Getty Images

<blockquote>

<p>Could there be possible concerns if the child is a minor and his/her image is being used for potential commercial uses with parental consent?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If there is parental consent then such an issue is resolved but it was not an issue here since the use was wasn't commercial. The age of a child is not an issue either because the actual issue is simply whether they are a minor or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You might be forgiving of someone thinking so after making all these remarks and not mentioning that you had no such problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The age of a child is not an issue either because the actual issue is simply whether they are a minor or not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll amend this slightly in that there may be jurisdictions that treat people under 18 but over a certain age as being bound by certain contracts they sign but I have not researched that question.</p>

<p>Getty photographers shoot both editorial stock and regular stock. The difference is where the photos end up and what they are providing. Editorial stock is simular to your newspaper photographer's photos and are used for news purposes. The "editorial" tag is broad and can be used in alot of different ways, however it cannot be used for commercial use (ie: you won't see your photo being used on a box of cerial). Can you imagine the news photographers having to get model releases from everyone they shoot pictures of? Can you imagine photographers stopping the president and having him sign a hundred different model releases from each speech that he gives?<br>

The paparazzi make their money the same way. In fact alot of them are Getty. Alot of people hate them, but alot of those same people subscribe to People magazine and are paying the paparazzi to continue. David Thomas is on the right track, unless your photo is being used for commercial use (ie: products...not magazine, newsarticle, or galleries) then the photographer's use of the image is legal. If it were me, I'd search gettyimages.com and see if you can find your photo. If you do find it on their website, contact the photographer directly. That seems like the smartest option. <br>

PS: you can check out getty's editorial policy <a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/EditorialPolicy.aspx">here:</a></p>

<p>This is the kind of greedy, thoughtless, arrogant behavior that gives photographers a bad reputation. Every story like this makes it MORE DIFFICULT for other photographers to take legitimate photos of people in public places. Given that Getty is ALREADY MAKING MONEY from this image, they should give Mr. Moorhouse and his family a copy of the photo for the price of a postage stamp.</p>

<p>John H., I asked two questions, both of which you just conceded were good questions. Rather than simply attempting to answer them for me, you proceeded to draw your own conclusions on my "believes" and my "views," and accussed me of "attacking news article use as it is the holy grail and poster child of permissible use of someone's likeness" when I did no such thing. I described the situation, providing every detail I thought was pertinent, and asked a question. You can list any number of quotes from my posts you like, but I only need to reply with the two you ignored: "We are not looking for the images to be taken down" and "And to clarify, we are actually willing to pay for it." </p>

<p>You also mis-read my "these days" comments, perhaps because I was not aware of the two uses of the word editorial. Prior to posting in this thread, I thought it refered only to an article based on the opinion of the author. From the posts of others, I now know it is also a type of Clearance. From you, I received only accusations that I want to bring an end to modern media.</p>

<p>Finally, in your last post, you accused me of being resistent to accurate responses. The only thing I resisted were your assumptions and the wrongful conclussions you came to about me. I thanked nearly everyone else who replied and acknowledged ideas I would follow up on based on their input.</p>

<p>In the end, however, I will say you answered my question regarding the difference between my street photos and news photos very well, and I do appreciate that. It is nice to know that I was probably not in the wrong for posting them when I did. If you do help with other questions of mine in the future, I hope it is with the thought that went into this last one and not the personal attacks I read in your first couple of posts on this thread.</p>

<p >Jeff R., thank you for the response. I appreciate the explanation and the additional information.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I did search GettyImages.com and have the name of the photographer. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find any contact information for him. I located and emailed another photographer by the same name using google, but he has already replied to tell me that he is not the person I am looking for. Are you aware of a directory of photographers on Getty's website that has contact information for the photographers themselves?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks again.</p>

<p>Editorial is anything that isn't advertising, in journalistic parlance. This is often confused with editorial opinions, that appear on the opinion page in newspapers, etc. To further confuse matters, to editorialize is to express an opinion. But editorial usage refers to news gathering, both text and photos.</p>

<p>If, however, you ever see this image used to sell something, as in an advertisement, unless you've signed a model release then you/family would be entitled to compensation/sue.</p>

<p>It's my understanding that photographers are allowed to take photos of anything or anyone (without a release) as long as (a) they are on public property and/or (b) they have consent of the property owner. In your case, I would think the White House lawn would be considered public property and since the photographer was invited to the event too, I would assume he had consent from the property owner (the US government).</p>

<p>I take photos for a couple local bars all the time when they have special events. They want to use my photos of people partying and having a good time in their promotions and on their websites. And I run into people all the time that think I need their "permission" to take their photos. I sometimes have to tell them "I am employed by the owner, the bar has signage saying photography may happen and if you don't want your photo taken, you are more than welcome to leave the property."</p>

