Are you allowed to take pictures of strangers without their permission?

Question

If it matters... I live in TX, USA.

Answer 1

It depends.

Generally, you can do so in a public place where a person would have no reasonable expectation of privacy anyway.
That's not to say that they won't go wacko and beat the crap out of you - but you would be legally in the right.

Some public places prohibit photography - so if you see a sign - obey it.

However, to USE it, you need to get a model release from them if at all possible. If you try to sell it - either for one-time use or in perpetuity, the purchaser will ask for a model release.

If you publish it without one, you could get sued.

If they are part of a group and not the main subject - it'd still be nice - but you can probably get by without it if it's not published to widely.

It's always better to approach them and ask for a model release. (afterwards - if you want it candid). Most will be flattered and sign one (keep some handy).

The exception are celebrities (who have less of a expectation of privacy - even in a non-public place (such as a restaurant)) - and then you're in the fine company of the paparazzi.

Answer 2

Basically it goes like this, yes, you can photograph strangers in public places, unless you do it to such an extent and in such a way that you become a harasser or nuisance to the public.
City and state parks are generally public places. Figuring out what is or isn’t a public place is usually easy, but not always. If the public is allowed free and unrestricted access to a place, like streets, sidewalks and public parks, it is probably a public place (although parts of sidewalks and what appear to be public parks may be privately owned). Once you go indoors, you are probably no longer in a public place, and some person or entity can probably make the rules, including restrictions on making photographs.
Note that even in public places, police officers have broad powers to protect the public from possible harm and to enforce the local ordinances. If a cop tells you to stop, you’d better obey promptly and defer the arguments until after you’ve checked with a lawyer.
On the other hand if you go ahead and publish the image with some persons face cleary visible in it, and you make commercial profit off that image (non editorial), that person can sue.
In the areas of defamation, libel, etc., truth is almost always a good defense. Assuming the photo is not staged or manipulated, i.e., that it is a true and accurate image of what really happened, and assuming it is used for editorial purposes and not trade or advertising, the photography by itself will probably not be a source of liability. However, if the newspaper decides to do something like run it with a headline that says “King of the Klutzes” and an embarrassing or humiliating story, there could easily be a successful lawsuit. The liability, though, would belong to the publisher of the newspaper, not the photographer, although the photographer would probably be stuck having to defend him- or herself in the suit. Even worse, the photographer may have signed an agreement with the publisher in which he/she promised to indemnify the publisher. In that case, the photographer would be stuck with all of the costs and liabilities, even though the fault would be the publisher’s.

Answer 3

Photographers are getting a lot of heat about this since the 9/11 tragedy....but everything I have read says that if you are out in public and aren't trespassing and can snap a picture of it....then it's legal....with few exceptions...like children changing in a bedroom window or something....but I think all else is fair game...even power plants and stuff

Answer 4

Yes, so long as they have no reasonable expectation of privacy (for example inside their home, in a dressing room, et cetera). But keep in mind that many parents may have issues with you photographing their children without their permission, public domain or not.

Answer 5

It depends entirely upon the context. I have a photo of me and 3 friends at the State Fair in NC with lots of people I dont know, and I am sure there is nothing wrong with that. I also have a photo of a bag lady in Vancouver which is so sad, and I didnt ask her if I could take it. Its probably borderline. But taking photos of people in compromising situations, or in a peeping-tom situation is entirely immoral.

Answer 6

Happens all the time, by accident or on purpose. Thing is, to be polite and considerate. If you can ask first, do so. And you might even ask for an address so you can mail a courtesy print if its a portrait type. Just do what you would expect from someone snapping your mug.

Answer 7

Yes and no
If they know that you are taking pictures of them and said stop, you must not take my picture. You must cease and desist.
Papparazis get in trouble because they just shoot pictures with out the subject's knowledge.

Answer 8

You can take them, but if you distribute them commercially, you should have a model release.

Answer 9

Yes you are public domain.

Answer 10

yes..

just dont tell them...