The teacher

TonyCooper

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

Nice one, Tony. For whatever it's worth, I might have centered the divider between the two windows, and shot it as two 'ballet stories,' right and left frames within the frame. But this works.

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote:

Nice one, Tony. For whatever it's worth, I might have centered the divider between the two windows, and shot it as two 'ballet stories,' right and left frames within the frame. But this works.

Thank you. This one got me in trouble. I took this shot, the teacher moved away, and I was waiting for her
to move back into the scene so I could take another. Someone from the school came out and wanted to
know why I was taking photographs. I tried to explain "street" and "candid", but the person was concerned
because "little girls" were in the class.

I carry a folio of prints of my candid photographs in car for this very reason. They show that my subject matter
is eclectic and that I truly do have a history of taking candid people shots. The dance school person was not
mollified on seeing this, but rejected my offer to delete the photo. I never took a second one, though.

lizzard_nyc

TonyCooper wrote:

Thank you. This one got me in trouble. I took this shot, the teacher moved away, and I was waiting for her
to move back into the scene so I could take another. Someone from the school came out and wanted to
know why I was taking photographs. I tried to explain "street" and "candid", but the person was concerned
because "little girls" were in the class.

I carry a folio of prints of my candid photographs in car for this very reason. They show that my subject matter
is eclectic and that I truly do have a history of taking candid people shots. The dance school person was not
mollified on seeing this, but rejected my offer to delete the photo. I never took a second one, though.

Hi Tony,
Funny you say that, because it's the first thing I thought of when I saw the shot.
Taking a shot through a window with a child there--and you being a man (especially if you wear your costume while you are out and about:).

As a female I have an easier time shooting children unknown to me, but even so I still get the look.

As for the shot, I like it very much--
I like the instruction on the left and the words Ballet on the right divided by the window frame. After seeing B.D.s advice, I could see how moving over would have improved the shot so we can see the other action behind the "Ballet" window--still it works for me.

Svennie

I'm not completely sure, but I think this is even illegal and considered an invasion of privacy (at least in NL).
It's a nice shoot indeed, but I would not have taken it, let alone put it online.

thoth

Svennie wrote:

I'm not completely sure, but I think this is even illegal and considered an invasion of privacy (at least in NL).
It's a nice shoot indeed, but I would not have taken it, let alone put it online.

It's the exact opposite of illegal in the U.S. As long as you are standing on public property you can take a photo of anything you want. That's the law, at least. It doesn't always work that way in reality.

Richard

thoth wrote:

It's the exact opposite of illegal in the U.S. As long as you are standing on public property you can take a photo of anything you want. That's the law, at least. It doesn't always work that way in reality.

I'm not so sure of that. Shooting through windows seems like a gray area to me. People in their homes, for example, have a reasonable expectation of privacy even if they can been seen through a window. I think you could probably be prosecuted for shooting through someone's bedroom window even if you are on the street. And rightly so, IMO. In this case, the barre was next to a display window, so one could argue that the dancers were meant to be visible, hence, no privacy right. But I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

thoth

Richard wrote:

I'm not so sure of that. Shooting through windows seems like a gray area to me. People in their homes, for example, have a reasonable expectation of privacy even if they can been seen through a window. I think you could probably be prosecuted for shooting through someone's bedroom window even if you are on the street. And rightly so, IMO. In this case, the barre was next to a display window, so one could argue that the dancers were meant to be visible, hence, no privacy right. But I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Nothing is ever clear-cut, unfortunately, since one can be sued for anything regardless of whether any criminal activity has taken place. One can also quite easily lose a lawsuit regardless of whether any criminal activity has taken place. However, the letter of the law does not specify that the practice is illegal to my knowledge. These laws get pressed every day, though, so it's possible there is legislation I am not familiar with.

More to the point, a person dancing in front of a huge plate-glass window on a public street should hardly have a reasonable expectation of privacy.'

TonyCooper

Svennie wrote:

I'm not completely sure, but I think this is even illegal and considered an invasion of privacy (at least in NL).
It's a nice shoot indeed, but I would not have taken it, let alone put it online.

I understand your concern, but the laws and customs
in the US are different from the laws and customs in
the Netherlands. I'm sure you have noticed many
photographs in this forum that include children in the
scene. As long as there is nothing salacious about
the image, there isn't a problem.

I have children and grandchildren. My own rule about
what I photograph and what I would post is that if
the photo is one I would find acceptable if the subjects
were my own family, then the photo is acceptable.

This dance studio - pictured below in a photograph I
took this morning for the purpose of this post- has
large uncovered windows facing a busy street. All
the classes are conducted in plain view of all passers-
by. If they were concerned about privacy, they
would not put their students on public display this
way. I took my photograph from the public sidewalk
in front of the building.

Richard

TonyCooper wrote:

I understand your concern, but the laws and customs
in the US are different from the laws and customs in
the Netherlands. I'm sure you have noticed many
photographs in this forum that include children in the
scene. As long as there is nothing salacious about
the image, there isn't a problem.

I'm not sure Svennie's point had anything to do with children. My impression is that Americans are much more uptight about that than most Europeans.

Svennie

Richard wrote:

I'm not sure Svennie's point had anything to do with children. My impression is that Americans are much more uptight about that than most Europeans.

