Legal usage of a street photograph?

[Spearhead]

I'm still waiting to find out how showing a license plate is an invasion of privacy.

[roger krueger]

Jeff: I've always wondered that too. But you certainly see a lot of situations where plates do

get blurred, even in what should be pretty clear-cut journalistic use..

[michael s.]

There are several reasons for intentionally blurring plates (or for that matter, faces). This is very often done to avoid situtations in which "false light" claims could be made. False light is just one form of invasion of privacy, described in summary form <a href=http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p04.html>here</a>. <p>

 

Examples come readily to mind: Take the story about a crack house drawing unwanted traffic in a particular neighborhood (to choose just one very tired example). Photos accompany the story. Whether on tv or in a newspapaper, if those photos show identifible people or cars, the implication to viewers/readers is that these are the people (or the cars) involved in the drug trade. <p>

 

But unless the involvement of these people (or cars) in illicit drug activities is known to be the case as a matter of fact -- not hunch or speculation -- the media outlet exposes itself to considerable liability by showing identifiable people or cars with the crack house narrative as the backdrop. Moreover, if there's an ongoing investigation, some of the people/cars could also be law enforcement personnel/vehicles, whose exposure would be unhelpful to say the least. <p>

 

Notice, by way of contrast, that when there's coverage of a protest march, there's generally no effort made to conceal the protestors' identities. Nor should there be. They're in a public place voicing their opinions.

[Spearhead]

I understand what you're saying, Michael - it's like a photo of a person in front of a porno shop, which might imply they were heading in. However, what you are saying is situational, and could be applied to almost anything identifiable in a questionable situation. In the general case, does a license plate number showing qualify as "invasion of privacy," especially since it seems that the original question is about a photo of a car, not of a situation.

[michael s.]

<< ... <i>In the general case, does a license plate number showing qualify as "invasion of privacy,"</i> ... >> <p>

 

No, Jeff. Certainly not. <p>

 

That's why I joined you above in asking Paul to explain why he seemed to be expressing the concern that any old photo that shows a license plate of a car in a public place might subject the photographer to an invasion of privacy claim.

[craig_gillette]

"Any old photo" may not be a privacy issue. But one would be foolish to extend that to say an image of a license plate will never be a privacy issue. There are a variety of circumstances where the publication of a personal identification, as with a personalized plate, could be actionable.

 

So you can take the advice of a wide variety of people which will result in a range of suggestions, none of which is competent legal advice. (Not commenting on the competence of the posters.) Or search out a local legal source or real legal information sources.

 

But placement of the vehicle outside a medical facility might be a problem. And certainly including a personalized plate, even innocently and coincidentally, in an article discussing a police sweep of known prostitution and drug sales activity could well be a problem.

[michael s.]

Hope you saw what I said 3 posts above yours, Craig. Basically, you've restated it. :-)

 

At least two of us (Ellis and I, near the beginning of the thread) have suggested that consulting with counsel in the appropriate jurisdiction is the way to go.

 

But both Jeff and I were troubled that some comments here might've created the impression that the taking and/or selling of *any old photo* -- other than for advertising, promotional, or other commercial use -- that shows the license plate of a car parked in a public place exposes a photographer to a well-founded claim for invasion of privacy.

 

In the U.S., at least, that's just not the case.

 

However, since the original poster could be nearly anywhere on this planet, and is talking about a photo none of us has seen, taken under circumstances that none of us is fully aware of, the last thing I'd want to do would be to offer him free legal advice on an internet forum and suggest that he rely upon it, possibly to his detriment.

[craig_gillette]

Sorry, I missed the "No further responses required." tag.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Aww, we can revisit this thread over time - especially after digesting what we have read and cooled down.

 

I wrote: [regarding releases being "required"] ... NOT FOR NON-COMMERCIAL purposes where the content of the image is NOT being used to support or endorse a commercial enterprise. Releases are for people giving permission for commercial use, such as magazine publication supported by advertising or for an advertisement, but NOT for editorial or journalistic or "fine art" publication."

 

Someone responded (I think to me and the above quote): "... You are completely wrong when you say that a release is needed for image usage in a "magazine supported by advertising". That has absolutely bupkiss to do with if a release is needed or not ... If an image is used in a magazine to illustrate an article, column, letter to the editor, what-have-you (anything but ad usage) there is no need for a release. The way this works in the real world though is that if the publisher requires a release you either get a release or work with a different publisher. More and more publishers are asking for releases, even for editorial image usage, possibly because they feel that having a release could protect them from legal action ..."

 

Peter Blaise further responds: Okay, trying to get clear. Publisher's may ask for a release for their own reasons, which are ... whatever their fears and their lawyers tell them, usually ...? Well, as I said, if the photo will be used to sell something (in an ad), and so on. However, there is no legal or government sponsored reason to get a release. A release is a mini-contract which we hope will avoid or diminish the powers of the subject trying to compromise our use of the photo, such as claiming ... what? Anyway, it's a precaution that we think will help us if we get sued, and we think will help us if we ask someone else to publish the photo, and THEY balk without a release.

