Selling photos with mass amounts of strangers?

[blackrose89]

I'm from the US, south Florida, and from what IAm reading there seems to be no clear cut answer on if you need consent. If you're taking a photo at a ball park, how could you possibly be expected to get consent from 20,000 people? I know the law in the US stated that you are allowed to photograph anyone as long as you are in a public setting.How do you handle selling stranger photography?

 

[Kerbouchard]

At a stadium, usually the ticket includes a model release for the owners/representatives of the stadium.

As far as your photos, you don't need a model release to sell an image as art. You only need a model release if you are trying to sell it to a company to use for advertising or endorsement.

 

[Josh66]

you don't need a model release to sell an image as art.

That.

How are you planning on selling them?

 

[MLeeK]

If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, you don't need a release. A stadium full of people have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[blackrose89]

If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, you don't need a release. A stadium full of people have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

This is what I thought.

 

[Kerbouchard]

If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, you don't need a release. A stadium full of people have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

One thing though, in a stadium particularly, there are lots of other trademarks and recognizable features. Even if the people don't have an expectation of privacy, it is private property, and often times, the ticket will include prohibitions on what can be done with images taken at the location.

Places that you have to pay to get into often have different rules than if you were out in public.

 

[KmH]

Part of what makes the issue of consent murky is that each of the 50 states has their own model/property release statutes. in contrast copyright law is federal law so there is only 1 vesion of US copyright law, not 50 state versions, like there is for release laws. The nuances between states can be kind of subtle.

States that have a strong entertainment industry, like California and New York, also have pretty strong 'right of publicity' statutes.

But in all 50 states it boils down to how an image is used. it is somewhat ironic that model/property release laws are not really intended to protect the photographer. They are intended to protect the model/propery owner and the publisher of the image. It's when the photographer is also the publisher of an image that the photographer needs to have a properly execured and defined releaase for the publication use.

Even more confusing is that when the term publication is used that refers to the legal definition of publication, not the internet urban legend definition of publication. As mentioned above selling prints as art is not considered publication, nor is it considered a commercial use. But, start producing those same prints in the thousands or 10's of thousands, and mass distributing them, and you cross a line into publication and commercial usage.

So you have to be mindful that the model/property release, and publication laws are not as cut and dried as laws like traffic laws.

The best resource I have found that explains the issues in depth is Dan Heller's book - A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

 

[scorpion_tyr]

If the photos are to be used to advertise a product or service a model release is needed.

 

[BekahAura]

Keep in mind that if a person is unrecognizable you don't need a model release... if you shot the backs of peoples heads or got a wide angle shot of the whole field there's no way the spectators could be identified.

 

[KmH]

If the photos are to be used to advertise a product or service a model release is needed.

A photographer is generally allowed to self-publish images of people/property for self-promotion without need of a release, though there are some circumstances that are exceptional.
And again, it is the publisher of the image that needs the release, and the publisher often is not the photographer. The photographer is expected to get a release signed as a convenience to potential publishers, because the photographer is right there when the image is made.

Keep in mind that if a person is unrecognizable you don't need a model release... if you shot the backs of peoples heads or got a wide angle shot of the whole field there's no way the spectators could be identified.

But also be mindful what constitutes recognizable. A person may indeed be recognizable in a shot of the back of their head.

Any unique attribute can be used for recognizability.