using photos for self promotion, is this illegal or wrong?

There's really no formum for this but I guess street/doc is close.

 

I've recently been very pleased with some photo's I've been getting at my

son's high school events (concerts, plays, ball games).

 

Photography (without flash) is allowed as a policy and this is stated prior to

each event. I'm sure it's ok to include some of these shots in a printed

portfolio that I only show to people and don't leave behind.

 

My question then is, would it be illegal (or even just wrong) to use some of

these shots for self promotion on the web? I have no model releases as these

were not one on one shoots. I suppose, someone could download these pics.

Theres' nothing remotely innapropriate about any of these shots. But they are

pics that include other people's kids and I want to respect that.

 

It's not practical for me to seek out 60 kids parents and ask for permission

so if ther's an issue I'll just not use them.

 

Your thoughts on this would be appriciated.

A model's release is required when using photos for advertising.

I think you would be fine if it's a group of kids and your son is part of the action. One close up of a kid that's not yours I would skip it.

Why would it be illegal? Have you never seen "crowd" shots in the paper? Now the paper is a) making money itself from the content and b) paying the photographer for using the photo. Those photographers will all have the photos in their portfolios/tearsheets. A model release? Yeah right.

 

If you want to imply that the subject endorses a product or service, that's different of course, but since you aren't implying that the crowd got together and hired you because you're so great at crowd shots, no problem.

<i>Why would it be illegal? Have you never seen "crowd" shots in the paper?</i>

<p>

A newspaper is covered by the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. Courts have ruled that no model release is needed for journalistic use of a photo.

<p>

But advertising and other commercial use has consistently been ruled as not having the constitutional protection that journalism enjoys. A model release is clearly needed for advertising, and this has been affirmed by numerous court decisions.

<p>

Sometimes the line between commercial use and journalistic use is a grey one, and lawyers sometimes make big bucks arguing which side of the line a particular case is on. I suspect most self-promotion falls pretty clearly into the domain of advertising and commercial use, though.

<blockquote>A newspaper is covered by the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the

press. Courts have ruled that no model release is needed for journalistic use

of a photo.</blockquote>Are you trying to tell me that freelance photojournalists don't have portfolios to help them get more work? Ho ho ho.

There's plenty of authoritive sources for this info including your local attorney. Why don't you just get a real opinion you can depend on instead of relying on someplace like here where we all just shout it out whether we actually know the answer or not.

This is clearly more complex an issue than I thought it was. Hmmm.. I appreciate all your comments. I guess I'll have to take the more conservative path.

What Barry said...

 

Many states have advocacy arts-based attorney organizations that may be able to help. Here

in California, there's California Laywers for the Arts. For a $30 fee, they'll hook you up with

an appropriate attorney for a 1/2 hour consultation. Another member here and myself did

that a couple years ago. Turned out to be more than an hour and the best 30 bucks spent...

"Legal Handbook for Photographers:The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" Amherst Media, Inc. (2001) by Bert Krages, Esq.

 

This is not an expensive book. It is not hard to read. It is written by an attorney who is also a photographer.

 

I realize guessing and making stuff up is much more fun, but for those who can actually read and are interested in facts, I recommend the above. Available in the usual places.

Illegal? As in "You can go to jail for this?" No. As in, "Could there be civil issues involved?" Yes. Each state has somewhat different privacy and publicity provisions in it's civil laws/codes.

 

Do some photographers use things in their portfolios without releases? Yes. But some drivers go 85 mph down the freeway and don't get caught. It doesn't make it legal, just means they got away with it.

"I think you would be fine if it's a group of kids and your son is part of the action."

 

So Jonathon, you won't mind if I use your likeness in my advertising as long as someone in my family is in the picture too? Even if you do disapprove, there's nothing you can do about it. Afterall, you just advised the poster that doing that sort of thing "would be fine".

 

Returning to reality, its probably best that you don't give out advice on these type of issues.

Asking a question about rights of publicity is fruitless in a public forum, not because the answers are not right but because, the laws are different in each jurisdiction. There is no federal codified law which covers each state like copyright or trademark law.

 

Even with a model release, because there was no consideration the release might be held invalid by the courts. A determined lawyer/and or parent can pursue an action against you even if you had iron clad releases.

I can see it now.

 

Mr. O'Sullivan is sued by someone for the right to privacy tort appropriation after he publishes her likeness without permission in one of his advertisements. His lawyer, one Jonathon Jonesberg, declares to the judge that the case must be dismissed because he, Jonesberg, has uploaded two hundred pictures to the Photo.org website more so than anyone else in the room. Having uploaded all those images, he declares, makes him the only legal scholar in the room and the matter all but over. The judges gavel comes down with a loud bang as he announces, case dismissed.

 

The argument was so brilliant that the back-up argument never had to be raised. That one being that so many wedding photographers post images of people that it automatically would let Mr. Sullivan off the hook. Afterall, this type reasoning worked out so well in the last case. There, Jonesberg's client avoided liablity for a car accident he caused when running a red light. Jonesberg won the case when he argued, passionately, that so many people run red lights that no one can be held accountable for it.

 

So there you go Bob. All this theatrics boil down to one thing. Don't believe the answers here. There are lots of more reliable resources on the net than forums.

Bob

 

The practical answer is that if you use the photos on your website the worst that is likely to happen is that you will get a phone call from the person, or a letter from their lawyer asking you to take them down. If you comply the matter will most likely drop at that point.

 

Guy

A photographers portfolio can contain tearsheets of printed work without a problem. However, a copy of the actual picture, used in the portfolio or in an exhibit, can require a model release

The worst that is likely to happen varies from state to state. It might be more accurate to suggest that other than nothing, the least that might happen is the phone call or lawyer letter.

As far as I know, that's not been decided in court, but if you don't make it look they are endorsing you, and are not presenting the images as anything else than art, my bet is that the court would find for you.