koalaroo Loc: Gold Coast, Australia

Is it ethical to post street photos of people on UHH do you think? I have some shots of New Orleans that I'd like to post, but I don't want to do the wrong thing.
I would appreciate your thoughts.
Jude.

Bill_de Loc: US

There is actually a street photography section here.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-121-1.html

--

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

I would like to know the same thing. I've been photographing strangers in my pictures of Boston...

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Why not? Unless the inadvertent subject ran up and said, "no posting, destroy that picture," (being sarcastic here) go ahead. And, you can post them in Photo Gallery too. You are not posting here for commercial gain, so no Model release is required.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I am not an attorney, but it is my undrstanding that as long as the pics are not used for commercial purposes people in public places are fair game. It it is a pic of an individual a signed release is a good idea.

koalaroo Loc: Gold Coast, Australia

Ok, thanks very much. I feel ok about it now.
As I'm posting a running series of my USA holiday, I'll stick to the photo gallery section.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Not a problem. When people are on the sidewalk, they have no expectation of privacy. Look at pictures in the newspaper. Besides posed portraits, there are lots of street shots with various people in the background.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Perhaps, but news organization have special rights to publish anything they want. Of course,
they can always be sued. Anyone can sue anyone else about anything, and they do. This
applies even if you have a release. What the release does is speed up the court process,
because the issue of consent does not have to be argued. Other purported "damages" are
still fair game. Sad but true.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I agree. If this was the case, then photographers and even the tv networks would be required to get model releases from everyone in a sports stadium, a political gathering or any other situation (tv news report) before broadcasting the event. However, if the photographer specifically uses a photo of one person in a specific even and identifies the person, they should have the model release. (note: this doesn't include specific shoots or events where the person is identified supporting a specific product of event). If I shoot a photo for a billboard and the people in the shot are identifiable, then I'd better have model releases on file.

blackest Loc: Ireland

A lot of stadiums post notices on the entrances that by entering you are giving consent. Probably something in the terms and conditions of the ticket sale as well. Almost certainly doesn't cover anyone who happens to be there with a camera.

Public locations tend to be fair game although Malls may not be considered public. Personally I try to avoid making people identifiable and if they are that the photo is complimentary but thats my choice to be nice, not a legal requirement.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

That is not true news organizations do not have special rights. The laws are clear in the US. Everyone has the right to take pictures of any subject in a public space. Individuals have no expectations of privacy in public areas or private areas that can be be seen from public area if the photographer is in the public area. Further more the photographer can sell those picures without a model release and the subject has no legal recourse. The restriction as stated above is on using the images for a commercial purpose. Selling the pictures to a magazine or news outlet or as art are not considered commercial. Commercial is defined as using to promote or attract for financial gain. So the photographer who sells street photos on their website is ok. However to use those same photos to Promote a show or their website must have a model release. A company would need a model release to use an image to advertise their product but the photographer does not need a model release to sell the image to the company. However no company will buy an image for that purpose without a release attached. That's the long answer to the OP's question. The short answer is there are no legal restrictions against you posting your street shots you do not need permission.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

The reason for that disclaimer is to allow the stadium to use the images for commercial purposes such as in their advertising. And also for possible prosecution purposes. Without giving notice the images might not be admissible in court.
Stadiums malls and the like are considered public spaces with a slight exception. Places like that have the right to ask you not to take pictures. Even though they are considered public space they do reserve some privacy right but they must exert it by giving notice. That is why on concert tickets you may see a statement that photographing or videoing is prohibited. There are also semi public places where you must give notice that photos are being taken. So in malls stadiums etc they must give notice that they are taking pictures or video so that would be admissible in court to prosecute shoplifters drunks in a stadium assaults. But that really pertains to search and seizure laws more than photography.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

It has nothing to do with the subject being identifiable it has to do with being used for commercial purposes or not. If used to promote or advertise release needed. If not no release needed That is the legal definition which has nothing to do with any ethical issues which we all are free to decide for ourselves.

billgdyoung Loc: Big Bear City, CA

Be very careful about accepting free legal advice/opinion here or anywhere else. For example, if you take a street shot and publish it someplace, and a person in the picture takes you to court for invasion of privacy, what will you use in your defense? “Well, a guy on one of the photo forums said it was ok”? I’m pretty sure the Judge would get a good giggle out of that…

kd7eir Loc: Tucson, AZ

News organizations do NOT have any "special rights to publish anything they want" that a private citizen does not have.

If someone sues you after signing a release, as long as you have not violated the terms of that release, you will get a summary judgment without ever going to trial, and the complainant will be stuck with paying your legal costs.