Street Photography Ethics/Liabilities: I recently photographed a local county fair in Utah and got an exciting photo of about 8 kids riding a mini rollercoaster. Just wondering what is...

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

I recently photographed a local county fair in Utah and got an exciting photo of about 8 kids riding a mini rollercoaster. Just wondering what is required to safely publish or display photos of individuals without signed (or even verbal) consent? The children are all 5 to 6 years old and easily identifiable.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

tinplater wrote:

I recently photographed a local county fair in Utah and got an exciting photo of about 8 kids riding a mini rollercoaster. Just wondering what is required to safely publish or display photos of individuals without signed (or even verbal) consent? The children are all 5 to 6 years old and easily identifiable.

Tin, there are NO restrictions unless you have personal or moral issues wth it.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

SharpShooter wrote:

Tin, there are NO restrictions unless you have personal or moral issues wth it.

Thanks...at what point is a model release/consent required?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Consult a local lawyer.

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

You need a model release if the image is used for advertising. Don't need it for editorial use. Also, anyone in a public environment is fair game to be photographed. In our society photographing children might get your photo on Megan's list. IMHO. . .don't.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

tinplater wrote:

I recently photographed a local county fair in Utah and got an exciting photo of about 8 kids riding a mini rollercoaster. Just wondering what is required to safely publish or display photos of individuals without signed (or even verbal) consent? The children are all 5 to 6 years old and easily identifiable.

Have you considered the introduction of a bit of blur to each face - or placing a circle with "CENSORED" over each face or even a cover for each face imprinted, "FACE HIDDEN DUE TO SOCIAL PARANOIA"; who knows, it might be the biggest thing since a picture of Campbell's Tomato Soup.

19104 Loc: Philadelphia

here is a great site that list your rights as a photographer

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

Try without the 's'

http://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Mogul wrote:

Have you considered the introduction of a bit of blur to each face - or placing a circle with "CENSORED" over each face or even a cover for each face imprinted, "FACE HIDDEN DUE TO SOCIAL PARANOIA"; who knows, it might be the biggest thing since a picture of Campbell's Tomato Soup.

"Children too ugly to show." :D

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

19104 wrote:

here is a great site that list your rights as a photographer

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers

That site has great information concerning photographing public spaces and events, particularly those involving the police. I might have missed it, but I didn't see anything about photographing people or children who are in public spaces. In my view, they are fair game... see "paparazzi" in your favorite dictionary.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

It's a sad thing that due to present day attitudes it can be rather ill advised to take photos which include children however innocent your intentions are.
Personally I avoid such shots, recently I was in my local park taking photos of the ducks etc when I noticed some young children in the background so I stopped. You never know what other people nearby will think or do.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Sometimes street photography can have a happy ending.

http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/diana-kim-the-homeless-paradise

MarkD Loc: NYC

The law may vary from state to state. Generally you can photograph anyone in a public place because there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. You can display or publish such a photograph but you cannot use it for commercial purposes without a model release. That would include advertising or promoting a product or service. For example, and this actually happened, you can use a photo inside a book without a model release, but you can't use it on the cover because the cover promotes the book. Many publications will not publish without a model release anyway out of the fear of litigation.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on television (old joke), but this has been discussed several times on this and other forums, and this is what has been explained by those who know the law.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

tinplater wrote:

Thanks...at what point is a model release/consent required?

Usually it has to do with commercial use. Commercial as in for advertising. For instance putting the shot in a book is probably editorial and not commercial. Putting the shot on the cover of the book is commercial since it advertises the book. Obviously selling to a company to use as part of an ad campaign is out.

But you should consult an attorney for real advise.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

tinplater wrote:

I recently photographed a local county fair in Utah and got an exciting photo of about 8 kids riding a mini rollercoaster. Just wondering what is required to safely publish or display photos of individuals without signed (or even verbal) consent? The children are all 5 to 6 years old and easily identifiable.

The courts are clear, a public place is open and free, shoot at will (photography of course). Imagine taking a picture of Time Square where there are people present all the time. Consent forms would be impossible. No one is suing anyone but in America everyone would like to sue.