Photography Thailand Forum

[stet]

I was just reading an article about diCorcia winning the street photography lawsuit against him in New York Supreme Court, and that got me wondering what the applicable privacy/photography laws are in Thailand. Googling proved futile, so I was wondering if anyone knew what the law is, whether it's been tested or if there are caveats. Or barring that, any ideas where I might be able to find out conclusively.

In case you're interested, here's the article on diCorcia:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/arts/design/19phot.html?hp&ex=1142830800&en=5ad9e04e5cebea59&ei=5094&partner=homepage).

Thanks in advance,
Rick Valenzuela

[Marc Schultz]

That is an interesting subject Rick as well as an interesting case study.

From a strictly commercial standpoint these days all stock photo agencies for example are now requiring model releases for any photos with people in them before they will allow the photos to be placed into their stock collection. Photo buyers these days simply don't want to take on any liability for using an unreleased photo.

As a result, a lot of street photographers are now wanting to get releases signed on the spot for their street photographs, but in practice I think it is not an easy thing to ask people for since a stranger will feel there is an opportunity to ask you for some money if you ask him/her to sign something giving you rights to use his/her photograph.

My understanding though is that as long as a person is not clearly the subject of a photo then there is less liability in general as the photographer can argue that the person was not the intended subject of the photo, that they happened to enter the composition unintentionally and their presence in the photograph was unavoidable. Basically it is when you take a shot of someone straight on where you open the door to a financial liability, especially if you use the photo for commercial purposes, and don't have a release signed.

As to your question, I don't know of any laws of this nature in Thailand. Most likely there are not any as of yet. But in practice I don't think the possibility in Thailand that you would reach an escalated law suit like the one noted in the article is very high, especially if you were using the photo as part of an exhibition, travel photography publication etc. Again, I think it is when the photograph would be used to advertise a product or service where the liability is greater.

I recall a travel piece I was doing photos for last year regarding the Bangkok Airport for an overseas magazine. I had permission from the AOT to take photos inside the airport terminal and I shot a photograph of a woman who was face down as she was getting a back massage. Her face was not visible to the camera, she was fully clothed I might add, and she got upset when she realized I had taken her photograph. I simply deleted it from the flash card to resolve the matter. I have never had an experience like that before. I then went back an hour later to find a young gentleman being massaged in the same shop. This time I asked permission to take his photograph before shooting and he happily agreed. In the end I got a better photograph of him than I did of the woman. So a negative situation that turned positive in the end.

[Marc Schultz]

Rick, if you have a chance you may want to try and get your hands on a copy of the book titled "Professional Business Practices In Photography" published by the American Society of Media Photographers. I am looking at the 5th edition published in 1997 and there may be something newer and more comprehensive at this point. It has a short, but pointed section though about Releases and Permissions. It basically says that invasion of privacy suits typically arise when photos taken without authorization and being used for trade or advertising purposes and that a release can also protect against a libel suit. This would also concur somewhat with the ruling noted on that case reported in the NY Times article you posted which was dismissed it seems on the basis that the photo was not used for trade or advertising. An interesting topic in general for sure.

[stet]

Thank, Marc. I guess I'm coming at things from a US perspective on street photography and photojournalism, but I know things are changing in the UK, Canada and France with respect to shooting in public/on public property. For instance, I believe fears have pushed Australia and the UK to ban photographing other people's children in public, and there's a push in the US to ban photographing the homeless. I would assume that anything for commercial purposes would entail a model release, although with some magazines I can imagine situations where there's a fine line between editorial and commercial.

Needing model releases for street photography would take the oomph out of shooting for me, and the moment would be lost anyway. That isn't to say I'm always impolite when I shoot; a lot of times I will ask nonverbally, with a smile and nod of the head, which usually garners a green light. But I also imagine there'll be some time when I'll struggle to explain that I'm shooting "for myself."

