Legalities and Street Shooting...

[magkelly]

I've always wondered how do you pros handle the legalities when you are just free-shooting on the street? I've not done a lot of commercial work with people, yet, but and the few times I've used real people as models I've always gotten verbal permission or a written release if necessary. But I've also shot a number of pics that I really like and that I might want to use for stock or art prints for gallery shows someday where it was very quick and where I never even met the person I was shooting.

There's no way to track these people down, not really, but I hesitate to show them when I can sometimes because I am worried about what I am doing in terms of it being legal. I know I own the shots, but for casual public shooting what do you have to do to cover your arse and still be able to use those photos?

Some of my best portraits are actually casual street work. They're in the portfolio, but I'd really like to use them for more than that someday...

Any tips?

Thanks!

 

[ghpham]

The upshot is you cannot use the photo's for monetary gains without a written release. Even for your portfolio, that is crossing the line between displayed art, and advertising. You should get some legal advice from a professional (lawyer that is).

 

[magkelly]

The upshot is you cannot use the photo's for monetary gains without a written release. Even for your portfolio, that is crossing the line between displayed art, and advertising. You should get some legal advice from a professional (lawyer that is).

I just read that legally oriented page up above and it sounds like just doing gallery display or making prints to sell is okay, but using them for say an ad for beer or selling them for stock use might not be.

I see my portfolio as simply me showing off my best work, to anyone, not just potential clients so I don't think that so long as I don't use the photos with say text for ads for my business or something I am okay there. I probably wouldn't do that anyway, not unless I had a release, but it would be nice if I ever got to do a show of my work if I could sell prints of my work or put them in a book of my photos at least.

That article above was a bit confusing, but there's a link to another one too. I actually just wanted to know what the pros here might actually do, not just what some article says is "probably" the right thing to do.

 

[ghpham]

The upshot is you cannot use the photo's for monetary gains without a written release. Even for your portfolio, that is crossing the line between displayed art, and advertising. You should get some legal advice from a professional (lawyer that is).

I just read that legally oriented page up above and it sounds like just doing gallery display or making prints to sell is okay, but using them for say an ad for beer or selling them for stock use might not be.

I see my portfolio as simply me showing off my best work, to anyone, not just potential clients so I don't think that so long as I don't use the photos with say text for ads for my business or something I am okay there. I probably wouldn't do that anyway, not unless I had a release, but it would be nice if I ever got to do a show of my work if I could sell prints of my work or put them in a book of my photos at least.

That article above was a bit confusing, but there's a link to another one too. I actually just wanted to know what the pros here might actually do, not just what some article says is "probably" the right thing to do.

1. How is selling prints ok? you are making money out of image you took without consideration for the subject.

2. Showing off your best work to potential client(s) is a form of advertisement. A picture worth a thousand words as the saying go, no need for text. But like I said, this area is murky.

3. Professional photographers are not professional lawyers. People here will tell you tell you what they do, but ultimately, they will tell you to consult with a lawyer. It will save you grief in the long run.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I don't claim to be, and I don't play one on TV!

 

[pbelarge]

Photographers have been shooting random shots of people forever, okay since photography started.
I do not believe they have permission to show them, yet they do.


I was in NYC a couple of weeks ago shooting. 99% of the people hardly notice the camera. I cannot see how one needs to get permission. Unless you are using a particular person as part of the campaign.


This photo has been making the rounds all over the place for years...


this photo is from Wikapedia

 

[burstintoflame81]

You can make money off of photos of people without a release. That is a misconception. Editorial photographers do it everyday when they sell shots to Newspapers. You are correct in saying that for any type of advertising you would need a release. Pretty much anything that could be miscontrued as being an endorsement by that person or insinuating some sort of association with that person and a specific good, or business etc. You can sell editorial photos without releases in most case which is what most magazines use anyway. How do you think Paparazi sell pictures. Do you think Lindsey Lohan is signing a release when she steps out of a car and accidentally flashes her HooHa?

Look in the Photographers Market. You can see that not every business REQUIRES model releases. The ones that do, either work in advertising or want the option to sell stock to clients who do.

