how minimally can you censor a face?

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>hello i am in an interesting situation. if you want to just skip all the story, i am just trying to figure out a way to use a portrait without the model release form, using the black censor bars. I have seen blurred faces(i dont want to use that) and also black bars. Sometimes I see black to cover entire faces, and black to cover just the eyes of the person. What is the least you can get away with? The reason why I want the least is because the person takes up most of the composition.</p>

<p>heres the story:</p>

<p>I am approached by a person in my art class about making sketches of them. I think they want me to make art of them to flatter them, so instead of making a petty sketch i upgrade to a poster to flatter even more. then i find out that they didnt want me to make something like that, they wanted to help me with my sketching as practice(ouch i guess i suck at drawing) anyway.... i ask them if i can use their image in an exhibition.(its not a photograph, its a collage/poster based on a photograph). they say no, but i read online (http://www.photoble.com/photography-tips-tricks/model-release-forms) that you do not need permission in art exhibitions. i have already worked on the piece and far along with it, but they told me just to throw it out. i understand their concern for using their image, so i thought of changing the characteristics of the face such as changing the eyebrows...hairstyle adding glasses and other things to make them another person. i explained this to them in emails and on the phone, but they believe they still have rights to say what i can do with the image just because it originated with them. now i have just decided to hide their identity with the black boxes. </p>

<p>so would a large black box be enough to allow me to use this image, even outside of art exhibitions?</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Restating your question more clearly:<br>

<em>"How do I go about really pissing off a classmate who volunteered to help me and who has already made their displeasure known to me, without getting into legal trouble?"</em><br>

Since this appears to be a legal question you need to get the opinion of an attorney who is willing to represent you in court if it goes legal and not to go by opinions you read on the internet. <br>

If I were in your shoes I'd drop the piece and do something new and better but as I am not you and I am only reading a very partial account of what really is going on you'll have to make that call all on your lonesome. <br>

<em><br /></em></p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>Ellis Vener wrote "Since I am not a professional at anything I do, I cant help since I have not experienced any professional commercial type of work. Any type of legal issues are a mystery to me since I am only capable of playing with crayons and making useless posts on forums. Nothing on the internet is trustworthy."</p>

<p>Thanks for attempting to help.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>(i) <vicariously embarrassed>Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy.</vicariously embarrassed></p>

<p>(ii) Ellis isn't the crayon guy. Maybe you should Google him. :>)</p>

<p>(iii) What Ellis said. Get a new model, take a few hours, and make a new piece for the exhibition.</p>

<p> </p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>sorry all i am naive and on the internet i have a bad temper. but in real life im naive also</p>

<p>i am serious though. i am not trying to piss off my school mate. if i really wanted to piss them off i wouldnt edit it at all and just have their image be used without any issues.</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>so i thought of changing the characteristics of the face such as changing the eyebrows...hairstyle adding glasses and other things to make them another person.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>End of problem. If it looks like someone else, the original model cannot claim it as a likeness. However, if you are going to all of that trouble to modify an existing artwork, why not just create a new one?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Since this appears to be a legal question you need to get the opinion of an attorney who is willing to represent you in court if it goes legal and not to go by opinions you read on the internet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't be silly. It's never going to get that far. Lawyers cost money which most of us can't afford.</p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>like i said before, it is a collage. i am using materials out of random magazines and glue sticking them on a sheet of paper. im not done yet and are already running out of sources of materials so making a new one isnt a great idea. lame excuse, but i am also compelled to complete this one. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>You're in hot water, yet, again?</p>

<p>Assuming for discussion the unobscured use requires a model release to avoid liability, don't look for a bright line test of methodology. The likeness will need to be unrecognizable. The bigger issue, however, is why you have this history so early in your 'career' of needlessly upsetting people which leads to these problems.</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Cut out the eyes in the shape of a perfect rectangle. Turn 180 degrees, paste. Repeat with mouth and other facial features as necessary. Unrecognizable. Call it a Picasso. Voila, you're an artist.</p>

[david.wagle]

<p>It astounds me how many people you manage to piss off in such a short time.<br>

Someone in your local community offered to help you. You abused that offer and now wish to profit from that abuse of trust even though you know it will anger them more.<br>

Here's the long and short of it: If the person is identifiable in the image, then they can sue you and win. Even if they aren't identifiable, they can sue you and cost you a lot of money. And lastly, decent human beings care about the feelings and concerns of others and will not always put themselves and their own gain first.<br>

It costs you nothing to set aside this work, or give it to your subject, and move on to something else. It costs you nothing to get a model to work time for prints and appropriate releases and recreate the work if you like it so much. Why create waves just to create waves?</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Even if they aren't identifiable, they can sue you and cost you a lot of money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How?</p>

<p>(I agree totally with the rest of your post).</p>

[david.wagle]

