Street photography contest

[luis-a-guevara]

I see that there is a Street photography contest and it makes me wonder on the legality of

photographing people and exhibiting their images without their consent.

 

This is an open question for people with knowledge of copyright matters. Thanks.Luis

[adityatw]

Check this:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NW44

[john_sidlo]

It is not an open question in the courts. When you are in public, you have no right to privacy, or copyright to your own "face" or "image". The courts have repeatedly upheld this point.

 

When you are in public with a camera, you may point it anyone you like (with obvious exceptions like pointing a long lens through someone's bathroom window, for example) and take a picture. And then publish that picture on the internet, or an art show, or offer it for sale. Or put it in a book of "art" photography which you can then sell for a profit. Period.

 

Revisionists keep thinking they have a "copyright" on their image or face, and, in the USA at least, they do not.

 

I was particularly amused, following the link above, by the art gallery's proviso the submissions must have "model releases" to be offered for sale - an embarrassing display of lack of knowledge about the law from someone who should know better.

 

 

Inform yourself of your rights: I recommend you read Bert Krages'

book "Legal Handbook for Photographers:The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images".

[Spearhead]

I will only add to John's response that this has nothing to do with copyright matters. Copyright pertains to ownership, and the photographer owns the photos they snap on the street.

[michael s.]

I agree with John as to his statement of general law in the U.S. and with Jeff that the question raised is in essence one of privacy rights.<p>

 

In the U.S., again speaking generally, the release becomes essential when an image is used for commercial purposes or for trade. There is a separate area of concern referred to as "false light," which would be a concern, for instance, when a photo of a recognizable person (one not charged with or convicted of a drug offense) appears with a caption along the lines of <i>"Corner where drugs are sold openly ... "</i> <p>

 

It is worth noting that privacy law varies considerably in different countries -- and in Canada, apparently even from province to province, as has been discussed in prior threads here.

[orvillerobertson]

The only instance I know of where you are out on the street and do have a right to not have

your image utilized is as an advertisement. They can freely use your image for fine art and

editorial work without your consent, even if the depiction is not to your liking. There are

quite a few well-known cases where this basic photographer's right was defended by the US

courts.

[spanky]

We have an employee photo contest every year. It's open to every employee company wide, even those in other countries. However, in bold type in the rules page of the submission form it states "Names and addresses of all identifiable people in the photograph must accompany your submission". Winning photos are published in the company newsletter after the contest is judged. Therefore every year I have to explain to my co-workers why I'm not submitting anything. Sure we here on this forum may know our rights but for everyone else, the threat of a lawsuit is so scary that they just rather play it (a little too) safe I guess.

 

PS - Most of the past winning photographs were either the calendar type pictures (real purtty sunsets and such) or Photoshop wizardry that makes a photograph look like a painting. Not that there's anything wrong with these, but I doubt any of my stuff would win.

[john_sidlo]

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"...

 

FDR, March 4, 1933

[j_sevigny]

If it were illegal to take pictures of people on the street and reproduce them for editorial or artistic reasons, newspapers would have to stop publishing photographs, or at the very least, newspaper photographers would have to chase people around begging them to sign releases.

[roger krueger]

Whether art sold for a profit is O.K. is far from clear. One would logically think it's O.K.,

but the only case I can think of that didn't involve a celebrity is diCorcia, and that didn't

even get far enough to be precedent in NY.

 

Courts can and do surprise people on issues like this where there's no direct precedent.

Especially since, as in the diCorcia case, state law usually does make selling someone's

image without their permission a tort. It's just that the 1st Amendment can override state

law.

 

The other lesson to take from diCorcia is that even if you are right, winning a case like this

is expensive. As were the two big trademark cases won by photographers, Rock and Roll

Hall of Fame v. Gentile and Mattel v. Forsythe. In all three cases someone other than the

photographer picked up the defense bill (diCoricia's gallery and publisher, Gentile's

insurance company, and the ACLU for Forsythe, although he did eventual get costs

awarded to him.

[._._z]

"the only case I can think of that didn't involve a celebrity is diCorcia, and that didn't even get far enough to be precedent in NY."

 

Why do you say no precendent was set?

[Brad_]

>>> Whether art sold for a profit is O.K. is far from clear.

 

Huh?

 

To be more precise, with respect to selling single or limited edition photographs containing

identifiable people as fine art, in a gallery setting, it is very clear. Can you cite other other

cases where this has come up in a court - with an outcome against the photographer?

[michael s.]

To Z -- Roger's referring to the fact that the dismissal order which addressed the constitutional issues in the diCorcia case came from a trial court, not an appellate court or the state's highest court (which in New York is ironically called the Court of Appeals). Trial court decisions can be influential, and are often cited, but they don't 'bind' other courts.<p>

 

The case was appealed, but on appeal the <a href=http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_02413.htm> majority affirmed the dismissal of Nussenzweig's case </a> for the reason that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations (i.e., filed after the 'deadline'), and declined to address the constitutional/privacy questions.<p>

 

But to Roger -- Other than noting that courts "can and do surprise people" I'm wondering, along with Brad, whether you know of a case -- any U.S. case -- holding that a street photograph cannot be taken, displayed, and sold as art without a release ?<P>

 

If so, please let us know. Otherwise, Roger, you're "scaring the children." :-)