AMann
Well-Known Member
We know ‘should have’s are optional... it’s just advice from one who never gets tickets, or into fights or arguments in public and usually leaves with a positive outcome for both sides over it.
Last edited:
Follow FAA Rules and Know Your Photography Rights
- Thread starter Amarand
- Start date
We know ‘should have’s are optional... it’s just advice from one who never gets tickets, or into fights or arguments in public and usually leaves with a positive outcome for both sides over it.
As a pilot, the "should have's" are distractions from my singular purpose: flying my aircraft safely, and within the law. Period.
It's confusing to people when you say "should" because that implies that it's a requirement. It's not.
If I want to be nice/considerate when some random person approaches me, that's my choice, but not my obligation (legal or otherwise). I can also ignore them. That's my right. They are distracting me from flying, not the other way around.
I also don't get tickets - but I do regular maintenance on my vehicle, and I try to know the law wherever I drive.
I don't get into fights and arguments in public because if someone approaches me, I'm going to calmly and reasonably explain to them that I'm flying legally in FAA airspace, and that if they have any concerns to please contact the authorities and we'll straighten it all out. No problem.
But I'm under no legal obligation to do that with anyone except a legal authority (police officer, FAA official) with jurisdiction, who presents their credentials. When presented with a legal authority, I will explain that I need to safely land my aircraft, and at that time, I will provide any documentation they may require. THAT is the law. That is what's required.
Please understand that my reticence when confronted with a random non-authority is my legal right, protected by United States federal law. I don't have to talk to anyone I don't want to. Freedom of association. Anyone forces that, they'll have a lawsuit. Touch me or my property, and we have a criminal and a civil lawsuit (backed up by GPS and video footage). If you don't think I should be somewhere, call the police. Bring in the authorities. Vigilantism sucks. And most of these "should's" that people have posted here are because of vigilantism and mob mentality, not because it's a legal requirement.
I feel it's important to discern between the two.
AMann
Well-Known Member
We should be flying and should not have to be so worried about all that stuff, but we do for good reasons.
Ralph thompson
Well-Known Member
As a full time commercial photographer, journalist and private pilot and drone operator since 2012, my opinion is as follows;
- abide by the law at all times (it’s for your & other people’s safety, it’s not bureaucracy)
- it maybe yr “right” to take photographs but it may not be smart, sensible, respectful or appropriate
- in the uk & Canada there are many public places where photography is not allowed eg in parks where there are young children.
- taking the photograph is not the end of the story, use of the photograph can get u in very hot water, eg in Montreal a precedent setting example cost an innocent photo journalist $80k because somebody else in his newspaper took the photo and misrepresented the person (a girl sat on her parents steps)
- property is protected and a legalistically minded owner could take legal action if they felt their property was exploited say for commercial gain
- the law is not b&w, anyone with a little money and a vindictive nature can take legal action just discuss this with the medical industry where unethical law firms target financially weak victims with monster law suits.
- having said all this, if u end up in a legal battle then good luck, my moto is be respectful, polite, open, friendly and avoid confrontation. Err on the side of peace and harmony, there’s millions of photo opportunities. Plan your flight, follow the rules, notify people in the area, Neighbours and above all, don’t get in a legal battle.
C’est tout
- abide by the law at all times (it’s for your & other people’s safety, it’s not bureaucracy)
- it maybe yr “right” to take photographs but it may not be smart, sensible, respectful or appropriate
- in the uk & Canada there are many public places where photography is not allowed eg in parks where there are young children.
- taking the photograph is not the end of the story, use of the photograph can get u in very hot water, eg in Montreal a precedent setting example cost an innocent photo journalist $80k because somebody else in his newspaper took the photo and misrepresented the person (a girl sat on her parents steps)
- property is protected and a legalistically minded owner could take legal action if they felt their property was exploited say for commercial gain
- the law is not b&w, anyone with a little money and a vindictive nature can take legal action just discuss this with the medical industry where unethical law firms target financially weak victims with monster law suits.
- having said all this, if u end up in a legal battle then good luck, my moto is be respectful, polite, open, friendly and avoid confrontation. Err on the side of peace and harmony, there’s millions of photo opportunities. Plan your flight, follow the rules, notify people in the area, Neighbours and above all, don’t get in a legal battle.
C’est tout
Agree with this, of course, but even this is no longer foolproof due to the current hysteria. I was on assignment at a state park (no restrictions on photography) and asked a couple of dads if I could photograph them and their kids playing baseball near the ocean. Got a few shots before the moms showed up up and demanded to know why I was photographing their kids. The gutless husbands were silent while I dealt with the women. A photo was published, I never heard from them again, and I made a point of not contacting these people. The experience soured me on this type of assignment. Much happier shooting stock on my terms and working in a state park.
AMann
Well-Known Member
Don't you use model releases for your people shots? When I used to shoot publicity shots for our local community theater program, I have found that when parents get a model release for their kids, it goes over a lot better because they feel it’s for a legitimate purpose. I even included giving them my business card with a smugmug and flickr link on it where they could privately see and download a copy or buy a print or mug of the photo for themselves, too. And, passing out the cards always led to some extra work as they called me later to shoot weddings, senior portraits and some business headshots.
