Is it unethical to use guest pictures on website

<p>Hi,<br>

I was wondering what's common practice for using photos from a wedding for a photographer website. My clients sign a contract giving me the right to use any and all photographs from an event for promotional use. However, many of my pictures are of guests and their children. These people never signed anything and have no idea that they can be published on my site. I think technically I have the legal right to post them but I don't want angry guests who could have potentially been future customers. I would obviously only post flattering photos because I want to make myself look good as well. The real issue I'm having is posting little children without consent from their parents. It would be impossible to track down the parents and get permission after the event. What do you guys do? Thanks. </p>

<p>Wedding guests understand they are at an event in public which is being photographed, and their voluntarily participation in that event gives you the right to photograph them and use those photographs for your publicity. Photographing people in private without knowledge of it happening is what is unethical and even illegal.</p>

<p>That said, if you were to post photos of guests and they came to you asking you to remove them, you should obviously comply.</p>

<p>Thank you Michael. This is what I thought but wanted someone with more experience to weigh in. Appreciate your reply. I would for sure take comply if someone approached me about a picture they were uncomfortable with.<br>

One more quick question if you don't mind. A while back I wasn't using a contract and therefore I don't have written consent to use pictures of my clients. A few older pictures I want to use are of the clients children at a Bar Mitzvah. I did my best to reach out to the client but have not heard back. Is it better to be safe and not use them or use them and take them down if they ever contact me with a concern?</p>

<p>I have no qualms about posting pictures of guests, and even their children in my portfolio. This of course is assuming that they are generally flattering (obviously usually a requirement for most wedding portfolio work anyway) - and are in no way approaching anything legally ambiguous - ie. there is no obvious reason they would object. Such a policy is included in my contract (though obviously not required here, I feel complete disclosure is a huge plus).</p>

<p>However, I <em>also</em> inform the clients that I've done so (in a specific email), and ask them to review the pictures posted as soon as is practical, and to let me know if they have any problems with any of the posted pictures. I also ask them to notify their guests (of whom are subjects) of the use, and ask <em>them</em> to review the pictures, and let me know if they want any removed. I've only been asked not to use particular images a handful of times, and of course I removed the subject images immediately.</p>

<p>Now this is of course aside from clients who request that I not post any of their images in a publicly available place (part of the dialogue prior to shooting). Obviously I respect those clients requests completely. Again, only happened a couple of times. </p>

<p>Ironically, I've been contacted more times to ask why I didn't<em> add</em> images (specific ones, or any at all) from their event to my portfolio (still only happened a few times), once I even had a Bride who was <em>offended</em> that I didn't. It makes me chuckle when that happens, but my response was that I hadn't updated recently, then added a few of hers (they were quite good) to the portfolio. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Michael C:</strong> their voluntarily participation in that event gives you the right to photograph them and use those photographs for your publicity. Photographing people in private without knowledge of it happening is what is unethical and even illegal. <br /><br /><strong>Michael S:</strong> Thank you Michael. This is what I thought.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If we are discussing the U.S., then Michael C is misinformed about the law concerning the shooting and displaying of images in this respect.</p>

<p>The law of privacy includes four situations where one may be liable for use of imagery containing the likeness of others. One of them, called, "intrusion" covers situations where one intrudes on the private solitude of a person such as if they are in a bathroom, bedroom and other places and situations there is a reasonable expectation of privacy from such things. Being among a bunch people in a ceremony, whether the general public is invited or not, doesn't even come close to that. The next is using an image of someone to cast them in a highly negative "false light" (similar to defamation) which is inapplicable here. The third is "disclosure of private facts which involves publication of sensitive, private information about a person which is not of legitimate concern to the public. Also inapplicable here.<br>

<br />The final and fourth situation, relevant here, is misappropriation which is the use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes without consent. The law here varies by state and territorial jurisdiction. In some places commercial use will include advertising and promotions of virtually any kind, Some include mere endorsement type promoting such as the person shown appears to endorse the product, service or cause. Others allow sample of work type use in any event. That someone is at a private party or wedding or on a public sidewalk is immaterial unless it somehow helps define what kind of use is being made. Because what type of use is involved is the part that matters. <br /><br />It is accurate to say that, unless one is acting in the capacity of a parent, guardian or agent, that the privacy rights of others can't be signed away (e.g. wedding couple signing off on use of guests in promotions of photographers). Here's a website that explores all of these type of issues...<br>

http://www.rcfp.org/photographers-guide-privacy</p>

<p>Marcus provides some great ideas about whether one SHOULD use wedding images they are legally entitled to use.</p>

