MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: April 2021 Brutally Honest Earnings Report  (Read 6400 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2021, 03:10 »
+1
You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way.

Nope. You cannot generalize this as a rule, because each country has its own laws. I don't know about every country in the world, so I can't make generalized statements for them, but I live and photograph in Germany, so I made sure I read up all paragraphs regarding photography here and I can assure you that, even for editorial usage photos, you are not allowed to photograph and publish (even for editorial usage) people in public space when they are the main subject of the photo.

 You are allowed take and sell photos of people taking part in events of public interest like a demonstration and you are also allowed to take photos of streets, buildings, nature, etc. even when there are people in these photos. But taking a close-up portrait shot of some stranger walking in the street and sell it as editorial on Shuttesrtock is not allowed in Germany. Sadly almost no one cares about these rules, neither the contributors nor the stock agencies. I have seen countless editorial close up shots taken in Germany on Shutterstock, just as I have seen countlesd photos of for example castles where the photos were taken inside the property while taking photos there was not allowed. The problem is that hardly anyone takes the effort to go to a castle's webpage and read the fineprints there, like I always make sure to do.

 I am sure in 99,9% of all cases contributors get away with it, because the chance of the person or the property owner even seeing that photo and then taking the effort to hunt the photographer down and actually sue him is very small. But contributors need to be aware that they are taking a legal risk when they just walk around like madmen taking photos of everyone and everything around them, uploading everything to Shutterstock, without ever actually informing themselves about the legal aspect of the country the photos were taken in.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland)

Quote
Without the consent required under 22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:

    Portraits from contemporary history
    Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location
    Pictures of meetings and similar events in which the persons depicted have taken part
(...)
There are exceptions for events (demonstrations, general meetings, cultural events, etc.). Participants must expect to be photographed here.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2021, 03:18 by Firn »


« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2021, 10:14 »
0
You are on lawful grounds documenting and photographing someone on public grounds. It does not matter if the subject being photographed likes it or not. It is a right granted to you in most free democracies. Why? Because it helps transparency, freedom of press and because when you are on a public street you are not granted anonymity anymore. Nothing to do with respect or not. It is the way it is the same way as you have the right to not be arrested and maintained in custody by the police without a lawyer even if the police thinks that it detracts to catch the bad guy.
Things work this way in a democracy for a lot of reasons.

And about microstock and freedom of press. It does not matter if you have an official badge from a press organization which I have as I studied and have a degree in journalism in Spain, or if a microstocker or a citizen journalist documents any action on public ground. That freedom protects all.
And the photographer that had problems in Salamanca has all the law on his side and the subject that got angry not, only if the published image is used for "informative" purposes. If that would not be the case then the angry bad educated man might have a case.

Just to inform, this is NOT personally directed to Alexandre. I'm speaking generally about shooting strangers in public.

We photographers tend to get so defensive about our legal rights. Relax. It shouldn't ALWAYS be about legal rights. What about common decency, and what's reasonable? The other person you are pointing your camera at is not an anonymous object or a piece of meat. That's a real person with thoughts, feelings and opinions. I don't think it hurts too much to be considerate to other people, when you are shooting. Show some respect. If you are like most photographers, you have an enormous backlog of images to work on. It can't be ALL about that one photo of that one person who doesn't want his/her photo taken.

It's never a bad idea to think of your own reputation. If somebody starts complaining about you, it can be bad for your business. You come across as difficult to work with. Potential clients looking for a freelancer will choose someone else to work with.

"Freedom of press" is a huge exaggeration when it comes to microstock photography. A great deal of editorial micro shots are just a bunch of unreleased images that are not topical and will never be published by any news media. Even a microstock photographer who shoots some newsworthy shots every now and then can't be associated with daily news reporters employed by nationwide or international media. That's a whole different ball game.

You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way. That means if an article is about a city for example and you are standing in the shot the article has all the right to use the image with or without your authorization. Tha's the law in most democracies. You might like it or not but that's how it works. In North Korea China and Venezuela it might be different do.


