permission or not?

Seefutlung · Jul 25, 2008

manaheim said:
Uh, I'm not sure your statement is correct. Selling it would be commercial... and yeah, I've taken pictures with 50 people in it, and I would have had to gain a release from every one of them if I was using the likeness for commercial purposes. I can proudly display pictures of people on my wall at my home if I like, or publish them on my website, but if it's commercial... bzzt.

This is why you sometimes see people's faces blotted out on television shows... they didn't obtain the release from whatever person was captured.

In the United States, selling the image as 'art' is not considered a commercial use of the image. If you need a link to a recent case ... maybe I'll dig it up. Commercial use, as intrepreted by US law in regards to the 1st Amendment, is in the realm of advertising/marketing.

Trust me, in the case of 50 people taken at an event, if used for a commercial purpose (say Miller Beer) then Miller would obtain permission from the venue and/or event organizers to publish said image.

Gary

Moglex · Jul 25, 2008

Seefutlung said:
Trust me, in the case of 50 people taken at an event, if used for a commercial purpose (say Miller Beer) then Miller would obtain permission from the venue and/or event organizers to publish said image.

Ahh, getiing the release from the event organiser makes more sense.

What is the mechanism whereby an individual's right not to have his/her image used for commercial purposes without permisiion devolves to the organiser of an event?

Seefutlung · Jul 25, 2008

grimm5577 said:
As I said I'm sure there are gray areas, and I'm sure people get away with it, but that doesn't mean if someone has a problem with it, they can't make a lawsuit out of it and win.

Agree or not, Laws are laws.

Sorry I don't think that link posted is a very reputable place for info. (photoattorney) I used the below as my reference.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

If you take someones photo, with permission, and edit the photo in a mis-leading way and publish it. You can be sued... ie the in-famous oj picture...

No this is not a gray area. You can shoot any person of any age as long as the person is in a public place (some public places do have respriction but we are not here to discuss the exceptions).

Anybody can sue anybody for nearly anything ... and winning or losing cannot be speculated here as there are so many factors to be considered in any arguement. What we atre discussing here are what is permissiable to photograph under US law.

Using or altering a photo in a misleading fashion is wrong and libelous, but this is not pertain to this thread (see paragraph above).

Personally, I think www.photoattorney.com is more reputable than Krages ... but let's look at what Krage says...

Opening paragraph of Krage's "The Photographer's Right's" PDF download states:

"The General Rule

The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally
considered public are streets,
sidewalks, and public parks."

It does not say you can take photographs of whatever they want ... as long as they obtain written permission.

Krage continues:
" ... Members of the public have a very

limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside

their homes. ..."

And Krage states:
"Permissible Subjects

Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities

transportation facilities (e.g., airports)

Superfund sites
criminal activities law enforcement officers"

Please show me where Bert P. Krage, attorney at law, supported any of your claims. Once again, based upon Krage, the attorney you referenced to support your statements and in particular to Krage's "The Photographer's Rights", all your claims are false.

Seefutlung · Jul 25, 2008

PS- By the way I do recommend that anybody who shoots in a public area to read, download and print Krage's "The Photographer's Right".

Gary

Village Idiot · Jul 25, 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

Seefutlung · Jul 25, 2008

^5
Thanks for the link ... (I am well aware of this case). I hope others here review your link.

Gary

grimm5577 · Jul 25, 2008

Seefutlung said:
No this is not a gray area. You can shoot any person of any age as long as the person is in a public place (some public places do have respriction but we are not here to discuss the exceptions).

Maybe you need to re-read my post. Specifically...

grimm5577 said:
The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.

Legally you have every right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives.

Thanks.

Seefutlung · Jul 25, 2008

grimm5577 said:
The tricky part is distinguishing your rights.

Legally you have every right to take any photo of any person or thing. No one can demand you to destroy or delete the photos/film/negatives.

Legally you can not publish/print/sell a photo of any recognizable person or property with out written consent from the person or owner. Underage people require getting the parents or guardians written permission.
The only time this is not the case is for journalistic/editorial purposes.

Thats the Black and White of the law, sure there are Gray areas but that is the very simple answer. I carry a bunch of release forms with me when i shoot in public.

I take the random/candid shot, then ask them for the permission after. This way the moment isn't ruined.

That is the law. Like it or not.

Dude, here is the complete quote. In paragraph two you clearly state that "Legally" you cannot publish/print or sell a recognizable person or property without permission. That is false in the United States.

In paragraph three you state that paragraph two is the "Black and White" of the law ... again false in the United States.

While your first paragraph is accurate, the follow two paragraphs are not accurate. And your closing remark of "That is the law ... like it or not." is again, not accurate in the United States.

Gary

manaheim · Jul 25, 2008

Moglex said:
That doesn't really make a lot of sense.

What is the cut-off point in terms of numbers of people shown?.

I'm sure I have seen images of packed football stadia used for commercial purposes and I'm damn sure they didn't get a release from each person there.

It would be nigh on impossible to get a release from every person even in a wide angle shot of a busy street.

There surely must be some definition of a 'crowd'.

There is the matter of being able to distinguish the people. If you literally take a picture of a crowd, there's no way anyone would be able to point at the 2 pixel dot and say "that's me!" and be able to sue. The same principal is applied in a different way when you blot out people's faces on TV or other visual spaces.

Seefutlung said:
In the United States, selling the image as 'art' is not considered a commercial use of the image. If you need a link to a recent case ... maybe I'll dig it up. Commercial use, as intrepreted by US law in regards to the 1st Amendment, is in the realm of advertising/marketing.

Trust me, in the case of 50 people taken at an event, if used for a commercial purpose (say Miller Beer) then Miller would obtain permission from the venue and/or event organizers to publish said image.

Gary

I'd certainly be very interested to see the case if you happen to dig it up, but I'll have to take your word for it... at least up to the point where I decide to try it myself.

I'd hate to sit in a court of law and argue that something I sold for $5000 should be considered "art" therefore absolving me. Very subjective. Very scary.

Seefutlung · Jul 25, 2008

manaheim said:
There is the matter of being able to distinguish the people. If you literally take a picture of a crowd, there's no way anyone would be able to point at the 2 pixel dot and say "that's me!" and be able to sue. The same principal is applied in a different way when you blot out people's faces on TV or other visual spaces.

I'd certainly be very interested to see the case if you happen to dig it up, but I'll have to take your word for it... at least up to the point where I decide to try it myself.

I'd hate to sit in a court of law and argue that something I sold for $5000 should be considered "art" therefore absolving me. Very subjective. Very scary.

The link was provided in this thread by Village Idiot

Go Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

Gary

manaheim · Jul 25, 2008

Yeah, I did actually read that. Very interesting and quite surprising. Still scary.

I've been sued a couple of times and I know the pain of lawsuits, totally trumped up or no... You want nothing less in life to be sued. There is very little joy in it, even when you win. (which I did resoundingly each time...)

Seefutlung · Jul 25, 2008

manaheim said:
Yeah, I did actually read that. Very interesting and quite surprising. Still scary.

I've been sued a couple of times and I know the pain of lawsuits, totally trumped up or no... You want nothing less in life to be sued. There is very little joy in it, even when you win. (which I did resoundingly each time...)

Yep, I totally agree. Unless you're making a living at photography ... it is just better to walk away. Shoot and walk ... shoot and walk ... and in some cases just walk.

Gary