<p>Of course 99% of the time I'm not a jerk about it. Usually if someone asks me to not take their picture I won't. Or if I take one and they ask me to delete it, I'll usually show it to them and try to talk them into letting me keep it. Usually they say "ok" once they see it's a pretty good photo. But if they insist (nicely), I'll usually delete it in front of them. I only us the line above for the people to automatically get pissy with me and try to bully me.</p>

<p>Unfortunately if you were taken in public venue, which you were by all sounds, you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" and therefor your picture can be used for "editorial purposes" without any compensation.</p>

<p>As also noted, your ticket stub may have waved away further protections. See here for more on "Model Releases":</p>

<p>http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html</p>

<p>Consider the alternative - the NYT sends out a reporter to cover the local Tea Party. (S)he takes pictures which of course may have dozens or more identifiable persons in a frame. The NYT then prints the photo(s), which the NYT being a "for profit" is essentially making money off of the subjects of the photo, but is still "editorial" in nature.</p>

<p>Should the NYT have to track down and get "model releases" for everyone they take, potentially in a fast moving crowd?</p>

<p>Obviously not.</p>

<p>Now selling mugs is another thing.</p>

<p>That said, the right thing to do as a photographer (or Getty) in this case, would be to supply copies free of charge as a goodwill gesture. If nothing else, it helps avoid the kind of angst we see here. But they're a big ugly company, so there you go.</p>

<p>BTW - also see the section here on "Public places":</p>

<p>https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy</p>

<p>This too:</p>

<p>http://asmp.org/tutorials/frequently-asked-questions-about-releases.html#q4</p>

<p>Clearly there is a fine line between "editorial" and "for profit" use though...</p>

 

<p>For profit or not has <strong>no bearing</strong> at all if a image usage is editorial. None. 99% of my images are used editorially and I'm paid for 100% of the usages (unless someone use my images without a usage license obviously). I am certainly not a non-profit. <br /><br />Please folks, let's not confuse the terminology here - there is enough misunderstandings regarding editorial/commercial as it is.</p>

<p>My point was a "for profit" company could use it for "editorial purposes" and the fact that they were "for profit" doesn't matter. The NYT is "for profit" but uses editorial shots all the time without compensation. It's only when the use of the image implies endorsement that issues arise.</p>

<p>Anyway, another good link here:</p>

<p>http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That said, the right thing to do as a photographer (or Getty) in this case, would be to supply copies free of charge as a goodwill gesture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a ridiculous idea. Photographers shooting for wire services, stock, editorial may shoot hundreds of people a day. They should provide photos to all of them? I did a shoot of a street event, it ended up with a double page spread in a local newspaper of my photos. Probably fifty identifiable people. I should prep and make 50 prints for people? The newspaper should do it? One more time, we have a free press. That means that the press is free to use newsworthy (including "human interest" or what is usually called "feature" in the business) photos without obligation. The newspapers, wire services and stock agencies would all quickly go out of business if they made prints for everyone in the photos. Or even the ones that made requests.</p>

<p>Robert, it will be counter productive to spend more time analyzing what various comments tend to suggest. I'm confident that your questions have been answered and that you have a solid perspective on them as well. Please feel welcome to ask more. If I can help, I will. To the question about finding the photographer you could post the name in the title of a new thread (i.e. I'm looking for photographer so and so) and someone may recognize the name and respond.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is a ridiculous idea.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think "ridiculous" is a bit overly melodramatic thank you.</p>

<p>The point was, the OP said, to quote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My wife and child are the main subjects of the images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now if I were the photographer and it was posted in several places, I, being a nice guy that I am, would offer to give a copy if they asked. I think it's the right thing to do. A small gesture frankly. I made money frankly off of these people as main subjects.</p>

<p>I did not, however, as you have read into my words, imply that this should be general "modus operandi", nor suggest that they were in any way obligated to. Also, if it was a big deal because of the numbers as you suggest, then I would just say, "I'd love to, but I get these requests all the time and I can't afford to." However, this seemed a very specific case based on the main focus of the image.</p>

<p>I'm not a pro, so the chances of this happening to me are small. You have to decide what is right for you, but I don't think I'm "ridiculous" for suggesting it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you were taken in public venue, which you were by all sounds, you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" and therefor your picture can be used for "editorial purposes" without any compensation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reasonable expectation of privacy has nothing to do with "editorial purposes" analysis. An image can be used as such even if the image were not taken in a public venue. You might refer to your own site that you cited to see this. If the image were taken in a way that amounts to the tort of intrusion, however, the the conduct is actionable even without publication. A completely separate issue and analysis altogether.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Reasonable expectation of privacy has nothing to do with "editorial purposes" analysis. An image can be used as such even if the image were not taken in a public venue. If the image were taken in a way that amounts to the tort of intrusion, however, the the conduct is actionable even without publication. A completely separate issue and analysis altogether.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see what you're saying there - I'm mixing the law, though the end in this particular instance doesn't look that much different. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting:</p>