A photographer has his or her rights but a person has a right to be left alone. I usually think in situations like this, "what if this would be me?" Do I want somebody to point a camera at me when I walk on the street? NO!
OK, then I will have to give the same privacy to others, too.

farbled

« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2021, 10:22 »
+1
You are on lawful grounds documenting and photographing someone on public grounds. It does not matter if the subject being photographed likes it or not. It is a right granted to you in most free democracies. Why? Because it helps transparency, freedom of press and because when you are on a public street you are not granted anonymity anymore. Nothing to do with respect or not. It is the way it is the same way as you have the right to not be arrested and maintained in custody by the police without a lawyer even if the police thinks that it detracts to catch the bad guy.
Things work this way in a democracy for a lot of reasons.

And about microstock and freedom of press. It does not matter if you have an official badge from a press organization which I have as I studied and have a degree in journalism in Spain, or if a microstocker or a citizen journalist documents any action on public ground. That freedom protects all.
And the photographer that had problems in Salamanca has all the law on his side and the subject that got angry not, only if the published image is used for "informative" purposes. If that would not be the case then the angry bad educated man might have a case.

People are stating what the actual laws are in their countries, but you are saying they are wrong because its not true in yours.

« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2021, 13:14 »
0
Unfortunatelly I don't know the specific law in US Canada or other countries. Surely I know in Spain where the problem happened. But in general terms in most democracies the right to photograph and publish for newsworthy content images taken in public space is granted with some limitation like minors , images that attempt against the honour of a person ( being stabbed by a terrorist for example etc). But images like the ones the photographer has shown, nope no problem. For sure not in Spain and I doubt it in most european countries as well (France might be an exception)


People are stating what the actual laws are in their countries, but you are saying they are wrong because its not true in yours.

« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2021, 13:33 »
0
As far as i recall, In EU you can shoot people in city as long as is for editorial purposes. Same in all countries of EU agreement. I study this matter 10 years ago but things could change a bit. Anyway I did not see a single link in the site going directly to the Spanish law or European Commission site. Being brutally honest....its the minimum.
 
Anyway we don't need consent to do it but ethics is something that feels right, right?

In Spain don't forget to ask permission to take a quick photo of the thief that is robbing your car.  ;)


farbled

« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2021, 13:50 »
0
Unfortunatelly I don't know the specific law in US Canada or other countries. Surely I know in Spain where the problem happened. But in general terms in most democracies the right to photograph and publish for newsworthy content images taken in public space is granted with some limitation like minors , images that attempt against the honour of a person ( being stabbed by a terrorist for example etc). But images like the ones the photographer has shown, nope no problem. For sure not in Spain and I doubt it in most european countries as well (France might be an exception)

Exactly what everyone else has been saying. It's not black and white like you said earlier.

I'm interested in why Venezuela is so restrictive as you mentioned? They don't allow street photography? I didn't know that...

« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2021, 16:01 »
0

I'm interested in why Venezuela is so restrictive as you mentioned? They don't allow street photography? I didn't know that...

I don't think he can prove his allegation.

« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2021, 00:27 »
0
As far as i recall, In EU you can shoot people in city as long as is for editorial purposes. Same in all countries of EU agreement.
Not in Germany.  ::)
Kunsturheberrechtsgesetz 22
https://lxgesetze.de/kug/1-21

« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2021, 02:10 »
0

Not in Germany.  ::)
[/quote]

Yes you can Firn. ::)  Please read article 23 and 24 of the link you shared.

23. Without the consent required according to 22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:
1. Portraits from the realm of contemporary history;
2. Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location;
3. Pictures of meetings, elevators and similar events in which the persons depicted took part;
4. Portraits that are not made to order, provided that the dissemination or exhibition serves a greater interest in art.

24) For purposes of the administration of justice and public safety, portraits may be reproduced, distributed and publicly displayed by the authorities without the consent of the person entitled or the person depicted or their relatives.

Furthermore you still have some more exceptions for photojournalism and medical/science /education. For example I was in R&D project co-finance by EU where we had to take pictures of woman's cervix cancer to improve Colposcopy for medics (not the pap smear). These all exceptions is what you call something as editorial instead of commercial since the purpose of the photo does not relies in the identity of the person. but i am no expert here. For Germany my suggestion is that maybe you should consult this law firm  https://zellerseyfert.com/en/image-law-photo-law.html

« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 02:25 by Evaristo tenscadisto »

« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2021, 03:13 »
+4
Laws tend not to be black and white....you may have a right to take photographs of people in public places but they also have a right not to be harassed by people coming up to them and poking a lens in their face. The grey area inbetween is why we have lawyers and courts. If someone doesn't want their photo taken and tells you that  then I think its a matter of common decency to respect that.

« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2021, 03:52 »
+2
Laws tend not to be black and white....you may have a right to take photographs of people in public places but they also have a right not to be harassed by people coming up to them and poking a lens in their face. The grey area in between is why we have lawyers and courts. If someone doesn't want their photo taken and tells you that  then I think its a matter of common decency to respect that.

I couldn't agree more with you.

However, in the grey area there are countless photos that go to the world press photo and that do not contain the rights signed by the person photographed. This is the case of war scenarios, among others.

I recall that one of the most celebrated photographs of the last 100 years is Robert Capa's The Falling Soldier during the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Or even Napalm girl, the South Vietnamese-born Canadian woman best known as the nine-year-old child depicted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph. Not to mention The Falling Man of World trade Center taken by Richard Drew.

The photos had no consent. This paddles to the terms of what is "common decency". You will see that have a lot of grey areas too.

« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2021, 05:31 »
0
Laws tend not to be black and white....you may have a right to take photographs of people in public places but they also have a right not to be harassed by people coming up to them and poking a lens in their face. The grey area in between is why we have lawyers and courts. If someone doesn't want their photo taken and tells you that  then I think its a matter of common decency to respect that.

I couldn't agree more with you.

However, in the grey area there are countless photos that go to the world press photo and that do not contain the rights signed by the person photographed. This is the case of war scenarios, among others.

I recall that one of the most celebrated photographs of the last 100 years is Robert Capa's The Falling Soldier during the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Or even Napalm girl, the South Vietnamese-born Canadian woman best known as the nine-year-old child depicted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph. Not to mention The Falling Man of World trade Center taken by Richard Drew.

The photos had no consent. This paddles to the terms of what is "common decency". You will see that have a lot of grey areas too.
Yes its not always simple

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2021, 05:34 »
+1
... Or even Napalm girl, the South Vietnamese-born Canadian woman best known as the nine-year-old child depicted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph.
Thank you for reminding me of that powerful image.
It made me find this, which is very interesting reading - information I didn't know before, for example that the photographer took the girl and the other children to a hospital:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoTzlZGY2Mc

« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2021, 07:07 »
+1
Everest, you are missing the whole point.
Even if you have the right to photograph it doesn't mean you have to behave like a jerk.


You are on lawful grounds documenting and photographing someone on public grounds. It does not matter if the subject being photographed likes it or not. It is a right granted to you in most free democracies. Why? Because it helps transparency, freedom of press and because when you are on a public street you are not granted anonymity anymore. Nothing to do with respect or not. It is the way it is the same way as you have the right to not be arrested and maintained in custody by the police without a lawyer even if the police thinks that it detracts to catch the bad guy.
Things work this way in a democracy for a lot of reasons.

And about microstock and freedom of press. It does not matter if you have an official badge from a press organization which I have as I studied and have a degree in journalism in Spain, or if a microstocker or a citizen journalist documents any action on public ground. That freedom protects all.
And the photographer that had problems in Salamanca has all the law on his side and the subject that got angry not, only if the published image is used for "informative" purposes. If that would not be the case then the angry bad educated man might have a case.


« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2021, 08:31 »
+1




Yes you can Firn. ::)  Please read article 23 and 24 of the link you shared.

23. Without the consent required according to 22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:
1. Portraits from the realm of contemporary history;
2. Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location;
3. Pictures of meetings, elevators and similar events in which the persons depicted took part;
4. Portraits that are not made to order, provided that the dissemination or exhibition serves a greater interest in art.

24) For purposes of the administration of justice and public safety, portraits may be reproduced, distributed and publicly displayed by the authorities without the consent of the person entitled or the person depicted or their relatives.