Last edited:
We are quick to give out our business cards and sometimes a nice company branded Koozie if the interaction warrants it (at an event with chilled beverages etc).
We also keep "releases" on hand just in case. My Safety Officer/VO/Wife always gets the parent name(s)/email and we send them a shot of their kid(s) so they can share.
Side Note: We were recently contracted by a local newspaper to "document" the tearing down and rebuilding of a local Metal Art Sculpture here in town. On the last shoot we "Staged" a mother taking pictures of her two children on the Metal Art and sent her an image "For her help". She called a week later and booked us to do some Area and Neighborhood shots in a very exclusive gated community. We are going there Saturday
WINNER!!
As an editorial shooter I rarely asked anyone to sign a release, then mostly when I was new and thought there might be subsequent commercial use of some of the images. I gave those baseball players my card from the magazine, letting them know who I was and who I was working for. Now I happily shoot for myself, and don't have to deal with suspicions such as those that the women had. After thirty years I can't recall anyone ever asking to see a release, for models or for property.
Last edited:
ScubaBob
Well-Known Member
This paper on "rights" is written by an attorney in private practice. How many law suits are filed each year where one attorney says "you have rights" and the other side's attorney says "no you don't". I would never rely on such a document if confronted by a citizen. I would calmly explain to them what I am doing and if they have a problem I would encourage them to contact the local law enforcement and let the police peacefully handle the situation. For all the citizen knows, the author of the article could be your brother or the article could be totally fabricated. Finally, never, ever tell the police that you have rights. They will laugh at you will they take your drone or handcuff you.
Hope this only applies to drone “rights”... or does it also apply to situations like police coming into your home or searching your car etc without a warrant??
Ralph thompson
Well-Known Member
I’m with ScubaBob on this. I saw another post on this subject recently. My response is simple, “it might be your Right, but is it smart?”. Whether it’s against the law or not is moot, if the other person or property owner has deep pockets, you could be faced defending a very expensive suite. But if yr thinking “my rights” you’re going to become an embittered crusader. First be thoughtful and considerate, if flying yr drone upsets somebody, apologize and go somewhere else.
Just to be clear, I never advocated being confrontational with officials. The police and FAA obviously have the authority to enforce the laws/rules. Not all authorities apply the law/rules equally. Some officials say something is illegal when it is not. In the United States, we have certain rights. Rights that you can absolutely go to court and fight for, if need be.
Follow the law. Yes. Obviously.
But know your rights. That’s all I was saying.
And the PDF has been used by US photographers to quickly educate people in the field. Not necessarily officials. Usually just random people. “You can’t shoot here!” That’s usually not true in the US. ??
Follow the law. Yes. Obviously.
But know your rights. That’s all I was saying.
And the PDF has been used by US photographers to quickly educate people in the field. Not necessarily officials. Usually just random people. “You can’t shoot here!” That’s usually not true in the US. ??
It's simple: when you're shooting editorially, for a "fair use" purpose (such as self-promotion, or small-press runs), you don't need a model (human) or property (animals/real estate/identifiable objects owned by others) release. I have a few books on that topic which I've read over the years. I like to keep my bases covered.
The only time you need a property or model release is when you intend to use the images for a purpose other than listed above, and in general, only when the model/property are identifiable. If the person or property you're shooting is not identifiable, you generally don't need a release, which is why you see folks blurred out in shows like COPS (commercial), but NOT often on news shows (editorial).
Also, just so we're clear....
You don't need a property or model release to take an image. If you're legally allowed to be somewhere, and you're not prohibited from taking photographs (usually, there's a sign, or you're on a military base, or some other area where it's clear you shouldn't be taking photographs) you're legally allowed to take photographs. It's simple.
The property/model releases are used to prove that you have permission to use someone's likeness (or the likeness of someone's identifiable property) for commercial purposes.
You don't need a property or model release to post a picture of someone (or their property) on Instagram, make a small press-run of coffee table books for a "small audience" (it's defined by law - the size of the run, and the size of the audience), or to post a picture in a newspaper (editorial use), or to place that image in your portfolio (online or in print) to share with others.
But if you try to, say, sell a picture of a model drinking a nice ice cold bottle of Coke to Coca Cola, you'd better have a model release, because no one's going to touch that image for commercial purposes without an official release from the model.
I think they end up blurring some editorial items due to association laws (let's say you're an innocent bystander by a huge pile of drugs or dead bodies - maybe you don't want to be associated with that, and that's a case you might win in court against a news outlet). Obviously, when children are involved, people are a little more sensitive, because our country is so litigious and on-edge right now. But the law is the law, and residents of the U.S. are afforded fairly open shooting from public property in the United States (even children):
Freedom of panorama - Wikipedia
To sum up: the majority of shooters the majority of the time don't need a model or a property release, and you certainly don't need one to shoot an image - just to use an image for commercial purposes.
