Release for street photography

If you are out in public, and someone else if out in public on the

street, and you take their photo, and wanted to use it in a

magazine, book etc, you need a model release? Why?

 

Celebrities are photographed in public all the time. They dont signs

releases for their photos to be printed in books and magazines.

 

I dont understand why the need for a release if you photograph

people who have put themselves in the position to be photographed.

A look in the "street photography" archive on this forum or a

search on "street photography release" will turn up several

threads that address your questions.

<i>Celebrities are photographed in public all the time. They dont signs releases for their photos to be printed in books and magazines. </i><p>

 

The law is different for celebrities.

If you ever want to get anywhere in photography (or in life, for that matter) you have to get over the silly naive idea that laws are logical or make sense.

 

I don't mean to sound like an anarchist, but laws are made by politicians who often know nothing about the subject, but are responding to pressure groups in order to stay in office.

 

In my state, lithographers don't have to pay sales tax on the purchase of printing presses or scanners, because it is equipment used in their business. Professional photographers must pay sales tax on cameras and scanners because their lobby at the capitol is less powerful.

 

Don't make logical assumptions about the law. It can put you in jail.

Are you a publisher? If not, the reason a model release is needed is to keep the publisher "out of hock" after a lawsuit is filed against his/her company or corporation. You can shoot the heck out of folks in the street, but if you intend to "profit" from your photography, most business contracts require a (could be one dollar) payment for the signature on the release form. Then you get into the area of minor children and you have another set of problems....

 

 

 

But if you have doubts as to the "why" -- find a good lawyer.

Editorial publications do not need a release. If its for a story on whatever for whatever newspaper, you do not need a release.

 

If there is an editorial story on the celebrity, you do not need a release. Maxium/Blender/National Enquire/NY Times can do a story on Brittney and print a non degrading image without a release.

My understanding of the term "editorial use " is when the photo is used to illustrate a fact, ie as a document...if the photo is used to illustrate an idea or a concept then I think you usually need a release.

 

You could do a Google search on the right to publicity, intellectual property and copyright law.

Bookstores are filled with books featuring people for which no releases were ever acquired.

Because, as a photographer, I had seen too many "street photographer" taking photos of me and my friends or fellow people walking down the streets disregarding the situation, and I thank the law that they can't put a photo with my face in it on some magazine or anywhere I don't want it to be, because, well, it's my face.

 

Why do you want to use the photo on the magazine in the first place? If it's a good photo, doesn't the subject has his or her own right to say "no" to have their photos printed, especially if they didn't want it to be taken in the first place. I am sure you'll get angry if someone used your photo to make a profit. For the same reason, people might be upset if you used their faces to make a profit without they knowing it. Hence I think the law makes sense in this one. Just because you can take photos doesn't mean people can be your subject unconditionally.

 

>I dont understand why the need for a release if you photograph >people who have put themselves in the position to be photographed

 

Well, if I don't want my photos taken, I should stay away from the streets? Or stay out of the park, or anywhere cameras present?

Celebreties are concidered news worthy. Therefore any hinderance would be a violation of freedom of the press.......1st amendment stuff..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

 

The public areas of the United States.....anyhow.....are for everyone's use..........including photographers. Taking a picture of another person in a public does absolutely nothing to impede that other person of their rights. Stopping the photographer from taking those pictures, impedes their rights of expression....and again, using those pictures in an artistic pursuit, including selling photographs of art work from them, and putting them in a book form is an extension of that pursuit of happiness. Once the photographer takes the picture, it is their picture............not the subjects. The subject (in a public place....models are different and get paid for their services) in the picture did NOTHING artistic towards the making of the art, the photographer did all that.........it is his effort that makes the image worth something and he alone should get the profits from it.

 

Now, on the other hand, if the image is used for commercial purposes...........ie to sell a totally different product.......then the photographer needs a model release because it is not only his ability that is selling the proeduct, but also the subjects face (or body) that is promoting the product for sale. And the subject also, may not want their image associated with that product.......ie, like they were promoting the use of it, per say. Regardless, in this case the subject is a part of the equation, and should be, if they want, compensated financially for it.

 

Now.................why doesn't any of that make sense?

"Bookstores are filled with books featuring people for which no releases were ever acquired."

 

That's right Jamie. You can publish your own coffee table book, 'vanity press', and it is considered editorial, which means no release required. We have alot of rights when we make art, as per Tom S.

Great discussion. I am glad to know you could make a coffee table book without getting everyones permision. it is an artistic expresion I feel.

Jeez, soon we will be asking permission to wipe our bottoms. Where does it all end?

To Henry C.:

 

You don't have a right to privacy in public! You only have control of your likeness in that a photographer must not use your likeness for commercial purposes or to show you in a bad light (pun intended). Yes, people can take photos of you whenever and wherever in public that they want (for the most part). We are photographed everyday on buses, at ATM's, at intersections walking into convenience stores.

You may publish any image made in a public place, of an indivdual for editorial purposes without any fear of legal prosecution. A release is only required when that image will be used to sell/promote a product. Shoot away.

 

Cheers.

There was an interesting release case that Time-Life lost, about an unreleased photo used

to advertise a photo book (or maybe it was a series...) on Vietnam war photojournalism.

