ArtMachine wrote:

That's exactly what I was thinking. iStock asks for a model release for any visible faces. So unless she was prepared to do something highly unethical and illegal (which wouldn't be surprising, honestly), then she wasn't going to get her photos on iStock any time soon.

I've seen their releases (as a model), but I'm not good enough for them as a photographer...lol

Iris Swope wrote:

Doesn't Istock require a copy of a photo id of any humans who's faces are visible?

um , you really think a freak that thinks its socially acceptable to walk around taking pics of 3 year olds without securing a parents permission isnt gonna just forge something

Dudley Watson wrote:

Is this the voice of experience we hear here?

hell yeah , i ride the public bus all the time i meat lots of moms that have part time jobs.  they normally make 6-7 bucks an hour so 50 bucks to stand around for 3 hours topps is good money too them.  they only havto get a pissed look on there face and say ( sir could you please move along )  no one has argued yet.

V Smith Photography wrote:
Here's one from that shoot:



Note the offending shadow in this shot:

Nice shot, too bad that moron had to spoil it.  It is still a beautiful pose

jayedwards wrote:

I agree.  You're in public.  You don't have exclusive use of the space.  Duh.

You stole my comment. Most public places, ie., national parks etc. require a permit. Make a big enough stink and I'm sure they'll accomodate that wish.

V Smith Photography wrote:
But I do not forgive the creep who came over to hit on the model and who cast his ugly shadow on her.  I really should have punched his lights out, and I'm sure I would have, if it had not been for the fact that I was running out of time, and that he was about twice my size.

Violence is not the answer. "Can you move three steps that way" is the answer.

Iris Swope wrote:

Violence is not the answer. "Can you move three steps that way" is the answer.

I know.  Just joking about that.  However, I did feel that I was suddenly in the position of being my model's "bodyguard" or protector.

Suzan Aktug wrote:
Personally if I was doing a shoot and some random guy tried to step in and take my picture I'd say the same thing as if I wasn't all made up and some stranger was trying to to take my picture "What the fuck are you doing? Stop taking my picture please" and if he said it was his right I'd tell him that it's illegal to photograph someone without their consent (a little tidbit I picked up from a crazy lady on the bus), and then I'd kick him in the nuts.

But maybe I'm just mean?

I totally agree with you

I have taken a camera away before now...
and told them my manager has not agreed it
or will be in touch!

V Smith Photography wrote:
The "guilty" photographer has fessed up and I have forgiven him.  No big deal.  I really didn't know what was going on with him until after we were done and the model expressed her concern to me.  We only had about 10 minutes left before the sun went down, and I was just trying to get a few last pictures in, and he was well behind me and I never saw him.

But I do not forgive the creep who came over to hit on the model and who cast his ugly shadow on her.  I really should have punched his lights out, and I'm sure I would have, if it had not been for the fact that I was running out of time, and that he was about twice my size.

BTW, the other photographer sent me one of the photos he got of my model, and I'm a little jealous, because I'm not sure with all the photos I took of her that I got one that good.

he says he has a much better camera
that might be why

Suzan Aktug wrote:
Personally if I was doing a shoot and some random guy tried to step in and take my picture I'd say the same thing as if I wasn't all made up and some stranger was trying to to take my picture "What the fuck are you doing? Stop taking my picture please" and if he said it was his right I'd tell him that it's illegal to photograph someone without their consent (a little tidbit I picked up from a crazy lady on the bus), and then I'd kick him in the nuts.

But maybe I'm just mean?

I completely agree. I'd do the same thing.

V Smith Photography wrote:
I really did not expect to cause any commotion on a beach in Florida.

I was working with a pretty model, and yes her blouse was blowing in the wind and revealing generous amounts of her ample bosoms, but so what?  It's the beach.  And there are women half-naked all over the place.  And there were women with just as nice a figure as my model.

The sun is setting and for the first time ever I'm taking photographs in that golden sunlight of a model on the beach.  And then a dude comes up to talk with my model.  I didn't realize it until afterwards, but his shadow spoiled a couple of really good shots.

She was polite and chatted with him and I photograhed her assistant while she gracefully got rid of him.  But he was so obnoxious and so foward, and thought nothing of walking 100 yards to invade our space.

We went to a couple other locations during that final hour on the beach, and we had watchers wherever we went.  One fellow set up his camera on a tripod with a telephoto lens and was photographing MY MODEL and MY POSES and I was paying for this shoot.

Anyway, just wanted to vent about the frustration and really uncomfortable feeling of being an attraction, not that anybody was looking at ME.