<ol>

<li>In a circumstance with the "expectation of privacy", I cannot take your picture period without consent. That consent however does not have to be in the form of a "Model Release", but just some sort of indication that you accept my taking of photos. If I take photos in this case without consent, then I am in "tort of intrusion" territory and committing a crime regardless (ie: I'm a "Peeping Tom" of sorts).</li>

<li>If the subject consents in a situation that otherwise has an "expectation of privacy", because of the consent I am now free to use the images for "editorial purposes".</li>

<li>If I take the image in a "public venue", then there is implied consent and I can both take the picture regardless and use it for "editorial purposes".</li>

<li>However, in either of #2 or #3 if I use the image in a mode that implies endorsement, then I need a model release.</li>

</ol>

<p>Again, correct me if I'm wrong.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

 

<p>My wife and son's image was used in a local newspaper story many years back by the local newspaper. We also signed a release for the reporter. They had a standard procedure that an 8x10 could be purchased for a nominal fee, but not for free. At that time someone would have had to take the negative to the darkroom and make a print which would have taken a bit of time. I think we bought two or three prints from them and thought the fees reasonable for the time involved. After all they are in the business to make money. I also have a copy of the newspaper that the photo appeared in, and value that more than the 8x10's. </p>

<p>Robert, even though you don't like the answer, the fact is the use of the photos you mentioned are not "commercial" as it specifically relates to the use of photographs. If the photographs end up in a commercial, like an add, then you would have a beef. Non-commercial use, doesn't mean not for profit. I know it may sound un-intuitive, but that is the way it is. If you are going to argue that your rights to privacy etc. were violated, you will find that this principal is long settled in the law in favor of use of these images. A model release is not neccessary, they can be sold in a gallery, they can be sold as stock for use in articals and news stories. If you go to Getty images and find the image in the stock library, or one of the librarys, you will see that its sale is restricted to certain uses. <br>

Sorry, but that's the way it is.</p>

<p>Wow, thanks to everyone whose contributed. </p>

<p>For the record...<br>

I do not feel that my right to privacy was violated.<br>

I do not want to have the photos removed.<br>

I did not expect to get the photo for free.</p>

<p>I asked the questions I asked because I have been curious about releases and the posting and sale of photos for a long time. Having photos of my family appear on Getty motivated me to finally ask. I provided all of the details, such as our having not signed a release, as background on the situation because I thought it would make a difference in the outcome, not because I wanted to argue to have the photos removed or fight for privacy, etc. I apologize if my choice or words or tone implied otherwise.</p>

<p>Admittedly, yes I would have enjoyed receiving a copy (electronic by the way, as I did not expect anyone to print and mail me a photo). I would have paid for it as well. I just won't pay more than I would for an Ansel Adams print.</p>

<p>In the end, I have learned a lot about the subject and I appreciate everyone's replies.</p>

<p>Personally, as stated in your last post certainly, I see nothing unreasonable about your take Robert...</p>

<p>Matt, here are my responses to your questions:</p>

<p>

<p >1. There are usually other elements than just EOP. Intrusion, for example, usually also requires that the act be offensive to a reasonable person. There may be some excuse to intrude such as trying to get evidence of a crime or something. It may be found that such efforts are not highly offensive. Intrusion does not necessarily mean a crime is being committed because crimes have their own elements that must be met and are analyzed separately .</p>

<p >2. If you mean consent to be consent to display the image then permission is granted although it is not needed for editorial use. If consent means permission to take pictures then EOP doesn’t matter as there no longer is any such expectation. Editorial use should not be an problem here either.</p>

<p >3 I’m not sure that “implied consent” is why one can use images for editorial use when the people are in public because images can often be used for editorial purpose when the subjects are on private property and events as well. Implied consent is also often associated with exercising certain privileges like driving motor vehicles. It may be more of a ‘you have no right to object’ type situation. I don’t know.</p>

<p >4. You need permission to use likenesses for endorsement uses. A release can be both evidence of permission or a contract securing the permission and preventing subsequent revocation. If it is to serve the latter, it must meet the elements needed to form a binding contract.</p>

<p >Now here comes the disclaimer: My comments legal advice. Obtain reliable information from an attorney in your jurisdiction.</p>

</p>

<p>Nice thread, I'm learning stuff here. One thing that made me wonder considering the rest of the information was Dean S's comment</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I take photos for a couple local bars all the time when they have special events. They want to use my photos of people partying and having a good time in their promotions and on their websites.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds like commercial use to me, not editorial. So wouldn't that require releases? Or does it matter here that the owner of the property has consented? Just curious, not implicating Dean or anyone else is doing something wrong.</p>

<p>This is very interesting to me. I've read through most of the posts but not all. Please correct me if my understanding is flawed, but if Getty Images were to sell their prints to private citizens wouldn't that constitute commercial usage, for which they would need a release? If I snap a really nice photo of someone in the Park, who is clearly identifyable, and then make really large prints of it, and then sell it to anyone who likes it and wants a copy, wouldn't I technically need a release from my subject?</p>