In that respect, your airport terminal story is admirable. I've declined to snap many times because of a frown. Alternatively, though, just before I read the article on diCorcia, I was taking photos at the walking market in Chiang Mai (to humor myself, let's call these "street photography" or "art"  ). Several vendors had "no photos" signs up. In the states, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot photos of them, and I have, strictly because under law there they'd have no right to tell me what to shoot and not shoot in public. I've had security guards in the US tell me it was illegal to take photos from the street or sidewalk of such-and-such a building, which is a pack of lies. (To make the situation more absurd, these are also buildings that have cameras installed on all sides of the building monitoring the area.) To be sure, I'd rather communicate with a subject to see if it's okay for me to do my thing while he does his, but it's the outright commands that get me.

Anyway, before I stray too far off topic, has anyone been harassed for shooting in public in Thailand?

*rick

[2dimage]

How about using your Photoshop skills to replace eyes, nose or mouth to make a new face.
When an image is sufficiently altered doesn't it turn into 'illustration' and therefore no longer
subject to legal challenge? I wonder what proof an agency would need to be convinced that
the subject looks nothing like the original person.
Hooray for Photoshop! and this lovely forum.

Jeff in Florida

[moonfruit]

Jeff, that is indeed a fine idea. one that i had never thought of before.

if only my photoshop skills were up to it!!

regards

[kinginexile]

Hi evryone,

I hope you had a safe Songkran Holidays, and a plain nice week-end to non-expats.

About this subject, I think we have to differentiate between full time carreer, travel, photo-journalists and their publishing outfits, and amateur photographers. For the second, it is just a matter or a problem of approach, either you succed in it or not. Before, a father would assault you, now the Mom sues you. How best to avoid this, and still takes shots, that is the question, and not all is gloom answering it.

Laws against non-kin children photography in the west, I doubt it goes that far if one shoots an event where children are involved copiously, like a public Easter Bunny egg search for example. You may raise eyebrows if dropping in like a hair on the soup, so, engage the parents, smile, participate a little in the proceedings (like applauding, speaking up, making a joke, that can be enough), shave!, and do not act like you are stallling the kids with your cam, best not to shoot like a bat out of hell, and choose moments when something is happening that makes sense shooting, approach the subject by shooting around it (even without suring fears, it's always been a rewarding psychological way to approach people. Shoot a kid's teddy bear, he will become intrigued, somehow a communication may start between you and her/him, and the parents, as well)

The location is important. here in San Francisco, this great city, people and parents can be totally cool, though yes I would not shoot their kid if not a special event or happening, when people are more relaxed, and there is a specific subject. After a while, someone may talk you up, asking if you are a journalist. Tell the truth if you are not, and offer your e-mail or photo site URL, so they can see your shots and those of their kids for example. Ask names too. Nothing wrong with acting a little like a pro.
 
If you are sensible to your surroundings, and blend in the mood, that should really cause no problem. It will help even better if you contact the organizers before, even if it's a chat 10 minutes prior to the show, the dance, whatever. Still  you might apply your own auto-censure when exhibiting your photography, that keeps you out of undue problem. A photo of a nude child may best stay in your folders, unless it has extraneous, over-riding cultural context content, and it's just one in a subject where all shots hold each other well, describing the context.

For pros, it makes me laugh a little. I doubt really that all these shots of hilltribes, naga warriors, hindu temple-goers, etc.... come with a release paper. I have pix of zillion of people who would not understand what I mean by asking if i can put it on the "net".  It seems this law/rule applies only to urban centers in the west, and a few others (some people are more equal....)_. In any case, only if our shots run a risk to be published in a newspaper, magazine, because that's our job to be published, should a concern arise. But really, apples and oranges between pros and others.  And between dailies and other magazines as well. Flight mags rarely have the name of the person in the pix. Natl Geo a bit more, seems most dailies  do have this policy of identification with the shot, well enforced. I think they get the name, not a signed permission though.

Anyway.. have a nice week. I went to the Sisters Of Perpetual Indulgence Easter Bunny Party this week-end. No problem shooting!!!!!!!!