That's when you have your assistant stand between the model and the other guy's camera.  As for the guy chatting it up, the model should tell him she's working and ignore him (especially if you're paying her).

Suzan Aktug wrote:
Personally if I was doing a shoot and some random guy tried to step in and take my picture I'd say the same thing as if I wasn't all made up and some stranger was trying to to take my picture "What the fuck are you doing? Stop taking my picture please" and if he said it was his right I'd tell him that it's illegal to photograph someone without their consent (a little tidbit I picked up from a crazy lady on the bus), and then I'd kick him in the nuts.

But maybe I'm just mean?

I like mean girls, will you marry me?

Anjel Britt wrote:
I've taken a camera away before now...
and told them my manager has not agreed it
or will be in touch!

Sounds to me like you're guilty of theft.

jayedwards wrote:
I agree.  You're in public.  You don't have exclusive use of the space.  Duh.

Illustrated Imagery wrote:
You stole my comment. Most public places, ie., national parks etc. require a permit. Make a big enough stink and I'm sure they'll accomodate that wish.

Here's the interesting part... considering that the OP was in Florida.

For "COMMERCIAL" shooting, which arguably the OP was engaged in, there is a permit REQUIREMENT in Miami amongst other jurisdictions in Florida who also have commercial shooting permit systems in place. These are local laws so one size does not necessarily fit all.

BUT...

Universally, for the GWCs in the dunes or passers-by on the beach with their cameras or for members of the press? NO permit is required... and those exceptions are virtually cut in stone.

---------

Note here, that the way the word "commercial" is construed in this context [permits] has nothing to do with "commercial use of the images," e.g. in advertising, but everything to do with the purpose of the activity itself [shooting in public places] as part of a course of business or trade. Thus, if YOU hire a model, and drag your gear and entourage out to the beach and shoot with the intention of selling [or even trading,] or publishing, or otherwise making money from the images, if that is the intention of the shoot from the get-go, YOU probably require a permit; the GWC that just wanders by [or sets up his tripod in the dunes] and snaps a couple of shots because there is a target of opportunity does not.

Been there, done that... I just had an extensive discussion with the user group of Haulover [nudist] beach in Miami on the same issue. Haulover is a PUBLIC beach and Miami does have a permit system in place for "commercial" shooting. They tried to tell me, initially, that "Anyone with a camera on the [our!!!] beach we ASSUME is there for commercial purposes, which requires a permit, and we ask them to produce their permit or stop shooting and leave" I easily established for them, and in the end I think they "got it... TA-DAH!!" that they can make no such automatic ASSUMPTION or even ask them to stop shooting OR to leave. Sorry, a public beach, run by Miami Parks and Rec, is a PUBLIC beach and for non-commercial photography no permit is required in their jurisdiction [Miami].

They also tried to tell me that it would be "illegal" to even take photos without obtaining "releases" from people in the photos. Sorry, that doesn't fly either in public places... and, from the "expectation of privacy" standpoint, if someone decides that they want to be nude in full view on a public beach that is their problem not the photographer's.

Studio36

Anjel Britt wrote:
I totally agree with you

I have taken a camera away before now...
and told them my manager has not agreed it
or will be in touch!

The only way you'd get my camera is to pry it out of my cold dead hands.

Can you spell A S S A U L T?
Can you spell R O B B E R Y?
Do you look great in H A N D C U F F S?

Studio36

Suzan Aktug wrote:
Personally if I was doing a shoot and some random guy tried to step in and take my picture I'd say the same thing as if I wasn't all made up and some stranger was trying to to take my picture "What the fuck are you doing? Stop taking my picture please" and if he said it was his right I'd tell him that it's illegal to photograph someone without their consent (a little tidbit I picked up from a crazy lady on the bus), and then I'd kick him in the nuts.

But maybe I'm just mean?

Meg 784 wrote:
I completely agree. I'd do the same thing.

And you would be just as wrong as Susan AND the crazy lady on the bus.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
And you would be just as wrong as Susan AND the crazy lady on the bus.

Studio36

I wouldn't be wrong. I know what the law is, I never said the woman she spoke with on the bus was right. What I said was I'd do what she said she'd do. I'd walk up to the person and they'd get quite a hard time from me. To me it is an invasion of my privacy. Who knows what the person is zooming in on while someone is in swimwear lying on the beach or posing on the beach. To me that is no different then those idiots who take upskirt photos. You should be able to go where you want and wear what you want without being worried that some loser's taking photos of you. People shouldn't be stuck in their houses because they're afraid someone will not respect them and take their photos without their permission. To me it is a matter of respect for another person. Someone disrespects me in public and I'd feel threatened to which I will obviously not respect them.

studio36uk wrote:
And you would be just as wrong as Susan AND the crazy lady on the bus.
Studio36

Meg 784 wrote:
I wouldn't be wrong. I know what the law is,... What I said was I'd do what she said she'd do. I'd walk up to the person and they'd get quite a hard time from me. To me it is an invasion of my privacy...

