aellman wrote:
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.
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.