Someone wants to sue for pics they gave me to put on the web.

[Formatted]

or any professional advice of any kind.

Whilst what you are saying is logical, because this is photography related forum its possible that the advice we could give would be related to photographs and maybe someone might have been in a similar situation. So whilst maybe misguided, when combined with other advice from legal council, it could be an effective way of making a decision.

 

[Christie Photo]

Getting legal advice from an internet forum, especially not even one geared to legal professionals, is a really bad idea. Might even say stupid idea!

Well... not so much.

There is sound reasoning is asking photographers about their real-world experience with similar matters. It's a good way to begin and help decide what to do next.

My wife and I have a medical book at home. We referred to it often when deciding what to do about symptoms. OF COURSE, we never relied on it for a final diagnosis or presumed we didn't need the help of a physician. Just getting a little background, that's all. No stupidity.

-Pete

 

[Christie Photo]

Can you be "sued?" Of course. I can sue you if I don't like the font you are posting with. Can he prevail in court is another question entirely.

...I would go ahead and do whatever I could to remove them - if only as a goodwill gesture. ...

Lawyers are very expensive and most people would not be keen on paying one over a few snapshots, so I would not panic at all over this.

^^^^^^^
ALL of THIS... very good advice.

-Pete

 

[~Stella~]

Getting legal advice from an internet forum, especially not even one geared to legal professionals, is a really bad idea. Might even say stupid idea!

Hey, now - lawyers appreciate photography too.

 

[skieur]

Here's the thing, as far as I know. It is perfectly legal for you to take and post any pictures of any person so long as they are in a public place. They have no expectation of privacy and legally do not have any grounds to ask you to take them down. If you were selling the pictures, then, absolutely he could sue you (and win), but aside from this, you are legally on solid ground.

The definition of "public place" is a bit more broad than people think. In a truly public place, owned by the government, like a park or the sidewalk, there is no question. In a semi-public place, like a mall or a business, then the business sets the rules, but for people photography, it is still considered public so long as the owners of the establishment allow photography. Private locations include things like people's homes (not visible from public property, as in front yard doesn't count), or private venues, bathrooms, or anywhere a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That being said, it might make this situation a lot calmer if you just took them down and apologized. I, on the other hand, don't shy away from confrontation

Note: I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever (really) been in this situation. This is based on the understanding of photograhy laws I have gleaned from a good bit of reading so I'd have ammunition against the gung-ho security guards of the world.

EDIT: Oh, shizzz, I missed that the phtos were his. Yeah, take those down ASAP.

INCORRECT in some points. You CAN sell photos of someone taken in a public place as long as they are NOT sold for the purpose of advertising. As to malls and other public places, the owner does "set" the rules BUT as long as there are no signs you can take and sell photos for other than advertising UNTIL you are told NOT to do so, by security or a rep. of the owner. Realize that the ONLY recourse the owner has in a mall, museum, etc. if you take photos without permission is to charge you with trespassing, which is unlikely. The usual reaction is to have security escort you off the property.

Remember that taking photos is NOT ILLEGAL anywhere with the exception of washrooms, change rooms, court rooms etc. and TOP SECRET installations on a limited list in the United States. Local bylaws against photography in some areas of the United States and Canada have NOT been tested in court so their LEGALITY is still subject to question as in they may violate rights to freedom of expression etc. in the Constitution or Charter of Rights.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Sorry, I don't trust you., Flamesrule
I have argued with a copyright lawyer specialist in a public forum in front of an audience and won. Sure consult a lawyer but realize that their knowledge may not be any better than some experienced photographers in this forum.

skieur

 

[skieur]

no! they can't sue you man!!!!! a net is a public domain!!!! nobody really owns something!!!!! you have all the right, by internet domain law, to use any pics man!!!!

I have always been told to have anyone sign a consent form if you are going to publish their mug anywhere....especially if their name or location is mentioned.

There is NO reason to mention someone's name in a published photo unless it is the wish of your photo subject. I seldom mention location unless in general terms.

The net by the way is NOT public domain, as some of my colleagues who have won substantial law suits for "theft" of photos or their copyright can attest.

skieur

 

[KmH]

no! [sic] they [sic] can't sue you man!!!!! a [sic] net is a public domain!!!! nobody [sic] really owns something!!!!! you [sic] have all the right, by internet [sic] domain law, to use any pics man!!!!

Not !!!!! Even !!!!!! Close !!!!!
Totally !!!!! Incorrect !!!!! Internet !!!!! Urban !!!!! Legend !!!!!

What Internet domain law?

A release is not needed to post images you own the copyright to, on a personal web site, becausae a personal web site is editorial.

If the web site is used for self-publication or self-promotion, a release may or may not be needed. It would depend under what circumstances a photo was made.