<p>In the USA you can sue anyone for anything. It costs money to defend yourself.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>Why create waves just to create waves?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the heart of the matter. Jeremy is <em>not</em> looking for practical advice, he's looking for ongoing support for his world view (for those who haven't been following Jeremy's adventures in deliberate social friction, suffice it to say that this is part of a larger pattern that he certainly doesn't show any sign of wanting to change). <br /><br />Jeremy: In the time it took you to write that opening post, you could have pleasantly reached out to another classmate and asked to photograph them under conditions that everyone understands <em>up front</em>. Let <em>go</em> of it, man, and use the short waking hours of your fleeting life more sensibly. As a happy byproduct, you'll find less, not more, stress surrounding you. Though I suspect that you actually thrive on these situations and the ensuing conversations - but I'll be damned if I know why.<br /><br />This isn't about being naive, Jeremy. It isn't possible that given the last things you've described, that you haven't learned the value of asking yourself - before doing/saying things - "Am I being the least bit polite, here? Would it annoy me if someone else acted like this? Is my position or are my actions on this topic helping me to navigate this academic setting in a constructive way?" You've presented yourself with many opportunities, now, to make asking yourself those questions a good and regular habit. That you're looking for a way around asking (and answering) those questions, again, tells me that you really aren't interested in a useful outcome.<br /><br />You want to be a photographer? It should be <em>effortless </em>to line up another subject, shoot, and be done with it in a matter of an hour. That's what you should be practicing (the social logistics of these projects), not looking for hair-splitting advice about how much or in what way to obscure faces at the expense - again - of another slice of the social capital you have banked with your peers. Relax, find another subject, and make some baggage-free art.</p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>as much as i hate to say it. i guess i will just throw it away :P</p>

[steve m smith]

 

<blockquote>

<p>In the USA you can sue anyone for anything. It costs money to defend yourself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if you represent yourself?</p>

 

[david.wagle]

<p>It will cost you time if you represent yourself. And most people don't do it well, which can cost a lot of money. A questionable case will go no where with a skilled attorney, but can win a judgement against someone who misfiled one piece of paper.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>I would like to think that a judge can see through the technicalities and find the facts. That's certainly the case in the U.K. when people represent themselves.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Apparently you've decided to honor the request and just throw it out, which would seem like the easiest and most respectful course of action.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why you seem so intent on using the law (and trying to find out where you can just run up to the line of legality) to justify your lack of consideration and respect for others feelings. </p>

<p>Here is a person who you accept was merely trying to help you out with your sketching. When they make a simple request about the resulting image, your first instinct is to ignore them and try and find a legal way around it? The real point here is that the law should be irrelevant. Common courtesy and respect should have made the decision for you - long before you decided to post a question here trying to find a way to legally circumvent their request.</p>

<p>I hope that you learn a lot in college and excel in your studies. I also hope that you re-learn some of the lessons that you may have missed in grade school - regarding the Golden Rule, respect, compassion, gratitude and common courtesy. Good luck, I think you've made the right decision in this matter finally.</p>

<p> </p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>every time i try to defend myself i look bad so i guess i wont try this time :P</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>If one sticks to the basic question?</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>Now this happens to be from the California Civil Code. So it would only apply in California and only under the circumstances or context of the whole code section. From an academic standpoint, you'd be wise to learn effective and reliable research methods, to assist you in getting to more accurate legal information. I'm sure you've noticed that answers here have already suggested you can be sued in this situation and others that suggest you don't need permission for your application. (Forums are almost always poor places to get reliable "legal" information, not that some respondents may or may not actually be "right.")</p>

<p>Having accurate legal information will not necessarily protect you from the social or extra-legal consequences of your behavior.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Go with the black bar over the face. Say it's an artsy ironic commentary on self-censorship. A win-win for you.</p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>thats what i wanted to do. i wanted to have a black bar go over both eyes to conceal the identity and where the eyes would be, just have the word 'dont' on both sides.</p>

<p>but i swear to you, no matter what i did, even if i blocked out the whole image, the person would still be uncomfortable with me using the poster.</p>

<p>we had long conversations on the phone about this and i just gave up..i said i was going to throw it away but she said she wanted to have it.(maybe to confirm the destruction :P)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Jeremy: Lex - in an uncharacteristic turn of whimsy - was being a bit sarcastic ... or, he was being serious, but suggesting that you play for maximum irony. You don't seem to be feeling ironic about this, so I think it's a good thing you skipped that part. <br /><br />John B's on the money here - you didn't need a long phone call with your subject, you only needed that first indication of discomfort, at which point your Decent Guy Radar should have gone on red alert, and you should have immediately offered any reasonable step on your part to put that person at ease (rather than try to be persuasive). By the time you have to start selling them on the idea, or talking about how nobody will know it's her once her eyes are hidden, etc, it's too late. Definitely work on your perception skills in this regard - it's front and center when you're doing any sort of photography that involves people.<br /><br />If you come to doubt your instincts when it comes to how you think other people will react to your creative decisions, try this: tell people, "I'm sometimes a little tone-deaf on how people feel about photographs made of them and how they're used. Please be immediately up front with me about any concerns you might have, and I'll honor them." And then ... <em>do</em> honor them, without fuss or delay or question. That's how you build the trust that gets you more opportunities with those subjects and with everyone they know.</p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>ok</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I object to the characterization of my whimsy as uncharacteristic.</p>