The court basically said that if Time-Life had used a photo actually contained in the book

to advertise the book they'd have been safe, but since they used a photo that was NOT in

the book (whose idea was this??), they needed a release, and thus were hosed.

 

Aside from the point of law, it's also important to note that these issues are so complex

even a company with a huge legal department sometimes screws up. Be careful.

If I took photos of someone getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing

my artistic photography skills (at the top of my website it says "examples of my art"), would I be at any high risk of being

sued? I am advertising my business but also showing my artistic capability and enjoying my right to work. Even the

newspapers have to make a profit. I did not want to bother the couple and ask for a signed waiver. Or ask the building

owners of the buildings in the background. Just using the photos to promote my services as a photographer and since the

couple was there at a public park, could I have taken the photos?

 

Here is what I heard - Nobody's going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to collect a few hundred in

damages. If you use the image and they raise a stink and you don't stop using the image, they will have their lawyer send

you a letter to cease and desist. That's required. If you don't desist, then they can try to sue. I guess if the person ever

noticed themselves, all they could do is ask me to take it off and if I did take if off the website, nothing much more to be

afraid of then, right?

Also, The wedding dresses, tuxedos, rings, chairs, tables, tents... are all someone's intellectual property. Are wedding

dress designers suing photographers who use images of their dresses on their website? How about the chair or table

company? For that matter, architecture is intellectual property. If a photographer takes a photo of a couple and there is a

building in the background, the owner of the building could also sue the photographer then right? The copyright office states

: Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship

immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through

the author can rightfully claim copyright. So therefore "unless there is an agreement to the contrary, every photographer has

copyright and control of the image they take, even if someone already paid them." Right? I heard that in ADVERTISING -

When people are recognizable in public domain photos, the photos cannot

legally be used for commercial purposes. But I also heard that In the U.S., street photographs, taken of people and things

visible on the street, in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, can be published, displayed,

and sold as "art" (as distinct from their use for advertising, promotion, or "commerce") without obtaining permission of the

people photographed. In fact, a New York State Supreme Court judge recently made judgement on a case and said that the

photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit

the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they

do not apply if the likeness is considered art. I would be just using the photos of a bride and groom or people playing

volleyball to show my artistic services as a photographer. What do you think?

"If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit their photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might

appear in those photographs, "then artistic expression in the field of photography would not be protected under the freedom

of speech and freedom to perform art would suffer drastically" right? Most courts have consistently found "art" to be

constitutionally protected free speech. If I show off my artistic ability is it alright? A profit motive in itself does not necessarily

compel a conclusion that art has been used just for trade purposes. Can a photographer therefore be allowed to show one

person's existance to another? It doesn't matter if it's a photo of a war, or whatever......it's a function (and personal freedom)

of photograhers everywhere to show the world, the existance of the rest of the world, even on their website right?.

Can it also be considered news worthy that people get married here at this place for example? I am showing off my art and

telling the news of what is happening at this location (freedom of the press). The public areas of the United

States.....anyhow.....are for everyone's use..........including photographers. Taking a picture of another person in a public

does absolutely nothing to impede that other person of their rights. Stopping the photographer from taking those pictures,

impedes their rights of expression....and again, using those pictures in an artistic pursuit, including selling photographs of art

work from them, and putting them in a book form is an extension of that pursuit of happiness. Once the photographer takes

the picture, it is their picture............not the subjects. People are photographed everyday on buses, at ATM's, at

intersections walking into convenience stores, etc...

In the book: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short

answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo

in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). How about all the artistic “street

photographers out there”? I thought that I could take photos and show off my art work on the web. This is called the "pursuit

of happiness"..doing something you enjoy doing, that doesn’t harm anybody else..and there is a rather famous document

that says you have the right to pursue that in the USA. "As soon as the shutter clicks...." copyright belongs to the

photographer. These photos would be exhibited on my website for my photo business as examples of my 'art'. Just think at

any wedding, you would have to get a “model or other release” from the bride and groom, plus each family member or

guardian, table makers, chair makers, flower arrangement company, wedding dress maker, church owner, silverware

company, any owners of buildings in the background, etc... I could argue that a wedding or volleyball game is publishable in

a newspaper as an event that took place. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would exchange freedom for security

deserve neither'.

So here it is again: If I were to take of photo of people getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my

wedding website showing my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk?

 

Thanks Jenny email farminsarin8@hotmail.com

<p>Check this question with a qualified attorney in the country you intend to publish your work.<br /> I invested 8 years on a photo essay about the dying Venetian culture. All photographs were taken in public under American First Amendment rights.<br /> The project culminated in a book prototype. The book was at the point of publication in Venice, Italy. Many Venetians validated the contents of the work. The publisher intended to publish the work, until his attorney pointed out that Italian law requires "advanced permission" from the subject of the photograph. Many of these images were taken candidly on the streets of Venice over an 8-year period. Obtaining "advanced permission" now is impossible.<br /> For those who are American, be thankful for your 1st Amendment rights.<br /> If you are intending to do "street photography" in other countries, hire a really, really good attorney in that country first. Otherwise, be prepared for a lot of grief.<br /> Americans sometimes forget the value of our First Amendment rights and assume everyone on the globe has the same rights. There was a revolution fought to get these rights. Not everyone has them.<br /> Now, I get it.<br /> Furthermore, don't get legal advice on photography from the Internet, particularly from photographers, as I have learned painfully.</p>