Release (Page 2): Bullcrap .. someone must have tried in the last 100 years ... Find one! Now put this in the context of the hoggers here and the question posed by the OP. Advertising...

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

JohnSwanda wrote:

You probably won't find a case because any advertising agency knows that if they use a photo of a celebrity in an advertisement without permission they will be successfully sued. I don't think you know the difference between editorial and commercial usage.

Bullcrap .. someone must have tried in the last 100 years ... Find one! Now put this in the context of the hoggers here and the question posed by the OP. Advertising does not apply. We are photographers and causal photographers if that. No one should fear of taking a picture from a or in a public place and selling it.

If I am a commercial photographer, I am going to hire models or a celebrity and I am going to bind them by contract. It would be incredibly difficult to set up cameras and lights in a public place and trust that someone would enter the frame. A complete waste of time and money. It is not an issue of permission but one of piratical logistics.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Mark7829 wrote:

Bullcrap .. someone must have tried in the last 100 years ... Find one!

Well, it wasn't too hard at all. I just googled "celebrities in advertising without permission." This is just one of many links I found:

http://www.spottsfain.com/publications/322-recent-court-cases-offer-caution-use-celebrity-likenesses-advertising

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I am not a lawyer, but I understand if you take an image in a public event, or place, you do not need a release.How would you get a release of all the people at a baseball game. I also believe as long as you are not SELLING the image, you don't need a release unless the contest asks for it.

Fkaufman3 wrote:

I have many pictures taken in streets of various countries and festivals, etc. like Brazil, Ecuador with recognizable people, can I enter these in contests where they ask for model releases, also if doing street photography do you need releases to publish these?

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

JohnSwanda wrote:

Well, it wasn't too hard at all. I just googled "celebrities in advertising without permission." This is just one of many links I found:

http://www.spottsfain.com/publications/322-recent-court-cases-offer-caution-use-celebrity-likenesses-advertising

WRONG!!!!! that article "Recent Court Cases Offer Caution on Use of Celebrity Likenesses in Advertising" has nothing to do with taking pictures in public!!!! It deviates into minutia well beyond the OP's question. COME ON.. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! We're not talking about likenesses or advertising where there is a reference of endorsement. That is subject to the courts BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED HERE!!!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Mark7829 wrote:

WRONG!!!!! that article "Recent Court Cases Offer Caution on Use of Celebrity Likenesses in Advertising" has nothing to do with taking pictures in public!!!! It deviates into minutia well beyond the OP's question. COME ON.. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! We're not talking about likenesses or advertising where there is a reference of endorsement. That is subject to the courts BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED HERE!!!

The person I'm replying to keeps insisting that you can use photos of people taken in public for advertisements without their permission. Read the whole thread before bashing people.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

JohnSwanda wrote:

The person I'm replying to keeps insisting that you can use photos of people taken in public for advertisements without their permission. Read the whole thread before bashing people.

I read the article. It does not apply to the OP question. Use of a photo to infer endorsement of a product by intent is questionable. In the case listed herein the celebrity's suit was actually withdrawn. The celebrity is actually paid for endorsing products. Had a hogger taken the picture and sold it just as a picture, no one would be sued. Had the celebrities picture not inferred a product endorsement, no one would be sued as well. Again, this does not apply to the question the OP asked.

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

People, please... The law in area X may and probably won't be the same in area Y. Instead of bickering back and forth get the proper facts from a lawyer that deals with your area. In most cases you can get a free 5 minute consult over the phone. Once you have this proper information please remember the universe doesn't end at the end of your street. If the infraction happens in area X then who gives a damn what the laws are in area Y. If your traveling outside your part of the universe, find out what the laws are in the area you plan on visiting. That 5 minute call should cover most general aspects of your rights, enough to get you through any possible tricky situations.

We now return you to the original post.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Mark7829 wrote:

I read the article. It does not apply to the OP q... (show quote)

Again, I wasn't replying to the OP, I was replying to someone else who insisted you have the right to use photos of someone taken in public for an advertisement without their permission. Go back and read that person's posts.

(edit) I just realized I was replying to YOU. You're the one who challenged me to find a lawsuit regarding using photos for advertising without permission. I did just that.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

JohnSwanda wrote:

Again, I wasn't replying to the OP, I was replying to someone else who insisted you have the right to use photos of someone taken in public for an advertisement without their permission. Go back and read that person's posts.

(edit) I just realized I was replying to YOU. You're the one who challenged me to find a lawsuit regarding using photos for advertising without permission. I did just that.

No not the same .. Not only are you mixed up on the subject but you can't seem to understand to whom you are replying.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Mark7829 wrote:

No not the same .. Not only are you mixed up on the subject but you can't seem to understand to whom you are replying.

This is your quote:"it does not matter if it is used for commercial or non-commercial purposes, in public there are no restrictions as to use." I think you don't know the difference between commercial and editorial usage. Commercial use is advertising or promotion and that requires permission. Photos published in a magazine that are not advertising are editorial, and don't require permission.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

you can use the pics if they were shot in public...BUT if you dont have a release the person in the picture can sue you for part of what ever you make.
If you use the pic in a derogatory way ( say a condom commercial) they can sue you for damages as well.

this was one of the lessons in a photo class I took.

rbfanman

If you have a signed model release you can. If you don't, you can't. Rules are rules. A contest which requires model releases requires model releases. Keep a book of model releases with you, and have those you shoot sign one for you. Contests are powers unto themselves, and can require things that other entities won't, or can't.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

JohnSwanda wrote:

This is your quote:"it does not matter if it is used for commercial or non-commercial purposes, in public there are no restrictions as to use." I think you don't know the difference between commercial and editorial usage. Commercial use is advertising or promotion and that requires permission. Photos published in a magazine that are not advertising are editorial, and don't require permission.

I really don't care.. the OP asked about taking pictures in public and getting permissions. He does not have to do that for his own purposes. As for the other comments, they don't relate to the question. If you insist, just retype on preferably very stiff paper, fold in up five ways and stick it were the moon don't shine... And if you don't know where that is, send me a PM and I will send you a picture as to the actual location.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

JohnSwanda wrote:

You probably won't find a case because any advertising agency knows that if they use a photo of a celebrity in an advertisement without permission they will be successfully sued. I don't think you know the difference between editorial and commercial usage.

You can take all the pictures you want . But I was told you can't make money with a picture of Jo blow with out a release . And if it's a movie star that's leagle game as it's kind of expected of the public to go crazy and snap
Celebs . They can't sue . That's why some get mad and brake cameras or throw punches . If they could sue the courts would be full . And no time for real justice for the crooks .

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Bram boy wrote:

You can take all the pictures you want . But I was told you can't make money with a picture of Jo blow with out a release . And if it's a movie star that's leagle game as it's kind of expected of the public to go crazy and snap
Celebs . They can't sue . That's why some get mad and brake cameras or throw punches . If they could sue the courts would be full . And no time for real justice for the crooks .

Again, it's how it is used that makes the difference. You can publish all the photos of celebrities you want without their permission in a photojournalistic use, called editorial usage. But if you use a photo of a celebrity in an advertisement without permission, they certainly can sue and likely will win.