I don't think YOU know what the law is... but I do, because I am looking at it right now.

It would NOT be an invasion of privacy, in Massachusetts, to start with if you are in a public place [= no reasonable expectation of privacy, so, ipso facto, no "...unreasonable, substantial or serious interference..." with privacy,] and you can NOT prevent the TAKING of a photograph in a public place, only it's use in a narrow range of possible uses: "...within the commonwealth for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without...written consent..."

You would be WRONG! You would be wrong to use force; you would be wrong to use intimidation or threatening words; you would be wrong to use harassment; you would be wrong to try and assault the photographer or try and seize or damage his camera, film or gear. Sorry sweets....... you would be WRONG!

Studio36

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

Chapter 214: Section 1B. Right of privacy

and

Chapter 214: Section 3A. Unauthorized use of name, portrait or picture of a person; injunctive relief; damages; exceptions

studio36uk wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
And you would be just as wrong as Susan AND the crazy lady on the bus.
Studio36

Meg 784 wrote:
I wouldn't be wrong. I know what the law is,... What I said was I'd do what she said she'd do. I'd walk up to the person and they'd get quite a hard time from me. To me it is an invasion of my privacy...

I don't think YOU know what the law is... but I do, because I am looking at it right now.

It would NOT be an invasion of privacy, in Massachusetts, to start with if you are in a public place [= no reasonable expectation of privacy, so, ipso facto, no "...unreasonable, substantial or serious interference..." with privacy,] and you can NOT prevent the TAKING of a photograph in a public place, only it's use in a narrow range of possible uses: "...within the commonwealth for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without...written consent..."

You would be WRONG! You would be wrong to use force; you would be wrong to use intimidation or threatening words; you would be wrong to use harassment; you would be wrong to try and assault the photographer or try and seize or damage his camera, film or gear. Sorry sweets....... you would be WRONG!

Studio36

I'm sorry but YOU ARE WRONG I never said the law said it was an invasion of privacy. I said, To me it is an invasion of my privacy.

I know in the eyes of the law what I would do would be wrong but I wouldn't care. Just like girls who get those guys in trouble for photographing up skirt. I have seen a cop stoip a man from taking photos of a random person before and done here in MA. Most people would have enough to respect not to photograph a random person and if the person told them to stop they would. As the person in this thread said. If asked he would've stopped.

studio36uk wrote:

The only way you'd get my camera is to pry it out of my cold dead hands.

Can you spell A S S A U L T?
Can you spell R O B B E R Y?
Do you look great in H A N D C U F F S?

Studio36

haha I'd happily take a night in the old gray bar hotel to knock the teeth out of the photog rudely setting up his shoot with my [paid] model. I'd thoroughly enjoy the bitching and whining of the pussy photog that got his teeth knock in for being the little bitch that he was... cry me a river with your quote unquote "rights". I paid for that models time, not for you to shoot her. Again; gladly take the night in the slammer to reveal you for the bitch you were. OWNED
As far as the shadow casting perp... "hey buddy, step back for a bit you're in the shot. Thanks." They can talk all they want when the sun goes down and we're out of time. He can wait Slap

Meg 784 wrote:
I'm sorry but YOU ARE WRONG I never said the law said it was an invasion of privacy. I said, To me it is an invasion of my privacy.

I know in the eyes of the law what I would do would be wrong but I wouldn't care.

Ahhhhhhhhh... so now we get to the nub of your argument. YOU think it is wrong so it is. And you just don't care if YOU break the law.

Fat chance you could use THAT as a defence at your trial. ROTFLMAO

OK, for all the photographers here look at: GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/265-37.htm

[crimes against the person]

Chapter 265: Section 37. Violations of constitutional rights
Section 37. No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with, or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States.

Any person convicted of violating this provision shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if bodily injury results, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.

Last time I looked the 1stA of the Constitution [free expression and free press] covered photography. Well Meg, so sad, too bad, bye bye.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Meg 784 wrote:
I'm sorry but YOU ARE WRONG I never said the law said it was an invasion of privacy. I said, To me it is an invasion of my privacy.