In the U.S., when you take a picture, you become the legal copyright holder of that image, regardless of the contents of that image. Period. In fact, if you take a picture of someone, and they find that picture on-line, and try to use it, you (as the photographer) can sue THEM for copyright infringement. The subject has zero rights to the copyright of your work. Having said that, you can always do an exchange: use for use. And that usually comes out in a release.
Cite: A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things: Dan Heller: 9780470228562: Amazon.com: Books
Depends on where you're shooting.
Unless I'm flying over someone's private property, why should I have to "go somewhere else" just because some random person tells me they don't want me there?
Here in Ohio, I can't fly my drone in a Metro Park. It's illegal.
We can't fly our drones in federal parks. Again, illegal.
Can you give me an example of a public place (or my own private property) that I might want to fly, where some random person says "don't fly here" and I should "go somewhere else?" One example. Please.
I'm not talking about school zones. I'm not talking about military bases. I'm not talking about airports, because I don't think drones should be anywhere near an airport without tons of (necessary) approvals and training. Not talking about private property (where I have not secured permission to shoot), and I'm not talking about correctional facilities.
We're already extremely limited where we are allowed to fly our drones. If I've taken the time to locate public property, or secure private property, to fly my drone and take videos/pictures, I'm not listening to some random person tell me I can't shoot there. That's insane.
Again...not going to argue with police officers. I'm going to land my drone, and show them my paperwork.
I'm not going to argue with the FAA. I'm going to land my drone, and show them my paperwork.
I'm not going to argue with any credentialed public-safety official (my dad's a fire chief). I'm going to land my drone, and show them my paperwork.
Not sure what we're fighting about here....
I posted a well-known Photographer's Rights PDF document that's been shared with photographers (and by photographers) for many years. Many drone operators don't know their rights as photographers. I think it's useful to know the rules, both of flying, and for photography/videography. When flying your drone, know all the laws/rules where you're flying.
Yeah. I was at a hippie-dippie community festival awhile back. Had my camera, asked a woman if I could photograph her tattoo on her back, shoulder blade. She was super happy that someone had appreciated the art (it was pretty), and I wanted to shoot it against the stage and the crowd. She was game. I took the shot.
Her boyfriend came up 5...10 minutes later (I was working the crowd), and asked me what I was doing, you can't shoot here, why did you take pictures of my girlfriend, insisted on seeing the photographs, insisted I delete them.
So yeah. I showed him the photographs. He was a jerk. I deleted the photographs even though he doesn't own her, or the rights to her likeness, and she had given me express verbal permission to shoot her tattoo.
I was absolutely in the right. I'd asked first (you don't have to ask first, by the way. Not required.) and gained permission. I was in a public park. I was legally allowed to shoot. And yet I still backed off and deleted the final images. I was under no obligation to engage with the boyfriend. None. But I did anyway.
I really hate taking pictures of people now. "Soured me on this type of assignment" is an understatement.
What's interesting is, this post - which I shared with the intent to help people - has devolved into an animated discussion/debate about legal rights versus opinions. I shared the PDF. It's well documented and has been peer reviewed by an entire country of lawyers and photographers.
Don't take my word for it - if you'd like to learn more, there are dozens of books on photographers rights. You can also read Wikipedia articles if you'd like.
But most of the people posting here saying "don't believe the PDF" are speaking of corner cases (don't shoot in an airport secure area, don't shoot from across the street from a school) and just to be clear: in the United States, anyone can sue anyone for anything in civil court. It doesn't mean they'll win. If you're legally in the right, you can counter-sue, and get all of those legal fees (plus) back. You shouldn't just roll over, if you're within your legal right to fly and shoot, just because a random (non-authority) says so.
Freedom of the Press is important. We should continue to fight for it. That also applies to artistic expression.
Don't take my word for it - if you'd like to learn more, there are dozens of books on photographers rights. You can also read Wikipedia articles if you'd like.
But most of the people posting here saying "don't believe the PDF" are speaking of corner cases (don't shoot in an airport secure area, don't shoot from across the street from a school) and just to be clear: in the United States, anyone can sue anyone for anything in civil court. It doesn't mean they'll win. If you're legally in the right, you can counter-sue, and get all of those legal fees (plus) back. You shouldn't just roll over, if you're within your legal right to fly and shoot, just because a random (non-authority) says so.
Freedom of the Press is important. We should continue to fight for it. That also applies to artistic expression.
Thank you for your helpful explanations. Many drone operators seem to have little knowledge of these issues.
I was never in doubt about my right to be shooting where I was, and taking photos of those baseball players. It was the attitude of the two women (who used the phrase 'ask the women') that made me realize that society has moved on from the way it was for the first 50 years of my life. I kinda feel sorry for the husbands and take comfort that I'm not married to someone with such delusions of power.
Last edited:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
Mini 2 The Shakey bridge in Cork City- Started by FlyingDutchman90
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Forum statistics
