Photographic Models: I’m in a quandary. I would like to do street photography using folks in random shots taken at a distance (or closer). I’ve been told that all persons photographed...

mrchunko

I’m in a quandary. I would like to do street photography using folks in random shots taken at a distance (or closer). I’ve been told that all persons photographed should give their permission; others say snap away. I have a feeling I’m going to get in huge difficulties pursuing this genre of photography either way, and that’s not my intention. I just want some spontaneous, unposed images. Maybe some of you more people skilled folks can help. I’m getting nowhere.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

mrchunko wrote:

I’m in a quandary. I would like to do street photography using folks in random shots taken at a distance (or closer). I’ve been told that all persons photographed should give their permission; others say snap away. I have a feeling I’m going to get in huge difficulties pursuing this genre of photography either way, and that’s not my intention. I just want some spontaneous, unposed images. Maybe some of you more people skilled folks can help. I’m getting nowhere.

You might want to pose your question here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-101-1.html

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Permission required if your photos will make you money (if you profit from them). An artist taking pictures because he recording a fashion statement or attitude doesn't require a model release. What you do with their image is the bottom line. I'm not sure what if an exhibition of prints qualifies as giving you a profit. Becoming recognized isn't necessarily making a profit.

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

mrchunko wrote:

I’m in a quandary. I would like to do street photography using folks in random shots taken at a distance (or closer). I’ve been told that all persons photographed should give their permission; others say snap away. I have a feeling I’m going to get in huge difficulties pursuing this genre of photography either way, and that’s not my intention. I just want some spontaneous, unposed images. Maybe some of you more people skilled folks can help. I’m getting nowhere.

In regards to your question, it's important to know where in the world you'll be shooting. Country, please.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

petercbrandt wrote:

Permission required if your photos will make you money (if you profit from them). An artist taking pictures because he recording a fashion statement or attitude doesn't require a model release. What you do with their image is the bottom line. I'm not sure what if an exhibition of prints qualifies as giving you a profit. Becoming recognized isn't necessarily making a profit.

Peter is correct for images taken in the USA

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

PixelStan77 wrote:

Peter is correct for images taken in the USA

No, he isn't. If you take my picture while I'm walking in a public area, you are free to frame it and sell it as art without any sort of release from me. If my photo is one of say, 20 examples of street photography you have framed, and a gallery offers to show, and sell, your work, you still can do that without a release from any of the subjects.

If the gallery wants to use one of your street photos of a person to advertise the exhibit, or publish a book and put a person's picture on the cover, or put their image on a tee shirt to sell as promotion for the exhibit, then it has become 'commercial usage', and a model release from the person pictured should be obtained.

This topic pops up fairly regularly, mrchunko, and usually generates a lot of responses. In the end, you'll have to decide if street photography is an area you
want to pursue.

david vt Loc: Vermont

This does come up regularly, and normally a huge debate ensues with no clear resolution.

I thought it had more often than not come down to the public space or not. If I take a picture on a street of a person, and (not that I am anywhere good enough to do this) try to sell it commercially, do I need to have a release from each and every person on that street?

If permission for commercial use is required when taking pictures in a public space, then someone explain paparazzi to me.....

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

david vt wrote:

This does come up regularly, and normally a huge d... (show quote)

When photographs are published, it is either for Editorial or Commercial use. Editorial is for news or information purposes, and doesn't require permission, thus paparazzi. Commercial use isn't just for profit - it means use for advertising or promotion. That does require permission.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

david vt wrote:

If permission for commercial use is required when taking pictures in a public space, then someone explain paparazzi to me.....

If a paparazzo sells a picture to a magazine, that is not commercial use. Commercial use means to use a picture to sell a product, as in an advertisement.

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

david vt wrote:

This does come up regularly, and normally a huge d... (show quote)

David, this article, authored by an attorney, is a pretty fair guide to the legalities of street photography here in the USA. It's one of about 440,000 that comes up when Googling "legalities of street photography in the USA". It's one of those areas where the mass of opinions exceeds the body of fact by a large factor.

https://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-things-you-need-to-know/

david vt Loc: Vermont

JohnSwanda wrote:

When photographs are published, it is either for Editorial or Commercial use. Editorial is for news or information purposes, and doesn't require permission, thus paparazzi. Commercial use isn't just for profit - it means use for advertising or promotion. That does require permission.

Thank you for the very precise definition. That does explain the hair splitting for Paparazzi (though I would debate the “editorial content” of many of these publications - but let’s not get into a 1st amendment discussion)

What about my first question. If I take a picture in a public space, do I need a release from each and every person (at least those identifiable) in that picture? Does is matter if the person is the subject of the photo, or if they are incidental to the scene?

If these are too basic, forgive me, but new to photography and just trying to learn

Largobob

When I was an educator, the issue arose regarding the policy of taking images of students. One rule said that each student needed to provide a "release" form....another rule said that any student who DIDN'T wish to be photographed, needed to provide a "do not photograph me" form. I believe the underlying issue was that a non-custodial parent might see a pic of his/her child, and come and snatch the kid. You can imagine what problems might arise when photographing athletic events, plays, competitions, etc. I believe it would be wise to NEVER take a photo of a minor child without prior parental permission.

david vt Loc: Vermont

krl48 wrote:

David, this article, authored by an attorney, is a pretty fair guide to the legalities of street photography here in the USA. It's one of about 440,000 that comes up when Googling "legalities of street photography in the USA". It's one of those areas where the mass of opinions exceeds the body of fact by a large factor.

https://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-things-you-need-to-know/

Spot on a very clear - thank you. Point 7 addresses the selling of images precisely. Thank you.

mrchunko

I never take random photos of children. It’s too risky; I don’t even take photos of children’s activities at church

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

david vt wrote:

Thank you for the very precise definition. That ... (show quote)

Again, if it is sold for commercial (advertising or promotion) use, it would be wise to have a release from anyone identifiable in to photo, and I would think anyone buying it for commercial use would insist on that.