I know in the eyes of the law what I would do would be wrong but I wouldn't care.

Ahhhhhhhhh... so now we get to the nub of your argument. YOU think it is wrong so it is. And you just don't care if YOU break the law.

Fat chance you could use THAT as a defence at your trial. ROTFLMAO

OK, for all the photographers here look at: GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

Well Meg, so sad, too bad, bye bye.

Studio36

Once again, a law quoting, no force libby, think you can get away with everything hiding behind the literature of the law sissy; anyone up for a good old fashion ass kicking? Law or no law, sometimes, a punch in the mouth gets business taken care of ... too bad too sad, your sore mouth, like it or not. Anyone with me? Say I.

darkfotoart wrote:

well i tried a biker and girls flirted with him.  i tried a good sized white woman and guys into ( heavy hitters ) flirted with her.  i tried about everything ive done near 1,000 public shoots and black women can achieve a pissed off face no one can argue with.  if their good size it just adds to the effect. i always have a security person with binoculars and a escort at my shoots

Yep, you are right. I see you're in Michigan... We have some pretty intimidating, mouthy black women here, don't we!?

studio36uk wrote:

Meg 784 wrote:
I'm sorry but YOU ARE WRONG I never said the law said it was an invasion of privacy. I said, To me it is an invasion of my privacy.

I know in the eyes of the law what I would do would be wrong but I wouldn't care.

Ahhhhhhhhh... so now we get to the nub of your argument. YOU think it is wrong so it is. And you just don't care if YOU break the law.

Fat chance you could use THAT as a defence at your trial. ROTFLMAO

OK, for all the photographers here look at: GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

Last time I looked the 1stA of the Constitution [free expression and free press] covered photography. Well Meg, so sad, too bad, bye bye.

Studio36

LMAO, It's funny you think i'd care. I didn't even go into my argument on the topic. It doesn't matter to me much. It's exactly as C_W_PHOTO said.

C_W_PHOTO wrote:
Once again, a law quoting, no force libby, think you can get away with everything hiding behind the literature of the law sissy; anyone up for a good old fashion ass kicking? Law or no law, sometimes, a punch in the mouth gets business taken care of ... too bad too sad, your sore mouth, like it or not. Anyone with me? Say I.

Hope you have lots of "friends" for visiting days. If you want a "private" shoot then shoot in "private". End of story.

I've been a journalist long enough to have the cops on speed dial you silly little twurp.

Studio36

Iris Swope wrote:

Doesn't Istock require a copy of a photo id of any humans who's faces are visible?

Y E S they do!! iStock has the toughest of criteria to be eligible for upload and sale.

studio36uk wrote:

Hope you have lots of "friends" for visiting days. If you want a "private" shoot then shoot in "private". End of story.

I've been a journalist long enough to have the cops on speed dial you silly little twurp.

Studio36

haha sisy's like you [have] to have someone to hide behind. No suprise, the night spent would be well worth hearing you bitch and cry about it for the next few months to come, and my point would have been made, you would have felt it, and I'd gladly be a second time offender Meg would come visit lol Thanks meg, high five through the plate glass lol

C_W_PHOTO wrote:
Meg would come visit lol Thanks meg, high five through the plate glass lol

Maybe you two could share a cell. 'Ya think?

Studio36

darkfotoart wrote:
this sounds prejudice but is in no way intended to be.   would you argue with a 6 foot 350 pound black woman i sure as hell would,nt

If it sounds like a duck....

-D

C_W_PHOTO wrote:
haha sisy's like you [have] to have someone to hide behind. No suprise, the night spent would be well worth hearing you bitch and cry about it for the next few months to come, and my point would have been made, you would have felt it, and I'd gladly be a second time offender Meg would come visit lol Thanks meg, high five through the plate glass lol

LOL, high five. Hey wait, Tommy Lee is coming.

C_W_PHOTO wrote:
haha sisy's like you [have] to have someone to hide behind. No suprise, the night spent would be well worth hearing you bitch and cry about it for the next few months to come, and my point would have been made, you would have felt it, and I'd gladly be a second time offender Meg would come visit lol Thanks meg, high five through the plate glass lol

In all this make believe talk, lets add CW slaps bitch photographer to the ground,bitch slapped photographer wipes massive amounts of blood from his/her face,reaches into pocket pulls 38 snub nose and places nice round hole in CW forehead. Loss of nice bitch slapping photographer and bitch slapped photographer goes for their night in cell with #7whatever model. Its all good though because you got the shot before the sun went down.
works for me.