 

Is anyone clear on this?

 

Releases are a lubricant intended to pre-agree not to sue each other nor demand royalties on subsequent uses of someone's recognizable image in a photograph.

 

Have I got that?

 

From the Internet:

 

RELEASE: The signed permission given by a person to use his or her photo, voice, name, or testimonial statement commercially. See http://www.motto.com/glossary.html

 

Note *commercially* above. Your interpretation of *commercially* is as good as mine.

 

RELEASE: The document a model signs after a paid shoot giving the photographer permission to use the photos that have been taken. When a model has been paid to do a photo shoot, she [sic] will almost always be asked to sign a release, therefore, the model should always ask about this before accepting a booking and should read the release before shooting begins. See

http://www.castledude.com/subpages/dictionary.htm

 

Hmm ... paid = transaction, and many judges consider NO contract in place without some transaction, even the exchange of $1 is enough to bind a contract according to some judges, and without that $1, NO CONTRACT!

 

So all any of us can offer is OPINION, and it's up to the judge you land in front of to offer a judgment. Before that, all is opinion, and even after that, you can appeal to get a second judgment from a higher court! Endless, eh?

 

RELEASE: A written agreement between two persons, by which one agrees not to sue the other or, to abandon an existing lawsuit, even if there is no basis for the lawsuit at the time the agreement has been made. See http://www.iciclesoftware.com/vlh7/VLH7Glossary.html

 

Yep, endless! Figure THAT definition out!

 

Finally:

 

MODEL RELEASE FORM: The Model Release form/Booking voucher must be signed by the model and client at the end of every booking. See http://www.norriecarr.com/adults/terms.htm

 

Yada, yada ...

 

My take on all this?

 

You may need a release to satisfy publisher's fears and to indemnify yourself and them against a lawsuit by the person in the picture, but there is no legal requirement, just be ready for claims against royalties or other suit if you have no release before hand. Even with a release, it's up to a judge to interpret who gets what when there are completing claims to anything of value.

 

There is no doubt that the photo itself is your property and you have 100% copyright from the moment you "take" the latent image, and with or without a release, the photo is yours to do with as you wish.

 

NOT property.

 

Photos of "property" never require a release since the property cannot bring a claim against you nor testify in court, so feel free to feel superior to property, citizenship wise! ;-)

 

So, no one needs a release for a picture of PROPERTY, such as a license place on a car.

 

Stephen asked: "... Am I legally allowed to print this image without a release ..."

 

Yes, since there is no prior restraint or censorship in the US, you are legally "allowed", that is, you are NOT legally prohibited from printing the image. Will you get sued? We think not for an image of PROPERTY. Will you need a release to get it published by someone else? WE think not for an image of property.

 

Stephen further asks: "... so long as I don't use it in the context of stock photography and the like? ..."

 

Again, PROPERTY has no rights superior to your rights of ownership of the copyright. Go ahead and use it for what you want, and it's up to the stock house to edit the place number or reject the photo regardless of any "release" (as if there could be one for property!).

 

Is anyone NOT clear on this?

 

I know my exploration could use paraphrasing and revisiting by anyone who has a link or explanation that is clearer. But again, all we can share is OPINION, so be kind to each other since opinions tend to disagree, but it doesn't matter, since opinion can never be right ... or wrong! It can only be, well, opinion!

 

Anyway, Stephen, share some pictures, and let us know what you do!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise perterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor, Alpha, and DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

[theamazingtr3v]

Who cares?

 

I think that a license plate number being displayed in a photograph is far less of an

invasion than having your face inherently caught int he background of a photograph, and

in street photography, this happens all the time.

 

Following presented logic, one would cover up their license plate with tarp before they left

the garage. And that is illegal. There is absolutely no harm in photographing a car. Only a

latigious american would even consider this a problem. Unless of course I'm missing

something, and there is a sign somewhere in the photograph that says "HUNT THIS

PERSON DOWN AND KILL THEM." That probably wouldn't be so smart to sell.

 

The bottom line is that nobody is ever going to hold you legally accountable for it, it just

won't happen, and if that guy in the photograph does happen to be a dick, find out and

file charges well, I think that is an acceptable risk.

 

But that's me.

[ray_henry1]

Interesting thread. I may have the opportunity to test it. I published a picture of an antique car in a local show that was open to the public. The owner of the vehicle claims that he has registered a complaint against me with the Human Right Commission on the grounds that I've endangered his life by publishing his licence plate. Silly, yes, and I'm sure that will go nowhere. *BUT* on research, there is a possibility that, if this reaches the Privacy Commissioner, it may just be found in violation of PIPED..... I almost look forward to that happening, just to know the real answer..

:P

[michael s.]

Sorry to hear about the complaint, Ray.

 

These internet legal discussions are always more fun and more relaxed when they're purely theoretical. :-)

 

Your reference to "PIPED" suggests to me this is happening in Canada, no ? There I readily confess I'm completely unfamiliar with applicable law.

 

Please keep us posted, though, on this thread or another one you begin. I'm curious.

 

Hope it works out well for you.

[james_perry3]

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