Can you take photos of someone in a public place?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Mitchell wants answers on unauthorised photos
‘Sometimes people are in skimpy clothes...’

Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts Randall Mitchell has taken issue with photographers who take and share photos of members of the public without their consent, including at Carnival events.

He asked for clarity on the standards governing professional photographers and on whether they are permitted to take photos of someone in public spaces without permission.

Mitchell raised the matter yesterday as the Special Select Committee (SSC) of the Senate met with stakeholders on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) (No 3) Bill, 2021.

Appearing virtually before the committee were representatives of the Ministry of National Security, the Office of the Prime Minister (Gender and Child Affairs Division), the Children’s Authority of Trinidad and Tobago, the Ministry of Foreign and Caricom Affairs, the Ministry of Social Development and Family Services and the Trinidad and Tobago Creative Industries Company Ltd (CreativeTT).

Directing his questions to CreativeTT director Dionne McNicol-Stephenson, Mitchell asked whether the State-owned enterprise, whose mandate is to stimulate and facilitate the business development and export activities of the creative industries, played a part in determining the standards of professional photographers.

“At this point we do not. We have been approached by two associations that represent photographers in T&T. Unfortunately, our budgetary allocation does not allow us to engage in the study that they have requested be put forward, so at this point we do not represent them in that way. But we do recognise their importance and impact in the creative industries,” McNicol-Stephenson responded.

Professional standards

Pressing further, Mitchell asked whether there were any standards at all which applied to professional photographers.

And we’re asking this question in connection with the taking and sharing (of photographs). You would appreciate that photographers, some of them have commercial studios and they take photographs of paying persons; pregnancy photographs, photographs in bath suits, in skimpy underwear, and I’m not sure whether they are aware that before they take and they share…because some of these professional photographers they share on their pages in advertisement of types of work that they can produce…that they need the consent of those who they photograph…,” Mitchell said.

“Or there may now be situations where a photographer may be photographing an event, Carnival or fete or otherwise, where there may be persons who are skimpily clad or otherwise become skimpily clad; perhaps they are inebriated and they’re unable to give consent and the photographers may take photographs and may publish.

Everybody is a photographer now and they have cellphones and they may take photographs of someone who, because of their ingestion of alcohol and so on, may not be able to give consent,” he added.

“So, do you see a role for CreativeTT in a sensitisation campaign, once this bill is promulgated, in ensuring that photographers know that this law now applies to them, with respect to the taking and sharing of photographs?” he went on to ask.

McNicol-Stephenson stressed that it was within CreativeTT’s purview to ensure all the industry’s practitioners are aware of all the legislation that impacts them.

“And usually around Carnival time there tends to be a lot of workshops, webinars targeted at photographers, speaking to them about the fact of having to be accredited by NCC (National Carnival Commission) for taking photographs along parade routes, as well as intellectual property issues that arise out of photography, particularly during the Carnival season,” she said.

What’s the law?

On the issue of media photographers taking pictures of members of the public without their consent, Mitchell asked the CreativeTT director to submit, in writing, the law as it relates to such a scenario.

“Media photographers would be in a public place, in a public street, and would take a photograph of someone doing something or just proceeding along their merry way and that person may say you cannot take my photograph and the media would say yes I can take your photograph, and the person will slap it away and become aggressive,” he indicated.

“You see also where a policeman in the execution of his duties would be photographed by an onlooker who is not impeding that policeman in the execution of his duties, and the policeman would say no you can’t take my photograph, perhaps aggressively slap away the person’s phone or do something otherwise. Could you please submit to us the law as it relates to photography in a public place, if you can?” he requested.


https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... 2af15.html

[zoom rader]

Mitchell's full of it

Photography is same as freedom of speech as expression.

No law against Photography in public places so nutting much to do about nutting

[matr1x]

Photography in a public space is permissible. You don't want to be photographed? Simple asked kindly, or don't come out your house.


