Image posting advise needed

Here's the situation I am in. I took pictures of a person in public

(with my Leica of course), and posted them here. The public place was

a Star Trek convention, and I had a blast with two M's and

Rapidwinder.

 

I got an email today saying that I didn't have permission to take a

picture of a certain person, and that the image must immediately be

withdrawn from photo.net. Its just a person in costume, not an actor,

just a regular joe/jane.

 

Folks, the person was in public, I was in public, no restrictions were

made from the event promotors on taking photographs. I feel certain

that my TAKING the photographs was perfectly ok. I'm not sure what my

limitations on displaying and sharing my work for my own enjoyment and

the enjoyment of those who care to look here on photo.net is.

 

I really have no qualms about taking the image down, no big deal...

except that if I MUST do so, then every person who ever took a picture

of a person in public must also do so on the same grounds, and quite

frankly, that scares the hell out of me on artistic merit alone.

 

Your opinions greatly appreciated.

If the person is recognizable, then in theory you need a release to publicly post their photograph. (This is especially true if you are trying to sell the image.) If the person is a known celebrity, releases are not generally needed prior to public display. Also, if you are posting the image as part of a news story you generally do not need a release. Interestingly, all of this kind of flies in the face of "street" photography as we know it... HCB would never have survived with his style in today's legal climate -- at least in the US.

 

Cheers,

As the drug ads say, "Just Say 'No'."

As long as there was no restictions posted on "taking Pictures", you are in the clear. It was a public gathering. I agree with the above response. If you have to respond "just say no". Personally I would ignore it.

Non-legal advice from an English lawyer: if a person is sad enough to attend a Star Trek Convention AND sad enough to complain about being photographed at the said convention, he is probably sad enough to sue you for publicising his sadness.

 

PS: this advice is given pro bono, as they used to say in Rome.

I do not think you are telling the whole story. Obviously this person knows who you are (they e-mailed you). So you must know this person and told them that you put their picture on the web, obviously as a courtesy you should have told them beforehand. I would just take it down. As far as taking people pictures in PUBLIC places that is perfectly okay to do without any kind of release, just be sure the picture was taken in public domain like a city park, sidewalk, etc. I think the Star Trek convention was held in a private domain, so you have no rights and technically would need to get a model rlease.

Nope, thats pretty much it. They got my email from the listing on photo.net.

 

I'm not sure on the public vs private thing, as the place was open for free to the public, and no restrictions were placed. Special events were ticketed, but I only shot in the main area open to all.

 

There are some personal pictures in the collection too, but I know all those people, and they have no problem with the images.

 

I suppose what gets me.... is there are photographs all over the galleries here, that clearly show people in public, so unless I did fall under a "private domain" (and I dont think I did), does that illegitimatize all the rest?

 

Just for your info... the pictures posted are really only snapshots, not for sale in any way, never will be. I only posted them so the others in my buddies Star Trek club could also view them. I posted them under the name k'lkx (a sort of Klingon term).

I'd say don't sweat it. Photos taken of people in public places are public and

do not require a release for non-commercial publication. That would be

upheld by most courts as far as I am aware... But if some jerk is offended, it's

better to just take the picture down and not worry about it. Too much trouble

otherwise and no need to work around a jerk.

 

Most of the people whose pictures are on my website were amused and

delighted that I posted them. If I know who they are, i usually send them a note

with the picture attached beforehand and ask, but I don't always have the

email address.

 

Godfrey

Godfrey, I would just say that because someone contacts you, and doesn't want their photo on the web DOES NOT make them a jerk. That is their right, and as carrying, humanist people, we should at the very least show courtesy and honor.

If a person is photograph in dignity and is not a comercial campain, I believe no body should be penalized for that!

Well I heard from the person again. A gal. I basically told her if she didn't want her picture taken, stay home, but that this time I'd be happy to remove her image. Next time she may not be so lucky, as I have written permission from the convention promotors to photograph at will at their event (Dragon Con, Atlanta). They're looking for images for their own promotion, so I may get a sale or two, and while its a ticketed event, the ticket holders give up all right to the expectation of privacy, by way of fine fine print on the ticket.

 

Now.... If I was a grudge holder... Nah best to side step it all.

 

And, the person is a very very casual aquaintance, a friend of a friends friend to be exact, so whoever guessed she knew me was rigth, but I had no idea until she identified her image.

I thought that the law basically said that unless you are using an image for commercial purposes ( selling it or by way of displaying it, implying some sort of endorsement ) then you can DISPLAY anything you want.

 

Now if you SOLD the image, or said "look, this loser in black spandex endorses my product/photography/star trek conventions ... then you might be in a bit of a situation.

 

I dunno for sure, just what I remember reading somewhere.

 

If it's NOT the case.... hell, I gotta take down a LOT of pictures.

--If it's NOT the case.... hell, I gotta take down a LOT of pictures.--

 

That was my point exactly. Her image is down now, but for grins, I'll direct anyone to it on my Linux server, should they be so interested.

Why make a political rights issue out of it? Maybe you have the right OK, fine. The question is, does it offend you from the standpoint that it really damages your overall photographic presentation? If so, I wouldn't want to back down, myself. But if it's not so critical that way and you're just trying to prove a matter of principle, forget it, let the poor girl off the hook. Maybe she has a psychological problem, or maybe she feels insecure about her looks. Maybe she has a perfectly understandable reason. Did you ask her why?

There is a great deal of misinformation in this thread, which is surprising because this topic comes up frequently and is covered by many archived posts both here at photo.net and at other sites searchable through Google.

 

Here is a summary of the situation:

<ul>

<li>with some exceptions, anything or anyone that is visible from a public place, such as a street or a park, may legally be photographed, even if the subject is situated on a private place, even if the subject is a person, and even if the person or owner of the subject does not give permission, or even objects strongly.

<li>you can be prohibited from taking pictures in a private place by the owner; hotels are private places, but some apparently private places, such as shopping malls, have been deemed to be public by some courts.

<li>you may have the right to <em>take</em> the photograph and keep it in your personal portfolio, but if you <em>publish</em> a photograph of a person or some types of private property, you may need to have the permission of the subject, or the subject's owner. Permission is usually given in the form of a "release".

<li>whether a release is required has nothing to do with whether you are paid for the photograph, but rather with how the photograph is used. "Editorial" uses in books, magazines, and newspapers, do not require a release, even if the photographer is paid for the image. A "commercial" use, such as an advertisement or promotional literature does require permission even if the photographer is not paid for the image.

<li>generally publishers know the rules and can inform you whether a particular use requires a release. However, you cannot rely on the publishers: both you and the publisher can be sued if a release is required and you don't have one.

<li>when you post an image on photo.net you are publishing it. Whether a court considers it "editorial" or "commercial" will depend on the context. If you post it to advertise your photography business (which is a violation of photo.net Terms of Use), it will probably be considered "commercial". If you post it for critique by other photo.net members, it is probably "editorial".

<li>whether images sold in limited editions as "fine art" in galleries require releases is a gray area, but posters, calendars, greeting cards, postcards, etc, have been deemed commercial.

<li>the interpretation of these basic rules and their many fine points varies from state to state, and from court to court. What I have described is U.S. law. In other countries the rules may be completely different. For example, France reportedly has much stronger laws against taking photographs of people.

<li>if it is important to have a correct answer to a legal question, such as when you are sued, it is necessary to get a lawyer. Don't trust what lay people tell you or what you read on the Internet.

<li>it is not necessary to get a lawyer or take action when somebody threatens to sue you since this happens all the time in the United States.

</ul>

Charles,

Wow. This must be a really self-conscious person. While I have no legal advice for you, I wanted to mention an PDN article three or four months old. However it was about Britain, I think the general implication still hold about the US (that's where you are, right?) A gay guy went to a gay convention and his picture was taken by a reporter. The photo subsequently ran in a gay magazine. The guy complained he was outed against his wishes. The judge (yes, he sued the magazine and the photographer) said he was at that event voluntarily and he knew the press would be there. Therefore he brought his "fame" upon himself. The best part: he was ordered to pay the defendants' legal expenses.

Best of luck