 

[Dallmeyer]

Pretty much anything that could be miscontrued as being an endorsement by that person or insinuating some sort of association with that person and a specific good, or business etc.

Yep! As you can probably guess I am no expert. But read up also about "Conversion" - that is not just people their personal identities endorsing something, but also buildings and trademarks.

Something i read recently that i thought was interesting - take a photo of the Eiffel Tower during the day - that could be ok as a stock image, but at night - the lightshow that illuminates the tower is copyright!

 

[Village Idiot]

You can make money off of photos of people without a release. That is a misconception. Editorial photographers do it everyday when they sell shots to Newspapers. You are correct in saying that for any type of advertising you would need a release. Pretty much anything that could be miscontrued as being an endorsement by that person or insinuating some sort of association with that person and a specific good, or business etc. You can sell editorial photos without releases in most case which is what most magazines use anyway. How do you think Paparazi sell pictures. Do you think Lindsey Lohan is signing a release when she steps out of a car and accidentally flashes her HooHa?

Look in the Photographers Market. You can see that not every business REQUIRES model releases. The ones that do, either work in advertising or want the option to sell stock to clients who do.

You can also sell a photo of a person as a work of art and profit off of it without requiring a release of that/those individual(s).

 

[Village Idiot]

Okay... so this question seems to come up once a month or so... there's a lot of "The law is this..." "No, the law is *this*!" that always happens... and I'm curious...

Is there a reliable source that one can look up and find the answer? It's not that I don't trust your words... the fact that tons of paparazzi sell hundreds of celebrity photographs without them signing off is obvious proof enough, but I'm just interesting in finding a reliable source that clearly outlines the boundaries.

State and government law books.

 

[TheSolicitor]

If you want a rock solid, bet you life on it, no doubt about it answer pay a $500 retainer to an attorney and have them do the proper research to give you the answer. I would do it as I have access to Lexis and WestLaw, but I'm procrastinating from working on a criminal procedure exam...

I can offer my thoughts off the top of my head, with the understanding that this is not legal advice, not intended to be legal advice, and if anyone detrimentally relies on this as legal advice, I am completely and absolutely disclaiming this as legal advice. One should always seek local counsel to answer complicated legal questions such as this.

Generally, my thoughts are that if you are in public, you have a lowered expectation of privacy than you would on your property or in your home. However, that lowered expectation of privacy cannot be violated by someone harassing an individual to get photographs (or anything, really). With that said, it is generally accepted that you may stand on a public sidewalk and shoot anything or anyone that you see. As previously mentioned, editorial photographers have been doing this for decades. There are obvious exceptions, federal buildings, federal agents, and photographing on to someone's private property may get you additional scrutiny. One shooting in public should always strive to avoid confrontation when possible, and if you have the ability to have a conversation with someone before you take a photograph of them it always helps lessen the likelihood of a confrontation.

 

[vtf]

I always had heard that if it could be seen in a public venue then no one except the photographer had the copyright this includes someone flying over in a helicopter could take a shot of someones back yard since it could be seen from anyone in the public airspace. Im not a lawyer but it would seem to apply to the above journalistic/paparazzi mentioned above and in fact it would seem to be a censorship of historical documentation if you couldnt take pictures in a public venue without restrictions. Just my take.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

This photo has been making the rounds all over the place for years...

And you just broke the copyright law by using it. Not to mention one the rules of this website.

Whether this photo has made the rounds or not, it still is the property of NG or its photographer (depending on what deal they have.) But copyright and model releases are two different things.

There are only two uses, that I know from experience, for which you do not need a model release. Art and news. There are probably some other editorial uses allowed but it has never happened to me so I'm not sure how that would work.

Use a person likeness in an ad, a book cover, a album cover, etc and you had better have a model release.

 

[KmH]

Photographers have been shooting random shots of people forever, okay since photography started.
I do not believe they have permission to show them, yet they do.


I was in NYC a couple of weeks ago shooting. 99% of the people hardly notice the camera. I cannot see how one needs to get permission. Unless you are using a particular person as part of the campaign.


