tore this out a magazine (Page 2): im in the uk!!!!

Shine11 Loc: London UK

David Kay wrote:

If you know the law in the US, if you take a photo of the building from a public location you MAY be ok to use it.

im in the uk!!!!

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

David Kay wrote:

Its your photo, but do you have a release from the peson in the photo that allows you to publish on the internet?

Not sure about the UK but in the US you don't need permission unless you are using it for advertising or other commercial use. - Dave

David Kay Loc: Arlington Heights IL

Shine11 wrote:

The graffiti is in a public place( in a tunnel ) on a public wall... He has no right to do the graffiti ... So whose permission am I meant to ask?... Very intresting debate ... Would appreciate feedback

The person in the photograph. He could come back and say that he did not intend or want his photo published on the internet. If you don't have a release from him, you technically do not have permission to post in public or sell the photo

David Kay Loc: Arlington Heights IL

wilsondl2 wrote:

Not sure about the UK but in the US you don't need permission unless you are using it for advertising or other commercial use. - Dave

Not sure about the UK but in the US you don't need permission unless you are using it for advertising or other commercial use. - Dave

not correct. publishing on the internet could be considered violation of the models rights. When you have identifiable people in your photo, and you want to use that image in a public way, it is always best to have a release that gives you the right to publish their likeness.

Jack47 Loc: Ontario

Shine11 wrote:

What do you like jack?

I like the fact that David Kay would ask permission to photograph/ publish a photograph of someone. I always ask unless I am at a public event. I don't know what the legalities are nor do I care, I just ask for permission.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

For general reference.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2008-04-17-public-photography_N.htm

Heirloom Tomato Loc: Oregon

David Kay wrote:

The person in the photograph. He could come back and say that he did not intend or want his photo published on the internet. If you don't have a release from him, you technically do not have permission to post in public or sell the photo

This fact does not stop many other UHH members from doing street photography showing recognizable faces, and no one here ever seems to object. Personally, I am uncomfortable posting recognizable human faces. But I am in the US where this may be more of an issue than in the UK, and my own personal bias comes into play as well because I'm a private person and would not want my own, or my family's photos displayed. When I do post a crowd scene containing faces, I usually try to obscure or change the faces,and/or the clothing.... I do something to disguise the faces.

Heirloom Tomato Loc: Oregon

Shine, I'm a little confused by your title and others may be as well, based on comments members have made. Did you actually tear this out of a magazine or did you process your own photo to make it look like it was torn out of a magazine?

If you did tear it out of a magazine, Admin may move it to "Chit-chat" or some other non-photography section. I once made the mistake of photographing a commercial Christmas card. I changed and edited it and added my own touches, but Admin quickly moved it out of Photo Gallery into "Chit-chat." I realized that I had violated site rules, and won't do that again. Of course, there are always exceptions. I have seen photos of folded newspapers where the text is legible. If this is part of an original photo, such as a still life shot, something like that doesn't seem to set off any alarm bells.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

David Kay wrote:

not correct. publishing on the internet could be considered violation of the models rights. When you have identifiable people in your photo, and you want to use that image in a public way, it is always best to have a release that gives you the right to publish their likeness.

It is correct - Looked it up - In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places and publish those photos. Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual

roxiemarty Loc: Florida

I don't see spray cans, are you sure he's the artist? I agree, he's in a public place, the wall is public art. You are not selling his photo, so that is only my opinion.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I don't see the issue.... I looked at the photo, and I didn't recognize the man, so it must be OK. :-)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

bkyser wrote:

I don't see the issue.... I looked at the photo, and I didn't recognize the man, so it must be OK. :-)

I recognized the guy on the wall. Does that count?

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

Check out the article in the Readers Digest:
http://www.rd.com/culture/case-peeping-photographer/

A photographer took photo's of a family without their knowledge or consent and then used them in an art gallery as a photo show - this went to court and the photographer won the first round - the case in still pending...

What is interesting is that this is in New York which I would take as implying that each state has their own laws around this.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Shellback wrote:

Check out the article in the Readers Digest:
http://www.rd.com/culture/case-peeping-photographer/

A photographer took photo's of a family without their knowledge or consent and then used them in an art gallery as a photo show - this went to court and the photographer won the first round - the case in still pending...

What is interesting is that this is in New York which I would take as implying that each state has their own laws around this.

In another case, which I posted a month or two ago, a photographer took pictures of a woman inside her home, published them, and won the court case. I forget the details, but the woman never covered her windows. Maybe a Google search will find it.

smith934 Loc: Huntsville, Alabama

Isn't it established that a person in a public place, in the US at least, has no expectation of privacy? If that were not so, how would paparazzi operate, as they sell their pictures for publication, and obviously don't bother getting a release?