Furthermore you still have some more exceptions for photojournalism and medical/science /education. For example I was in R&D project co-finance by EU where we had to take pictures of woman's cervix cancer to improve Colposcopy for medics (not the pap smear). These all exceptions is what you call something as editorial instead of commercial since the purpose of the photo does not relies in the identity of the person. but i am no expert here. For Germany my suggestion is that maybe you should consult this law firm  https://zellerseyfert.com/en/image-law-photo-law.html

No, you can't. Please read what I wrote above, or what you just wrote yourself.

Your original statement was

Quote
In EU you can shoot people in city as long as is for editorial purposes.
And  that's simply not true. You yourself quoted the few and very specific exceptions that allow you to take photos of people and they are clearly not "shoot people in city as long as it is for editorial purposes". At least one of the photos that even started this conversation, where the street painter is not just someone who happens to be in a shot that Alex wanted to take of a building or street, but where he is clearly the main focus of the photo, would, for example, not be allowed here in Germany.
There are only a few conditions that allow you to take photos of people in a  city and "as long as it is for editorial purpose" is not the condition.

You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way.

Nope. You cannot generalize this as a rule, because each country has its own laws. I don't know about every country in the world, so I can't make generalized statements for them, but I live and photograph in Germany, so I made sure I read up all paragraphs regarding photography here and I can assure you that, even for editorial usage photos, you are not allowed to photograph and publish (even for editorial usage) people in public space when they are the main subject of the photo.

 You are allowed take and sell photos of people taking part in events of public interest like a demonstration and you are also allowed to take photos of streets, buildings, nature, etc. even when there are people in these photos. But taking a close-up portrait shot of some stranger walking in the street and sell it as editorial on Shuttesrtock is not allowed in Germany. Sadly almost no one cares about these rules, neither the contributors nor the stock agencies. I have seen countless editorial close up shots taken in Germany on Shutterstock, just as I have seen countlesd photos of for example castles where the photos were taken inside the property while taking photos there was not allowed. The problem is that hardly anyone takes the effort to go to a castle's webpage and read the fineprints there, like I always make sure to do.

 I am sure in 99,9% of all cases contributors get away with it, because the chance of the person or the property owner even seeing that photo and then taking the effort to hunt the photographer down and actually sue him is very small. But contributors need to be aware that they are taking a legal risk when they just walk around like madmen taking photos of everyone and everything around them, uploading everything to Shutterstock, without ever actually informing themselves about the legal aspect of the country the photos were taken in.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland)

Quote
Without the consent required under 22, the following may be disseminated and displayed:

    Portraits from contemporary history
    Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location
    Pictures of meetings and similar events in which the persons depicted have taken part
(...)
There are exceptions for events (demonstrations, general meetings, cultural events, etc.). Participants must expect to be photographed here.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2021, 09:31 by Firn »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2021, 10:34 »
+1
Even though it's the German version, (quoted below) in the US a street photographer also won, or I should say, defended successfully.

Portraits that are not made to order, provided that the dissemination or exhibition serves a greater interest in art.

Everyone should be able to read this as, open door, anything that's "ART". Of course that doesn't mean you won't be sued or won't lose, just that it's wide open for interpretation. People sell their art...

Freedom of the press extends to everyone, not just the actual publication. I'm in the US, this is US law, but similar to many others.  https://www.aclusocal.org/en/photographers-rights

"When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view."

And for anyone who wants to read and learn, Street Photographers and the law:  https://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-things-you-need-to-know/

I generally don't do this kind of photography. I've been yelled at for "How can you take a photo of that person..." and I didn't argue, I just said, sorry about that. I could have gone into, public places and how I'm perfectly within the law, but I'm not interested in a confrontation with some angry person who doesn't understand the laws. The simple answer is, when in public, no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

There are obviously some great shots and real photos to be captured while walking around and doing street photography. I mean what could be more authentic and real, than observing real life situations? I support anyone who has that as their interest. Personally I like what I do and they probably don't. To each their own!  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1570 Views
Last post January 31, 2021, 09:24
by Mimi the Cat
2 Replies
1801 Views
Last post February 28, 2021, 07:37
by Brasilnut
11 Replies
3442 Views
Last post April 05, 2021, 13:18
by alexandersr
9 Replies
2726 Views
Last post June 06, 2021, 18:03
by wds
7 Replies
4218 Views
Last post July 11, 2021, 21:08
by alan b traehern

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle