Public photos, releases & publishing

Quick question. If I take a photo of someone in a public place,

whether or not they're aware of me taking their photo, would I

require a release to publish that photo in a book?

 

Thanks

The publisher may or may not want a release.

 

I know from submission guidelines that some magazines do not require a release for photos taken in a public place. It's important to understand the definition of "public place," as that usually means not indoors. Bars, for example, aren't considered public places.

 

Also, you're in Canada, arent' you? My only experience is in the US.

In the United States, there is no legal requirement to have a release although as Jeff said some publishers require them anyway. In Canada, who knows? There was a case in Quebec last year where the court interpreted the Quebec charter to give a teenage girl the right to sue for invasion of privacy after a photography journal published a picture of her sitting on some steps.

Ah ha!...you are raising my biggest "pet peeve!": The use of public photos and photography on public lands...and what is a "public" or "private" Photo, and what is "public" and "private" land?

 

Example:

 

We have an "event" going on right now, on the west coast, in northern California, called the "Renaissance Pleasure

Faire." It's been around for years.

 

The current brochure states the following:

 

"*All* photographs are the property of the Renaissance Events Corporation and may not be used without permission." I guess that even includes uncle Emo, with his disposable camera, and having his photo published in the local Bodunk Times News!

 

That means I can take all the photos I want but can't do a damn thing with them! Heaven forbid if I bring a "Pro" looking camera with me!

 

Anyone want to interpret that statement?

 

In my area we also have a unique natural phenomenon...The "Lone Cypress"...on the 17 mile drive from Monterey to Carmel California, USA. Right now there are signs all around the tree stating that no photographs of the tree are permitted since the tree is the "trademark" of the "Pebble Beach Golf and Country Club Corporation." Since when does one of God's creations become the exclusive property and trademark of any human institution?

 

How many of you know that *ALL* United States coast lines and beaches are, by federal law, open to all persons in the US to use? No one can prohibit you from walking and using the coastal beaches anywhere in the US even though they may be posted as "private beach" or "protected" by local police?

 

There are some very serious problems at this time in our history (the US)regarding our rights (the US) to use and take photographs in public places, or in places where the public pays to enter, such as the Renassiance Pleasure Faire.

 

How can a private corporation restrict my use of a fine photograph taken at a public even, for which I paid an entry fee, if I wish to make prints for sale or publish commercially?

 

I may as well start taking photos of rocks again...at least rocks don't have lawyers...or do they? Spooky!

 

Any thoughts?

PS: Regarding my statement above...I'm not simply looking for "legal" answers to these photo property issues...I'm much more concerned about my human rights as a person to roam around my world and take whatever photographs I want to take and to do with them as I please. My photos do NOT belong to anyone other than me and I'll do with them as I please! I am getting sick of government telling me what I can and cannot do with my property!

Perhaps I misread, but your examples seem to involve private institutions and not governmental ones. I think that changes are unlikely until someone or some institution goes to the trouble and expense to mount a legal challenge. How much does it mean to you?-jdf

Todd wrote >

 

 

Example:

 

We have an "event" going on right now, on the west coast, in northern California, called the "Renaissance Pleasure Faire." It's been around for years.

 

The current brochure states the following:

 

"*All* photographs are the property of the Renaissance Events Corporation and may not be used without permission." I guess that even includes uncle Emo, with his disposable camera, and having his photo published in the local Bodunk Times News!

 

That means I can take all the photos I want but can't do a damn thing with them! Heaven forbid if I bring a "Pro" looking camera with me!

 

Anyone want to interpret that statement?

 

Response:

 

I am not a lawyer. But the Fair is not a public space. I assume that much like teh Ren. Fairs we have here in teh East, there is an admission cost. As such the Fair becomes a private space.

 

You wrote:

 

In my area we also have a unique natural phenomenon...The "Lone Cypress"...on the 17 mile drive from Monterey to Carmel California, USA. Right now there are signs all around the tree stating that no photographs of the tree are permitted since the tree is the "trademark" of the "Pebble Beach Golf and Country Club Corporation." Since when does one of God's creations become the exclusive property and trademark of any human institution?

 

My question:

 

Is the tree on the property of the golf course? If it is, then it is possible for them to trademark the "look" of that tree. I have heard of simular cases involving famous private buildings.

 

 

You wote:

 

How many of you know that *ALL* United States coast lines and beaches are, by federal law, open to all persons in the US to use? No one can prohibit you from walking and using the coastal beaches anywhere in the US even though they may be posted as "private beach" or "protected" by local police?

 

My question:

 

Wouldlike to know where I can find out more on this topic.

 

You wrote:

 

There are some very serious problems at this time in our history (the US)regarding our rights (the US) to use and take photographs in public places, or in places where the public pays to enter, such as the Renassiance Pleasure Faire.

 

My response:

 

Right you are! I know of a photographer here in DC that almosrt had his camera taken from him for taking pictures of the Jefferson Memorial! In the end they only took his film. Chilling. But what else do you expect from a city and federal adminstration that under the disguise of "national security' tramples on individual rights. Before anyone states that these are "different" times; we are now finding out that our government knew more than they have let us know before.

 

Again before anyone calls me an alarmist; just remember the poem:

 

http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cda/niemoll.html

 

 

 

In the end I agree that some of this has gotten out of hand. Maybe Shakespear was right after all....

 

 

Chip

Malls are another interesting case. Most of them, at least in New Mexico, prohibit photography. It�s their place and that is their rule. But, they have made malls de facto public places. In fact, they have worked diligently to make malls replace public squares and similar common areas where ordinary commerce was carried out in the past. So on the one hand they want to make those who come to their mall think that they are visiting a public space, but they are in fact not public places.

 

But, aren�t they really public places as the term is ordinarily understood? It seems to me that they are. I have no idea if the ban against photography in malls has been tested at a high level in the courts. It would be quite a joke on the mega corps if the courts decreed that malls are in fact public places in some respects. But it�s not likely. After all, the mega corps own the courts, legislators, and judges who would decide the case. I assume everyone has noticed that in the USA we now live in a corporate society. What the corporations want, they get.

 

I�ve taken a lot of photos at the RPF, starting with the very first RPF in Southern California. At that time no one cared; they just wanted to get people to come. One wonders what would happen if they tried to enforce their mandate re photography. After all, anyone can put up any kind of sign that they want. Unfortunately, it�s difficult and expensive for ordinary folks to challenge bogus rules and laws.

 

I�m sure we�ve all heard stories of how park rangers prohibit some types of equipment such as tripods and larger format cameras because they suggest �professionalism.� This is another lubricous idea. In the first place, they are largely incompetent to tell what equipment is what. And most people who have spent any time behind a camera realize that a jazzy camera does not a professional make.

 

Years ago I was standing in the street taking a photo of a wisteria vine growing on a wall. An arrogant, overdressed, annoying woman in a Jaguar automobile accosted me. She demanded that I not take a picture of her wall because it is �registered with a studio.� I pointed out that I was on public property and would aim my camera where ever I wished. If she wanted to, she could sue me.

Keep taking photos,

Joe Stephenson

All coastal waters are open to the public. There is no such thing as a "private beach," and I will try to research the source of that much ignored federal provision.

 

Regarding the "Lone Cypress" tree...I do not know if it is the property of the Pebble Beach Golf and Country Club or not. All I know is that it extends out into the waters of the Monterey Bay Marine Life Reserve which extends from Big Sur north to above Point Reyes. I think that says it all! It is a part of the marine life sanctuary, yet the corporate CEO's of the golf course think the tree belongs to them.

 

I was kicked out of Fort Point National park in San Francisco a number of years back because I was using a "commericial" type camera without a permit...a Bessa II vintage folder...Right!

 

Where I now live, in Silicone Valley (Santa Clara Valley, CA), all county parks now require a $400 yearly commercial photography permit with an additional $25 per day use permit. They tend to distinquish commercial photographers from amateurs by the type of equipment they use...especially tripods!

 

Is there anyone here who really does NOT think this is a serious issue?!

 

I think this is an issue that needs to be considered seriously by all of us photographers with our legislators, local and national.

Todd,

 

Two issues are being addressed here. First is the public use of parks. Second being "symbols" belong to the public verses those that are now recognized as "symbols" of a corporation.

 

In the first issue I think what is at play here is the budget crunch that our parks find themselves in today. Should not someone that sets out to make money off of public lands pay for the privilage? Why should Chrysler get to use the Grand Canyon for free? Why should a wedding photographer use a public garden as his backdrop without supporting the garden?

 

That asks the question, what about you or I going out and doing pictures on spec? You or I go to a park and see something special in the light. We put that image in portfolio in hopes that we can get a return on that image. Does this differ legally from an outdoor photographer that earns his living by photographing the parks and selling these image to image banks and magazines? Far simpler for the powers that be to treat all "professional" photographers the same. But how do you determine who is a professional? And that is where you and I find ourselves.

 

In regards to trademarked symbols. I feel the same way you do. Though legally a company has to do everything they can to protect their trademarks, or they disappear. This includes natural trademarks such as this tree. I would be surprised to find out that this tree was on truly public land and is registered as their trademark.

 

Chip

Back when I started photography, a bit more than a year ago, I started with just an Olympus Stylus Epic, a very small, not too expensive P&S with a nice 35mm/f2.8 fixed lens. I also had a tripod, because I wanted my photos to be as sharp as possible and also to do some night photography (yeah, with a P&S, I was just starting, okay?).

 

So I went to the Place Ville-Marie, one of the tallest building in Montreal, and started photographing with my P&S on the tripod, going for interesting picture looking up at the buildings with that mild wide angle perspective.

 

I had a security person come to me and tell me to stop, because the tripod made me a "pro" by their rules. I could take all the pictures I wanted with an Hasselblad or a Nikon F5, as long as they were handheld, but my tiny P&S on a tripod was clearly an offense.

In most provinces pretty much the same as the U.S., but in Quebec quite different.

 

The Quebec human rights code recognizes a right to privacy and to the control of one's image. The case Bert refers to (which is older than last year) is Aubry vs. Editions Vice-Versa, if you want to look it up. The photographer took a photo of a 17-year-old girl in a public place, without getting her permission or even speaking to her, and it was subsequently published in a magazine with a whopping huge circulation of 700. The girl claimed that her peers at school laughed at her when they saw the photo. She sued, and won, and the decision was upheld by the supreme court.

 

So the precedent is set for Quebec. Unless a person is a public figure, or the photo is a legitimate news photo, or the person is only part of a crowd at a public event of news interest, then you must obtain that person's permission to publish in Quebec.

 

This hasn't been tested outside Quebec, but since the laws of some provinces do not recognize an extraordinary right to privacy, and others have separate laws addressing privacy that seem to me similar to the U.S., it seems to be a concern only there. CP advises its photographers to get permission in Quebec and in provinces with privacy laws: BC, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland, although I don't understand why.

 

Hope this helps.