Jump to content

When is a person recognizable?


rdavis

Recommended Posts

<p>I have a photo I want to submit for a locale photo contest. Rules stipulate a model release is needed for recognizable persons and I don't have a problem understanding that. What I have is a a nice pic of two people walking down the street one with his back to me the other is a woman looking back at me but wearing X-large sunglasses that almost cover her face. It helps the photo but could this make her <strong>unrecognizable</strong>? I have no release, and would like some feedback if anyone has had this problem. Photo was taken at a public art fair but pic only has two persons in it. any help would be appreciated. I have searched the forums but didn't find this covered. thanks!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You do not even have to have a face for a person to be deemed recognizable. You might have a close up of someone's tattoo. I know this is crazy, but the world is very sensitive to photography now and where and how images are used. Outside of the contest rules, it would not be much of an issue unless the image was used in a revenue generating way. People only go after you if they smell money.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If somebody can be recognized in a movie shoot; there is a different higher pay scale.</p>

<p>If that "un recognizable" person has deep pockets; or is a hit man; or an ex wife or lover then things might get weird. One might get sued, killed, or blackmailed or who knows what.</p>

<p>Folks can be recognized my many different things; a super bowl ring; a tattoo; eyes; hands even.</p>

<p> If it is a grey area; do ones homework more.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The worst case: the couple are not what they appear to be. [Think married, either one, and the other is a very close friend, but not the *spouse.*] That is why a release is probably needed for your image...</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>FWIW, this is how the California Civil Code addresses the issue when dealing with the right of publicity.</p>

<p>"(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use."</p>

<p>I'd expect that other states have similar provisions, and there may be case law provisions as well, regarding enlargements versus size of the image when used, like they have to look without aid but you can't blow up the picture beyond the size when it was published either. But here, you are going to be dealing with the local contest rules. Without seeing the picture, it's hard to say if it makes the person unrecognizable or not. I kind of doubt it but unlike a court case where the law may provide for the identification to be made by "one" as opposed to the individual or someone who knows the subject, etc., the contest judges may decide by a looser standard than the law might impose in legal actions. They may just make a judgment call that they think the subject or an acquaintance would know who it was and they want releases for that.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I recall a case about a woman in NYC who claimed that the image of a child that was used in an ad on the west coast, was her child, and that no release was given so she wanted BIG compensation.</p>

<p>The photographer, being very professional. had kept a record of ALL his releases, and was able to show it was NOT her child but someone else's child.</p>

<p>Point is - a release is not always necessary to prove who someone is, but to prove who they are NOT. SO even if you think - well I can get away with it because you cant identify them, you may still have someone who claims its them and you do need to be able to prove otherwise.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wait, this is for a local photo contest; involves art etc and has no profit motiv, right?</p>

<p>Why not street shots with someone recognizable? Nothing defamatory, I would suggest, but anything should go (except in France where most street photos are now illegal. HBC is turning in his grave!).</p>

<p>Who made that "rule" which is restricting art? Why would anyone desire to participate?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think the concensus is clear here - if you don't have a model release then simply don't go down that route. Chances are the person might never know, but do you really want to get into the storm of having to defend your image (and, potentially, yourself) if they find out?</p>

<p>I think it has been mentioned before, about the US family who accidentally discovered a holiday snap of theirs being used to promote dairy products in an East European supermarket chain... I'm telling you, Murphy and his laws...they're everywhere....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>the key here is not whether or not the photographer wants to get a release, it's that the contest is requiring a release for "all recognizable" people in the photo. </p>

<p>Contest rules are up to the implementation and interpretation of the contest organizer / promoter. The majority of the contests that I see require 2 things - 1) that you took the photo and are authorized to use it. 2) that you have a release for any people in the photo.</p>

<p>Contests have these rules because it is the easy route for them. Rule 1 prevents the contest from getting into trouble if I submit an image that someelse took. Rule 2 prevents them from getting into trouble when the person in the photo that I took says - Hey that's me and I don't want my face shown...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The worst case: the couple are not what they appear to be. [Think married, either one, and the other is a very close friend, but not the *spouse.*] That is why a release is probably needed for your image...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jerry, are you saying that such an image may cause one or more of the people shown problems which motivate action to be taken or that such a situation is itself a represents some legal basis for someone to take action. I gather the former is your intent but some readers might not recognize the difference between a motive to make a claim and legal basis to make one.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...