Is a release necessary?

[roger krueger]

<i>he didn't ask anything about who gets sued for what when "if" happens.

</i>

<br><br>Agreed, Giampiero brought that up.

<br><br><i>I addressed the venue question and whether a release is required for

publication. The person didn't ask about deep pockets or anything along those lines

</i><br><br>

No, they, didn't. I was merely pointing out that what some large photo buyers require is far

beyond what's necessary under law, and this gets some people confused.

<br><br>

<i>Please don't take offense at this Roger, but I think you have a few misimpressions

about rights to privacy and editorial usage. Other than to say that it seems you somehow

think editorial usage, whether compensated or not, and newspaper publication is exempt

from the requirement of having a model release is simply not correct. I won't address that

here.</i><br><br>I don't take offense, but I do object to someone telling me I'm wrong

but declining to say why. I understand about defamation and invasion, but they're very

avoidable<br><br>

<i>And I won't get into discussing frivolous lawsuits you mentioned other than to say

when someone asks me whether or not they can be sued for something, my response is

usually "Yes, but will they prevail is a different matter."

</i><br><br>Right, my point was that defusing/discouraging frivolous lawsuits was one

reason some outlets demand a release when one isn't really necessary

.<br><br>

<i>Now kindly look back at what I wrote. I never offered a definition of "expectation of

privacy".

</I><br><br>

Not directly, but your statement <i>"a place where someone has a reasonable expectation

of privacy, like on private property."</i> certainly seems to say that being on private

property conveys an expectation of privacy. That's just not so.

<br><br>

<i>But being on private property, aside from a home or restroom etc., ain't the only

criteria. The law has in fact extended the zone of privacy and therefore the expectations to

privacy, into many areas, including those on private property other than ones own.

</i>

<br><br>The courts have extended privacy from searches somewhat--random searches

at rock concerts being one thing I know got stopped--but I can't say I've seen expansion

of the concept of privacy from photography. If you have, please cite--I'd much rather be

corrected on photo.net than in the real world :)

<br><br>

<i>The part that could get you into very shallow water though, is when you said:

"But being in the company of dozens of people on private premises that aren't

someone's home offers zero expectation of privacy from photography absent special

circumstances" This is really a long reach because I don't know what special

circumstances means to you in particular.

</i><br><br>

I should have been more specific--bathrooms, locker rooms, areas where posted rules

forbid photography, situations that by their very nature disclose private facts (I know

someone got nailed for publishing a group "alumni" photo from the front of a fertility

clinic)--these are really all I can think of for special circumstances. There may well be

other, similar circumstances, but, like these, would all be pretty obvious.

<br><br>

<i>And we could hypothesize on that for quite awhile. The better, and really appropriate

answer is that, being on private premises that aren't someones home under a number of

circumstances, may, depending on the circumstances, provide an average person with a

reasonable or even an increased expectation of privacy.</i>

<br><br>As above, very few--and obvious--circumstances, none of which are changed

by public vs. private property.

<br><br><i>Beyond all that, my answer to the original question not only briefly

mentions the law of privacy (on which entire volumes have been written) and the tort of

defamation and a recommended a simple, effective solution for dealing with the situation

they have. Nothing more or less.

</i>

<br><br>Actually, you said <i>"Editorial work requires a release in about 99% of the

cases "</i> which I completely disagree with. But I do agree that your suggestion about

posting signs is a simple, effective bit of insurance. I've certainly seen a number of public

entities photographing their functions do precisely that, although I'd say they're still the

great minority.

<br><br><i>And, BTW, I highly recommend that Mr. or Ms. Moreno talk to a lawyer in

their area who knows this type of law and can render an opinion based upon the state law

of their own jurisdiction</i>

<br><br>Agreed, much of this is a matter of state law.

<br><br><i>which is likely to be the appropriate, conservative approach not founded on

the odds of being sued.

</i>

<br><br>They could also point out that owning a dog can get you sued, but the chances

are pretty small, and it requires unusual circumstances that you should be able to forsee

and prevent.

<br><br>

<i> The "unlikely gotchas" as you put it, are why one should get releases in the first

instance </i>

<br><br>There's a difference between "unlikely, but I'll wear my seatbelt anyway" and

"very unlikely, I'm not installing metorite shields in my roof"

<br><br><i>and that's not the issue here anyway. </i>

<br><br>My main issue is with your contention that 99% of editorial use needs to be

released, but the other issues are all relevant to the posters situation.

<br><br>

<i>Take it light. Hey, I'm having fun, is everyone else? :>) Mark</i>

<br><br>Fun?? Pleasant discussion anyway. To me it's worth pressing the issue because

if I am wrong I'd much rather find out from you than from a judge. But I need proof.

[mikael_karlsson]

The statement that 99% of editorial work needs to be released is not true. I photograph police, inmates, courts, forensics, crime scenes etc for national US book-publishers. No releases are ever even asked for... I always make it 100% clear to new clients that no images of mine have a release and that the images can only be used editorially and that is never a problem...

[digitmstr]

>>Giampiero brought that up.<<

 

Of course, because that IS the reason to he's even thinking about getting a release, it's called LIABILITY.

[maxasst]

The auction is over and it was fun for the participants. The principal agreed to accepting the responsibility of the photography as I would turn over everything to her. With every subject, I identified myself and the purpose of the photos to which they all gladly agreed to pose. I posted no signs and asked for no signed releases. The attendees were very well-to-do and had very deep pockets as would be necessary for the bidding and gambling that went on. I didn't seek legal advice, but the likelihood of litigation I felt was low since the participants were all happy to be there "for the kids" but I couldn't help but notice the owner of the gambling outfit would look at me way too often. If I am invited to take pics at another event, I will get signed boilerplate. I was worried that he held suspicion that I jeopardized his little operation, so I took the common sense route: I avoided him, and if any of his workers were in a shot, I made sure their faces were obscured. This was certainly a different thing for me since I dealt with many strangers and passive acquaintances as opposed to weddings, baptisms, birthday parties where taking pics is more frantic but less stressful. Thank you for the advice and for helping me grow a few more grey hairs.