<p>It probably depends on local law but in general you couldn't use a photo of anyone for your promotion material without a model release. Which you in essence have for the B&G in your contract. But the B&G can't sign away the rights of other people.</p>

<p>So to be 100% legal I would say no. You can't put images on your website promoting your services using images featuring people who are identifiable and have not given you their consent.</p>

<p>That's why the stock agencies require a model release for every image you want to sell them.</p>

<p>PS. John posted his post above while I was writing mine, so that's why I'm saying the same thing :-)</p>

<p>John, thanks for the link and the informative post. Pete, thanks for the validation. </p>

<p>John, I am not misinformed, <em>much</em> research has been done by me on this topic over the years. Your link has to do with the question of news/editorial use of photographs, not necessarily weddings and events (public or private).</p>

<p>With weddings and events, to be absolutely clear on the matter, guests are consenting to be photographed when they pose knowingly for it, while a "candid" moment they may not have been aware you were photographing can come into question and that guest should be contacted. Another consideration is whether or not a particular photograph is deemed news-worthy, and therefore, the First Amendment would trump rights of publicity and privacy.</p>

<p>I will let you guys fight this out since you both know much more than I do. I have a call out to my lawyer to see if she knows anything more. From what Michael is saying I would be able to use a photo of an adult posing for me but an adult talking to another guest and I snap a shot without their knowledge would not be usable without consent. Even if a child poses for the camera I would not be able to use the photo without the parents permission. I would have thought that Michael's original post where he stated that anyone coming to an event with a visible photographer would automatically consent to be photographed would make sense (I understand the law doesn't work on logic).</p>

<p>Do like they do on TV - put a fuzzed-out blog over hte face of anyone who has not signed a model release... just to be safe. :)</p>

<p>If I had to worry about wedding guests parading in front of my camera and then griping if I put the images on a blog I'd quit the biz and drive a truck.</p>

<p>As for the child being photographed, even if they are posing for the picture, you would definitely want the consent of the child's parent. The fact that the child was posing, at a public event at which the parents knew their child could possibly be photographed, would mean at least 99.99999% of the people out there would say it's okay. On the off chance you were to get that lunatic 0.000001% of the public (that might be a conservative estimate knowing how many loonies there are out there) you might want to just make sure it's okay with the parents first.</p>

<p>I would be careful about this issue. As a general rule you are better safe than sorry. I would ask at the time of the image and have small release forms in your bag if you take an image that you know you will probably use. </p>

 

Hang on here! Take a breath! This is a subject I know about; not as an attorney.

 

I like Michael's advice .00000001 percent! Clever!

 

Be sooo and I mean soooo careful. I've shot weddings with well known actors and actresses. Also a few

weddings and some parties with police officers, musicians as guests, at private parties, models,

politicians, and anything else you can think of. Los Angeles has it all. I've required modeling releases when shooting national

and state parks for hire and publication. I've photographed Miss America, and some very famous bands,

models, and much more. Notice I haven't stated any names and there's nothing published anywhere on

the Internet by me. It won't happen.

 

Well it's often common knowledge and courtesy to respect people. If anyone appraoches you asking not

to let the images out to the media you really should behave yourself! If you are over zealous about a

photo ask for written permission. These people are genuinely happy that you asked.

 

OK, now about kids. Do not EVER use kids in a website or any form of advertising without a modeling

release only from a parent. NEVER!

 

Now that I've said this famous people can expect to be photographed in open places, such as on the

streets of Beverly Hills. A photographer has to be careful even with this. If the famous person enters a

private shopping store or a restaurant you could get into trouble if you enter the store thats privately

owned. You may be able to photograph someone through a window, but I'm not an attorney! Notice how

I keep bringing up the law.

 

Using a child for advertisement, inside a building or outside, or a private party, such as a wedding or a

kids party, you could get into a mess of trouble such as a huge fine.

 

Let's be straight here. I'm not an attorney. To be SAFE bring modeling releases with you at parties and

weddings, for that matter, anywhere. Always carry them with you. Weddings are private, not a public

event. I've photographed a lot of fund-raising events as well as weddings with really top named actors

and models, along with some shooting some album/CD covers. Even a few X-rated actors! They were

dressed though. Private parties. Modelling releases are to keep you out of trouble, maybe even jail. I'm

not an attorney.

 

I beg all of you to get releases. Don't take their word for it, by asking them verbally, "Hey Robert can I

use the photo's I took of you?" So you post them. Needless to say, they won't remember and even

worse they could say they have no idea who you are! Aren't people nice!

 

I have no idea of what the rules and the laws are, if they are state rules or federal government laws,

both, and frankly I don't want to know!

 

Thank you for reading this and I'm sure a lot of readers will willingly disagree with me. Thats fine with

me! I'm safe and thats the way I run my business.

 

Even if assorted guests ask you to put up photos on your website that they've taken it's your fault if you

put them on your site.

 

Sorry to go on and on.

 

Folks be safe...

<blockquote>

<p>I am not misinformed, <em>much</em> research has been done by me on this topic over the years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How much the legal issues were was researched is irrelevant. The explanation of the law was wrong. In four specific ways...<br /> <br /> <strong>1.</strong> We were told voluntary participation at an event means one a photographer has the right to photograph the participants. The right exists, in any event, unless one of the four right to privacy scenarios previously discussed exist. Whether one was participating in an event and even if it wasn't voluntary.<br /> <br /> <strong>2.</strong> We were told that voluntary participation meant photographs of participants allows use of their likeness for publicity. It's the local jurisdictions law for misappropriation that matters and none of them feature participation in a public event as an exception for commercial use. If that's all that mattered, then anyone participating in events where photographers are could wind up being featured in all sorts of advertising and commercial use. Which is nonsense. Commercial use is concerned with consent. As mentioned before however, work samples are sometimes deemed an exception. <br /> <br /> <strong>3.</strong> We are told what "wedding guests understand" about a photographer being present matters. It doesn't. It is, likewise, not an exception to misappropriation which requires consent for the likeness to be used. Otherwise, mere knowledge that ones photo being taken could lead to all manner of commercial uses which is absurd. <br /> <br /> <strong>4.</strong> We are told photographing people in private without knowledge of it happening is illegal. It is not. It happens all the time and such work is constantly published without fear of liability. If it were illegal, the entire photographic industry, hobby shooting, street shooting and mere casual snapshot shooting would be drastically different than it is now. The exception is with "intrusion" and that was explained earlier and how it didn't apply to people in the midst of a private invitation wedding event.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> Your link has to do with the question of news/editorial use of photographs, not necessarily weddings and events (public or private).</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> The link contains the same exact applicable law. The ongoing fixation on a public/private event distinction is pointless since it make no material difference. There is no such distinction that matters for commercial use analysis. Moreover, editorial use goes to the very crux of commercial use because everything that is not commercial is editorial. The article, which relates to all use of photography of people, HAS to discuss editorial use. The article was linked for its comprehensive and state specific attributes. There is no special wedding photography law.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>to be absolutely clear on the matter, guests are consenting to be photographed when they pose knowingly for it</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> To be absolutely clear, that is irrelevant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> Another consideration is whether or not a particular photograph is deemed news-worthy, and therefore, the First Amendment would trump rights of publicity and privacy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For our purposes, that merely means it not commercial use. It could still run afoul of the other three likeness use torts which are private actions. Government restrictions are a different topic altogether.<br /><br />As to whether one SHOULD use someone's likeness for business use, sure, obtaining consent is safer, advisable and more polite. Ideal for that particular type of business which is so relationship and good will reliant.</p>

<p>Wow, that got complicated fast! to simplify it a bit (and put it in proper context):</p>

<p>For <em>most</em> weddings, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (obvious exceptions exist, but are rare, few and far between (at least for me!)- and, if the case, are intuitively obvious). As a result there is <em>usually</em> no concern over privacy violations. Even on private property, if publicly accessible (such as a typical store), or with security cameras, this is usually the case (though I'm sure there will always be a crazy exception!). Almost without exception, if privacy is at risk of being violated, it will be intuitively obvious to a casual observer.</p>

<p>The only wrinkle then <em>typically</em> comes from use. Using an image as part of a portfolio does not inherently violate any 'publicity rights' (so say our courts), though if you, say, added a dialogue bubble coming out of a guests mouth that said 'I use xxx photographer and he's the greatest ever!' (or something similar) that certainly would (likely) be a violation of that guests publicity rights, and you would want a model release to cover your behind.</p>