This photo has been making the rounds all over the place for years...


this photo is from Wikapedia

And the licensing section of that page for that image says:

File:Sharbat Gula.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.

Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). A rationale must be provided for every article any non-free image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria. Source and other copyright information must also be provided.
If this tag does not accurately describe this image, please replace it with an appropriate one.

Wikipedia has many images that have Creative Commons licenses but not that one!

 

[KmH]

Okay... so this question seems to come up once a month or so... there's a lot of "The law is this..." "No, the law is *this*!" that always happens... and I'm curious...

Is there a reliable source that one can look up and find the answer? It's not that I don't trust your words... the fact that tons of paparazzi sell hundreds of celebrity photographs without them signing off is obvious proof enough, but I'm just interesting in finding a reliable source that clearly outlines the boundaries.

State and government law books.

I meant something slightly more accessible to someone like myself, haha

I am not an attorney.

Model release laws vary by state.

How a photo is used (Usage) is what defines if a model release is needed or not.

A model release protects the person(s) in the photo and the publisher of the image, and the publisher is who would get sued, not the photographer. However, because the photographer is right there when the image is made, publishers expect the photographer to get a properly executed release. In any event, having a properly executed release increases the value of an image.

Most of the time the photographer is not the publisher of the image.

A model release is not required if the image is used editorially, as satire, or as art which is why you can sell photos of people without their express permission.

However, there is a line out there that is ill defined that once crossed requires a model release even for art or satire, and that line is called mass distribution.

Stock agencies generally will not accept photos with people in them if the photographer cannot also provide a properly executed model release(s).

The decision whether to use or not use an image that isn't accompanied by a model release is at the sole discretion of the publisher.

Get the book:
A Photographers Guide To Model Releases by Dan Heller

or visit Dan's web site www.danheller.com .

 

[burstintoflame81]

If you want a rock solid, bet you life on it, no doubt about it answer pay a $500 retainer to an attorney and have them do the proper research to give you the answer. I would do it as I have access to Lexis and WestLaw, but I'm procrastinating from working on a criminal procedure exam...

I can offer my thoughts off the top of my head, with the understanding that this is not legal advice, not intended to be legal advice, and if anyone detrimentally relies on this as legal advice, I am completely and absolutely disclaiming this as legal advice. One should always seek local counsel to answer complicated legal questions such as this.

Generally, my thoughts are that if you are in public, you have a lowered expectation of privacy than you would on your property or in your home. However, that lowered expectation of privacy cannot be violated by someone harassing an individual to get photographs (or anything, really). With that said, it is generally accepted that you may stand on a public sidewalk and shoot anything or anyone that you see. As previously mentioned, editorial photographers have been doing this for decades. There are obvious exceptions, federal buildings, federal agents, and photographing on to someone's private property may get you additional scrutiny. One shooting in public should always strive to avoid confrontation when possible, and if you have the ability to have a conversation with someone before you take a photograph of them it always helps lessen the likelihood of a confrontation.

The selling of the picture ( or technically, the publishing of the picture ) is the issue. You are right about the taking of the picture though. Unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, you have the right to shoot.

Also, to touch on someone elses comments about trademarks and buildings. Interesting story, a guy was selling posters of the Rock and Roll hall of fame that he shot. He was sued and won, because the building itself was not found to be a trademark of the Rock and Roll hall of fame. So thats a very touchy area. If you are going to mass produce something you might as well get a lawyer because it is then worth the investment.

So the things to remember are:

1) shoot whatever you want as long as it does not invade on someones privacy or is not on public property ( unless you have permission ) Noone can stop you whether they want to or not. ( This includes law enforcment ) or they are violating your rights, and can be sued by YOU.

2) If you need a model release a publisher would let you know. Most people designate in their photo captions or in their correspondence, which images have a model release . Ultimately the publisher will be the first sued so most publishers are VERY careful about what they use.

So I guess the acts of shooting and publishing are two seperate deals. Many people think of them as the same.

I am no expert but I am quite sure this is the gist of it. However, as with all laws, there are gray areas and loopholes. So always err on the side of caution