Indeed. My concern had to do with the fact that it is a picture taken from the street of people through a window inside a private property. My window faces the street as well, but you're not allowed to take pictures of me sitting on my sofa, even if I'm in plain sight.
I think you had to a) ask permission to take the photo and b) ask permission to place it online. And not just from the owner but from all persons involved.

When you walk on the street it is general excepted that you give up at least some of your privacy. But it's complicated stuff

TonyCooper

Svennie wrote:

Indeed. My concern had to do with the fact that it is a picture taken from the street of people through a window inside a private property. My window faces the street as well, but you're not allowed to take pictures of me sitting on my sofa, even if I'm in plain sight.
I think you had to a) ask permission to take the photo and b) ask permission to place it online. And not just from the owner but from all persons involved.

When you walk on the street it is general excepted that you give up at least some of your privacy. But it's complicated stuff

Then I am even more confused. There have been many photos posted in this forum where people inside a store - behind a window
or in a doorway - have been part of the subject. Stores are just as much private property as houses are. If this particular photo
disturbs you, and not because there is a child in it, then what is there about it that is different from other photos posted here?

BD has recently posted "Breakfast with Grandma". From the text, it does not seem that the woman and child behind the window are BD's relatives.

Where do you draw the line in the Netherlands? If the subject is in his yard, but outside, he is still on private property. Is that a legit subject
to photograph in the Netherlands?

Svennie

Like I said, it's complicated stuff and I'm not a lawyer.... But I've tried to find some answers to your question. In general: when I'm in doubt, I don't take the photo, which is the case with this photo of the gym.

TonyCooper wrote:

Then I am even more confused. There have been many photos posted in this forum where people inside a store - behind a window
or in a doorway - have been part of the subject. Stores are just as much private property as houses are. If this particular photo
disturbs you, and not because there is a child in it, then what is there about it that is different from other photos posted here?

Dutch law makes a difference between your home and semi-public places like a store. You are allowed to take photos from a hand held camera from people within store for example. This includes gyms (I didn't know this), but not the locker room of a gym.

TonyCooper wrote:

BD has recently posted "Breakfast with Grandma". From the text, it does not seem that the woman and child behind the window are BD's relatives.

That picture is oke.

TonyCooper wrote:

Where do you draw the line in the Netherlands? If the subject is in his yard, but outside, he is still on private property. Is that a legit subject
to photograph in the Netherlands?

No, that is against the law (article 139f, max penalty 6 months hard time
Unless the person is digging a hole to put his dead wife in Or, of course, when he gives a thumbs up just before you take the shot (or gives any other sign of approval).

Privacy is even in our constitution (art 10-13).

Just google on 'google streetview europe privacy' and you'll find plenty of article on how 'we europians' feel about privacy

TonyCooper

I should have added that my follow-up on Svennie's comments were purely based on curiosity and not any objection to his comments.

As an afterthought, I was wondering about the legality of all those thousands of photographs of ladies sitting in their window in Amsterdam taken by tourists. In mine, the lady was knitting.

TonyCooper

Svennie wrote:

(Regarding the "Grandma" photograph)

That picture is oke.

Why is it different? Both photographs are of people (presumably strangers to the photographer) who are sitting in a business and taken from the street.

Just curious.

Svennie

TonyCooper wrote:

I should have added that my follow-up on Svennie's comments were purely based on curiosity and not any objection to his comments.

No worries mate, they are interesting questions and you made me curious as well

TonyCooper wrote:

As an afterthought, I was wondering about the legality of all those thousands of photographs of ladies sitting in their window in Amsterdam taken by tourists. In mine, the lady was knitting.

You can take a photo, just like you can take a photo of somebody in any other store:D However, I'm not sure you can publish them online. You can add them to your personal collection of ehm knitting women of course :ivar

Svennie

TonyCooper wrote:

Why is it different? Both photographs are of people (presumably strangers to the photographer) who are sitting in a business and taken from the street.

Just curious.

Like I said in my previous post, and contrary to what I initial thought, both photos are legal. However, if you'd like to publish a photo the person in the photo can make objections. This is under Dutch something else and has to do with 'portrait rights'. But this is a verrrry gray area, unless you sell the photos. In that case you need permission (to sell, not to keep the photo).

TonyCooper

Svennie wrote:

Like I said in my previous post, and contrary to what I initial thought, both photos are legal. However, if you'd like to publish a photo the person in the photo can make objections. This is under Dutch something else and has to do with 'portrait rights'. But this is a verrrry gray area, unless you sell the photos. In that case you need permission (to sell, not to keep the photo).

Here we would need a model release (signed permission form) to sell the photo if the person is the subject of the photo. We don't need a model release if the person is peripheral to the photo.

I don't know if, technically, we need a model release to publish in a forum like this. I don't get them. Others might.

thoth

TonyCooper wrote:

Here we would need a model release (signed permission form) to sell the photo if the person is the subject of the photo. We don't need a model release if the person is peripheral to the photo.

I don't know if, technically, we need a model release to publish in a forum like this. I don't get them. Others might.

You don't actually need a model release unless the photo is to be used for commercial purposes. Selling as art, or displaying in a gallery is not a commercial use. I'm pretty sure that, even if you gave the photo away for commercial use it would require a release from all recognizable persons in the shot.

Niepce

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: There is no such thing as a moral photo or an immoral photo. Photos are well shot or badly shot. That is all.

Anyhow, for me the real legal debate has to do with the license plate of the car in the window's reflection.
Just kidding... :gone

PS: Nice shot, Tony.