Photographers should be discreet also

[bamfo_dennis]

dis mitchel man ..... like is somebody take a photo of him in public fingering he battam and skin out in d savannah or wat? how suddenly he playing like he born yesterday inside stalin panty? wat kind of dumb question he wasting ppl time with in dis country? why he eh fly out to north korea or sum?

[aaron17]

Same goes for cars as well.

[eliteauto]

I expect CreativeTT will receive the budgetary allocation to conduct a "study" and host workshops with stakeholders to find the answers to the Minister's concerns

[Country_Bookie]

If I hire a professional photographer to take pictures of my family, there should be some standards that prevent the photographer from sharing those pictures with anyone else.

However this thing about public photography is nonsense. If I go beach and take a selfie with 12 people in the background, do I need to ask all of them for permission before I can share this picture?? These waste of time ministers need real work to do yes.

[Chimera]

Lol someone have pics of Mitchell wife or daughter drunk in a carnival setting?

Or him wining up on his outside thing?

[Kenjo]

The relatives for the female that was ‘ flagged down ‘ by the gun man asking people to be discrete with pics though ? It’s a fair enough question actually . If you don’t allow people to have a wide variety of questions about any plan then you will remain stagnant .

[timelapse]

This just plain stupid.
You want to wear next to nothing to get attention,then offended when you get attention?
Want to play mas and fraid powder?
So you can let a zillion people see you scantily clad, but fraid a picture?
Make it make sense

[16 cycles]

What abt a person in public road but taking pictures of privately owned buildings etc?

[0rb1tz]

What about dash cams in private cars driving on the public roads and capturing your house and evidence of your dog hitting the neighbour's dog in the front yard?

What about Google Earth taking pictures of your house from high altitude airplanes or orbiting satellites without your permission and publishing it openly on public maps with the co-ordinates easily accessible to anyone who clicks on the map? [this is identifiable literary sarcasm].

As long as something is being viewed from public property it's not illegal to take a picture. If you forgot to pull the curtain and people on the road can see you watching porn and abusing yourself they can take a picture and that still legal. If someone from 2 miles away with a telephoto lens takes a picture of your garden with you in the back yard, it's legal, as long as the area is viewable from public property. If the picture was taken without permission from inside a building that is not viewable to the public from outside, the subject can make a case against it.


Since there are no specific local written laws, we are going to use established authority written decisions in the UK on this issue:

Privacy
Clause 3 on Privacy states that ‘everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify any intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent.’ Clause 3 also states that ‘it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in a private place without their consent’.

Example 1:
The Press Complaints Commission adjudicated in favour of Paul McCartney and against Hello! magazine in 1998 after the publication displayed a picture of him and his two children lighting a candle for their dead wife/mother Linda inside a cathedral. The statement made by the PCC was that the family had ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy’ inside the cathedral and that this was breached.

Example 2:
On the other hand, pictures taken (with a long lens) of Gail Sheridan, the wife of a politician, in her back garden were not deemed to breach her privacy as this garden was visible from a public road and she was not doing anything private at the time. Thus her complaint to the PCC against the Scottish Sun, which published the pictures, was not upheld.
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/human-rights/ ... rom-media/

.........

I believe this issue is coming to the forefront now because of the recent murder of a woman, and pictures were taken of her body, mangled and bloody in her vehicle but viewable openly to the public on a public road, by a private citizen who then self-published it on Facebook. This is actually legal, but it is highly immoral and unethical. This is a Facebook and other social media platform issue, and there are already means of correcting it by reporting the users who publish these gross and indecent images to the platform who will then censor their users for breaching the Terms of Service. The pictures were probably widely shared on Facebook and Whatsapp, both belong to the same Meta company. They likely have very similar terms of service on sharing of indecent, gross and sensitive images which affect the victim's family. If reported they will take action on it against the users who have been doing this unethical and degraded act. We have seen many perfect examples of this with covid-19 misinformation and the last US President's using Twitter to attempt a coup on the Capitol.

