singing. It's not a close-up, just a wide-angle pic. I take people's privacy seriously but I'm wondering what I will do if I get more of these emails... I wish she had been polite in her request at least! Any tip on how to handle that? Thank you
It's a photo, taken by you, in a public place. I'm not legally trained but I really don't think there's an issue with that.
I had a simmilar request just recently which I thought was absolutely stupid, as you couldn't even see their face, however I thought, like most things, rather than making another enemy and some long dawn out argument, I'll just blur that area of the image, it didn't get in the way of the actual photograph anyway
Even if there were a legal issue, the takedown request should have come from the person you photographed, not some supposed relative (unless the photo was of a child and the relative was his mother). If you'd like to keep the photo up, why not contact the performer and ask permission? If you know his or her name, you can almost certainly find them on Myspace or otherwise online.
You can say no, you won't remove it, or yes you will, just to be rid of them. There is no legal issue here. Photographers can photograph anything or anyone they please. The paparazzi and journalists get a little bit carried away with this right sometimes, but even their photographic frenzies aren't illegal! My holiday photos are full of random people. Photographic galleries with character shots are displays of random people. You can't copyright your own face. Its a free for all.
Thank you all for your answers! It helps a lot. I was a bit upset because I'm careful not to invade people's privacy and I always publish respectful pictures. The woman was very rude and I felt it was unnecessary, especially given the circumstances (public outdoor performance, not a close-up but a wide-angle pic of a performer etc.) It was a very small local performance and I can't find any website etc. for the performer, otherwise I would have talked to her directly. I will probably remove it when I'll have time because I don't feel the need to argue...
As you took the photograph it is legally yours, and copyright to you, unless you took it without the performers knowledge there is no moral case either. There is no harm done to her .
I noticed that you are from Canada. In Canada, privacy laws are much more strict than most other countries. However, the law is quite clear as to who has standing to contest the photo - and that is the people that are in it, unless as Nonny said - it is of a child in which case the parent or legal guardian has the standing. Even though you did take the picture, if it is to be displayed to the public in an open forum, any person in the picture has the right to ask you exclude, blur or otherwise distort the image so that person is no longer identifiable. They can not ask you to remove the photo unless that person is the only person in the image. This is a right people have in Canada to not have their picture or likeness posted in public forums without their permission, knowledge or consent. A person can take any picture they want, but the people in the picture also have the right not to be photographed. With regards to this relative, I would simply reply back that the only person that can contest the photo are the people in it and that as a relative, she has no legal standing to ask the picture be removed. Only the persons in the picture have that right. And for those out side of Canada - to give you an idea as to just how strict the privacy laws are in Canada? They just took on Facebook over their privacy policy - and won! They are now taking on Google over their Google Earth and Google Streets View on Maps trying to get them to blur peoples faces if they appear in pictures. The owners of Google had to appear before the Canadian Government several times to address the issue. Not to mention, in most provinces, traffic violation cameras (ie: red light, speeding, etc) take pictures of the BACK of the car, not the front because people have the right to privacy against photographs in their own vehicles. Because those photos become part of the public court system and can be requested by any one under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, it is considered a public photo and as such does not take pictures of people's faces.
Why not ask a law professor at a local college for his or her opinion? They might even make a student workshop about it. The information will be free and valid My opinion is that you own the photo because it was taken in a public place with no restrictions posted about taking photographs to be seen. Only the person in the photo has the right to complain and it seems 100% legal Best Regards
As a person with no law background I thought the fact that you take the picture on public places will make it kindda public domain. It'd be different if you take thier picture while theyre on their private properties.
The picture can be public domain in that the photographer can post the picture on their web site, distribute it in a flyer, or do pretty much what ever they want with it. However, the people IN the photograph (in Canada) has a right to have their likeness blurred, distorted or otherwise removed from the photograph so as to make that person unrecognizable. Canada has one of the strictest public privacy laws of the G20 countries. That's just how it is there. You are free to take pictures in public places, and take pictures of what ever you want but the people in the picture, if they know they are in the picture, have the right to ask to have the picture distorted to make that person unrecognizable.