<p>Generally though, since it is the <em>use</em> of the image that governs whether this is applicable, us photogs (typically) don't have much to worry about. Those who worry more about that are publishers, ad agencies, etc. That's why typically they require you to provide them with a model release, because they can be (and frequently are) held liable for their use of images. Such as a picture of that same married guest, dancing provocatively with a random bridesmaid, on a billboard advertising condoms. From there you get into more complicated realms, such as how identifiable the guest is (and so forth). But even in that extreme example, the photographer themself is not liable (unless <em>you</em> put up the billboard)</p>

<p>In a nutshell though, for a typical shot, if solely used in your portfolio, since there is no inherent 'publicity right' violation, you <em>should</em> have nothing to worry about legally (I'm sure this isn't true everywhere). As a matter of good common sense though, you should at least try to inform the subject, and, if they object, remove the image. In the OP's circumstance, I would probably choose not to post the image. BTW, I'm not a lawyer, though I stayed at a holiday inn express last night ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not a lawyer, though I stayed at a holiday inn express last night</p>

</blockquote>

<p> It really works!<br /><br />Here's a pretty simple discussion from a real one starting at page three and including the frequently existing commercial use portfolio exception ... http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Shutterbug-Article-Copyright-Privacy-Rights1.pdf</p>

<p>I happened to be on the set of a TV show yesterday which happens to have a studio audience, and as is common on television productions where the public may be present, these signs were posted:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"FILMING NOTICE RELEASE--Please be aware that by entering this area, you consent to your video and likeness being filmed, videotaped, photographed and otherwise recorded and used without compensation for exploitation on television and in any and all media now known or hereafter devised for any purpose whatever, and you release ____________ productions and ___ network . . . from any liability on account of such usage. If you do not wish to be subject to the foregoing, do not enter this area."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, I was just wondering if simply your mere presence in this area is deemed apt "consideration," (i.e., in lieu of a signed release), and therefore, legally valid acceptance of this contract.</p>

<p>Probably not valid if you don't read it but it does show that they have considered it.</p>

<p>John said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Here's a pretty simple discussion from a real one starting at page three and including the frequently existing commercial use portfolio exception ... <a href="http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Shutterbug-Article-Copyright-Privacy-Rights1.pdf" rel="nofollow">(link)</a></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great article--thanks for posting that! Good to know about some states' statutes excluding portfolio work. One thing stood out for me, however: The last lawyer interviewed mentioned the "one-dollar" token consideration, where he suggests, <em>" . . . how about giving the model a brand-new dollar bill?"</em> I'm sure most everyone has heard of this practice at one time or another. But, as I understood it, consideration in the amount of one dollar isn't necessarily binding since a single dollar represents a relatively trivial amount, and/or doesn't truly represent a "bargain" as a result of any negotiation between the two parties [according to a Wikipedia article under "consideration," apparently, courts do not rule consistently on this issue, and may vary by jurisdiction].</p>

<p>In California if a celeb's kid is selling crack cocaine in a public place and you take his photo without the parents' permission YOU can go to jail. Check the law.<br>

Excuse me, my truck needs a lube job.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In California if a celeb's kid is selling crack cocaine in a public place and you take his photo without the parents' permission YOU can go to jail. Check the law.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Previously checked. That's not what it amounts to. The fact pattern here, hypothetical or real, still requires the other elements of the statute to exist. None of which was mentioned. Its misinformation and off topic in any event.</p>

<p>I got my information from a lawyer who specializes in this very thing, but whatever. What would he know? </p>

<p>It's all moot if you just don't use the picture in the first place or just get permission.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I got my information from a lawyer who specializes in this very thing, but whatever. What would he know?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Earlier it was from years of research on this topic. In any event, I'm sure any attorney that really does specialize in the subject will be very knowledgeable. Indeed, all the others with those credentials that have commented on the subject (along with other expert and reliable sources and the statutes and case law out there) give contrary information. I don't know what to tell you other than maybe the information was misinterpreted or 'lost in translation'.</p>

<p>Anyway, the point here is to learn and I hope that was accomplished. I learned a couple things too.</p>

 

<p>Seriously? You're going to bait me about this? It's people like you that made me quit coming to online forums for quite a long time. Real class act.</p>

<p>I researched the topic on my own for years through various sources. I eventually felt basing such legal decisions on internet posts and other articles was unwise, and talked to a lawyer about it. So yeah, it's both. #*@*#$^& troll...</p>

<p>Looking through the comments you make on other peoples' photographs, and the way you respond to other people's negative critiques of your own photographs, I should have just considered the source.</p>