This is not an issue that a democratic government should be pressing as it will be censoring freedom of speech, which will lead to the other question "where will it end if the government censors this material?"

[VexXx Dogg]

Steups.jpg

[paid_influencer]

If I hire a professional photographer to take pictures..

see, this is where the devil lies in the details. If you hire somebody as a temporary employee, any work they produce in the proceeding of their labor belongs to you (creative or otherwise). If they take a picture using your camera while employed by you, the copyright belong to you.

Now most "professional photographers" will not work as employees, but as contractors. They argue they provide their own camera equipment for the job, therefore they are not employees. And if you sign an actual contract with them, well they are contractors.

The details who who owns the resulting copyright is not a given. The unsuspecting client thinks they own the copyright, since they are paying. That is where the set up begins. The contract usually gives the copyright of "your" pictures to the contractor/photographer, to use and abuse, sell and modify, as they want.

Most people don't know and walk right into it without insisting the contract be modified to give them (the client) ownership of the resulting copyrights.

[The_Honourable]

Unless it's in the realm of stalking and harassment, taking pictures or recording videos in public is not an issue.

[Rovin]

d "steups-man' feel he is d AG or PM orrr

in these modern cellphone times, laws & standards needs to be updated

ppl also need to be aware of their clothes, behavior & not allow yourselves to be caught on flim for something u might be ashamed of ...

[zoom rader]

I expect CreativeTT will receive the budgetary allocation to conduct a "study" and host workshops with stakeholders to find the answers to the Minister's concerns

They beat you on that contract

[agent007]

Well what a rare moment. I support most of the responses itt. I did not want to rant anything cause I was a bit skeptical when Duane posted it but most of alluh did well. Carry on guys.

[eliteauto]

Response by the Photographers Guild of Trinidad & Tobago

[zoom rader]

^^^^basically the red government is full of 5hit as usual

[88sins]

Mitchell's full of it

Photography is same as freedom of speech as expression.

No law against Photography in public places so nutting much to do about nutting

Where you get the idea that the inhabitants of this country have freedom of speech or expression?

[De Dragon]

^^^^basically the red government is full of 5hit as usual

Steupsy prolly trying to create a distraction from the million dollar hog pens.

[ProtonPowder]

The real purpose of this so called inquiry is to stop people from filming police in public.

[hover11]

The real purpose of this so called inquiry is to stop people from filming police in public.

Someone said it , also to stop posting roadblock videos

[matr1x]

And the alleged photos of venes being transported between whore houses by police. Freeport have 2 new houses.

[timelapse]

I filming police any time I want.Their salary is paid by taxpayers money.I am one of their employers.

[zoom rader]

Mitchell's full of it

Photography is same as freedom of speech as expression.

No law against Photography in public places so nutting much to do about nutting

Where you get the idea that the inhabitants of this country have freedom of speech or expression?

When time comes they know what pantie kams wears daily

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

The real purpose of this so called inquiry is to stop people from filming police in public.

Under the current laws there is nothing to stop someone filming police operations in a public space and the intellectual property rights remains with the photographer and not the subject.
So they’ll have to change the law if that’s their concern.
Not like amendments haven’t been made easily.

[hover11]

The real purpose of this so called inquiry is to stop people from filming police in public.

Under the current laws there is nothing to stop someone filming police operations in a public space and the intellectual property rights remains with the photographer and not the subject.
So they’ll have to change the law if that’s their concern.
Not like amendments haven’t been made easily.

Duane ,

Wouldn't that be contraventional , alot of body cams were ordered and gathering dust yet the government busy passing laws to stop members of the public from recording. Seems borderline communist if you ask me

[wagonrunner]

"public"
by its very defition, you have no privacy, and noone has to ask you for any authorization for free public use.
selling said picture, thats when you now don't have a reasle to do so.