Do I need a release?

[Charliedelta]

I took a picture where there are a man and a woman walking in a street. They are in the center of the picture. But they are walking away from me, the image is taken from behing them and you can only see their backs. Their heads are not turned to the side or anything, just looking forward, so in the image there's only the back of their heads.

I cannot recognize them, but would I have needed a release? I'd like to post it on my website to be part of my portfolio. Can I use it?

Thanks

 

[tirediron]

No release required.

 

[KmH]

Faces are not required for recognition.
Unique features like a tattoo or scar can suffice for 'recognition', as can custom made clothing, shoes, jewelry, a unique hair style etc.

From a legal perspective, recognition is generally decided by the person in the image, not the photographer.

Model release law varies by state, and since New York has substantial imaging/advertising/publication industries New York release law is somewhat more extensive and complex than release law in other states.

But, a good general resource regarding model/release law is: A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

The book above notes that photographers are granted a bit of latitude when self-promoting and self-publishing photos of people, even when their faces are clearly visible in an image.
Circumstances involving how an image was made, and how people in the image can be perceived factor into the criteria that determine if or if not having a valid release on file is advisable.

FWIW- An online photography forum is not a very good place to be seeking legal advice. A consultation with a qualified attorney is always recommended.

 

[Gavjenks]

They may still be recognizable... HOWEVER:

If all you're doing it putting it on your portfolio, it doesn't matter anyway, because even completely recognizable faces don't require releases to put in a portfolio if they were walking around in plain sight in public.

The only exceptions would be if they were obviously making some effort to conceal themselves (doesn't sound like it), or if they were in a situation that would easily be misconstrued to cast a very negative and FALSE light on them (like walking past a strip club that they didn't actually visit). Doesn't sound like that either. So if they were just casually walking down a plain boring street with no bad connotations to it, carefree, you're fine.



SELLING them would be a whole different bag of marbles. I would suggest never selling anything without a release if you can help it, unless maybe if a person is even more obviously unidentifiable or huge crowds. Even though you are still technically be supposed to be able to get away with that in many cases, it's much riskier than portfolios.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Usually the need for a release is determined by how a photographer would be using a photo (such as retail or commercial use), and how recognizable is the subject.
Property and Model Releases | American Society of Media Photographers
For editorial use (newspaper article) a release may not be needed but might be requested.

If you post your photos online where you're making them available or viewable publicly I don't know if a release would be needed. If you think you might sell a photo someday then you might need a release if the subjects are recognizable.

 

[KmH]

Usage is why I mentioned the part of Dan Heller's book where he discusses self-promotion and self-publishing.

If you did a paid shoot of people out in public for a portfolio or to promote yourself online, or shot out in public in controlled circumstances - by setting up lights, light modifiers, and light stands - you would be well advised to have a valid model release on file from each person in images you make.

 

[DiskoJoe]

On the street is fair game.