Street photography .. Legalities

[megan_stone]

I am interested in exploring street photography etc. wondering what the legalities of showing the work is...especially with images that

capture people in them. Am I allowed to post such work on my website and/or sell ? Naturally it will be close to impossible getting

released forms . . As most of the work will actually involve photos of people doing their own thing ..unaware of the camera. Thank you

[johncrosley]

<p>This has been a much-discussed topic on Photo.net.</p>

<p>I do not maintain an index of answers previously posted, but maybe others have and can post them.</p>

<p>Also, the answers may change from country to country, especially for images taken in the European Union where display of individually identified persons taken even in public seem to be regulated; or at the very least most reasonable publishers in say, France or Germany, will not publish them unless they are at a newsworthy event without releases for fear of being sued for their culture's equivalent of 'invasion of privacy' though it's hard to see how one can be private in public places.</p>

<p>In the US it's more bright line. If a person is in public and you're not using a supertelephoto with a 2x tele-extender, you probably can take and publish their photo for editorial (non-commercial purposes, including magazines, newspapers and gallery work), but not in any case without a release for selling products, services, etc.</p>

<p>Public does not include restrooms, etc.,and other places where there are reasonable expectations of privacy, and that may extend now with HIPPA to hospitals, though I am not aware that has been litigated. The boundaries are all the time stretched for 'editorial' by 'National Enquirer', 'Globe', and other personality-devoted publications.</p>

<p>But if your photo holds someone up to a 'false light' such as implicating a lifetime smoking opponent falsely is smoking, you may have a problem on publication if your text does not belie the photo's implicit message 'this person smokes' by saying it's a 'trick of perspective' or some such, and if you sell such a photo you'll likely lose control of the text that goes with it.<br>

<br />I recommend a trip to my portfolio for the 16,000+ commentaries under my photos and the 100+ pages of commentaries under my portfolio (with many replies by me) some of which discuss these issues in detail.</p>

<p>I am a former press photographer, photo editor, business editor, and (former and long-ago) attorney of almost two decades, and have been taking photos since the 1960s, so I am familiar with these subjects, however, you cannot rely on my advice, but only on the advice of an attorney familiar with your particular circumstance.</p>

<p>Your question cannot be answered in a few short paragraphs, either, and the above is a short précis or introduction to how to approach finding the answers.</p>

<p>john<br>

<br />John (Crosley)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Am I allowed to post such work on my website and/or sell ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yes and yes. You cannot license for commercial usage.<br>

<br>

However, since you don't seem to have any background in street photography, it's worth pointing out that there is almost no money in it. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>John, thank you for that nice outline.</p>

<p>Now you've got me worried. I quite often shoot with a 500mm lens with a 2.0X extender. My basic goal is to shoot birds and wildlife, but if I see an interesting "people in nature" opportunity I'll shoot it, often with 1000mm of focal length. Were you just kidding, or does this open me up to further possible scrutiny. I tend to shoot backsides, but sometimes it might include a distant profile. I've sold a few of these through Getty and they seem okay with it.</p>

<p>I assume that using my long lens to shoot from a public place into a private place might open me up to dispute, but I don't intentionally do that.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Megan, what country do you live in. That will impact the information you seek. There are many threads on this topic here, and there is information available on the web. You might look around first and then if you have unanswered questions come on back to it. Ultimately if its a legal issue, remember that internet opinion is not the same as a legal opinion and you will have to choose yourself as to the validity of the opinion.<br>

After all that, I will say, in the U.S. you can use pretty much any "street" photo for a non-commercial purpose without a model release, which intuitively doesn't mean what it sounds like. For instance You can take a photo and sell it on your website, use it in a book on street photography, hang it in a gallery and sell it there, hang it in a museum. What you cannot do is use it as part of any advertising. Stock agencies can only lease it for editorial and other non-commercial use. They can not lease if for any commercial use such as for the background in an ad, etc. <br>

Keep in mind this is just a broad brush launching point for you to begin to explore the topic yourself if you think its going to be an issue for you.<br>

Cheers</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Megan's prior postings indicate she lives in southern California, or is at least looking for business there. Laws that would implicate using telephoto lenses typically involve invasion of privacy and not simple street photography. Also, they vary by state.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>"Now you've got me worried. I quite often shoot with a 500mm lens with a 2.0X extender"</p><p>The focal length of a lens is irrelevant. It can be a circumstantial factor in a few scenarios such as if used to capture images of people in a place where there is an expectation of privacy and such but there is no wide angle vs. tele distinction in general. <br> It wouldn't make any sense.

 </p>