SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Tin, this is a little late but, first of all, a model release is never a bad idea. But for example, reporters never get one and they shoot kids all the time and even getting people's names. Everybody wants to see themselves in the local paper!!
Though this is by no means official or legal, I think its difficult for an amatuer to ever use a pic incorrectly. Those in a position to use a pic incorrectly are usually acutely aware of the laws and what needs to have releases. Companies like Ford Motor, Calvin Klein or Nat Geo know exactly what they need and won't TOUCH a pic without proper releases. You could not force yourself to get into trouble if you tried because it's not you that gets sued, it's the person that used the pic illegally. Your only the person that took it, not used it!!l
Even though there is a sorts of mass hysteria when kids are involved, you are completely within your right to shoot them and use the pics for your personal gain if the pic was taken in public.
And no, I don't play a lawyer on TV either. BUT, I often pretend I am one and everybody always believes it, so I must be a darn good one!!! ;-)
SS

conniep

basically, when you are in a public place, you lose your rights to privacy

teesquare Loc: USA

I am afraid that is also true when you are in a private place nowadays as well....:roll: :D

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

jerryc41, excellent story about the homeless man and his daughter. I will pass this onto others that would like this. Thnx for posting. -FiddleMaker

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Ditto

streetmarty Loc: Brockton, Ma

Bottom line, end of story. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

It's a bit more complicated than what some are leading you to believe. The first complication is this. Was the fair being held on private or public land. If public land, was the area in which the fair being held leased to the operators of the fair. If it was leased, the lease would have to be reviewed.

Ex. a local fair, held twice a year, leases the streets (public area) in which the fair is held. The wording of the lease grants ownership to the organization conducting the fair. This makes, what seems to be, public right of way private property for specified times and days.

Now, if there is no restrictions placed on photography by those owners, it can be argued that it is a "free fire" zone.

Now that we have established that you, more than likely, had implied permission to photograph within the area, the only other restriction is photographing people where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since a roller coaster is open to public view during the entire time, no one riding the roller coaster, or permitting people in their care to ride the roller coaster, should expect privacy during that ride.

Now, in today's society, if you were to have captured that once in a lifetime photo of people having a good time and gained notoriety and money, you can probably expect lawsuits. Since anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything, there is always the possibility that this could happen to you. This will lead to expenses, which may be recoverable, in hiring an attorney.

In the end, publishing or selling rights to that photograph is your decision. Be advised, though, in today's litigation oriented society, there may be repercussions.
--Bob

johnbee418 Loc: Manchester Conn.

Regardless of the State where the photos are being taken, it always comes down to "Expectation of Privacy". That means does the subject have a reasonable and legal expectation of privacy? The subject, if in or at a public place, does not have that expectation. In the immediate example, no model release is necessary. This standard is applicable in every "street" shot you take, including shooting a private structure from the vantage of a public sidewalk (said structure being exposed to public view).

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

If it is a fair, it is a public accommodation. No right of privacy is granted by a lease. There is no superior expectation of privacy unless you were required to sign something prior to entering the area. If you are in a place of public accommodation whether publicly or privately owned the privacy expectation is the same.

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

Anything in a public place is open game. What you do with those pictures is up for interpretation.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I beg to differ with you on your first sentence. I'm speaking from fact. If it is a fair, set up with the contract to which I alluded, it is private. Do not mistake private property open to the public and public property. They are distinctly different.
--Bob

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

For my own purposes, my one unbreakable rule regarding street photography is to get the shoot from a long distance using a long zoom bridge camera. In this way, you avoid embarrassment, confrontation, and you get the most candid shots of your subjects. I made a thread entitled "Drive by Shooting with a Kodak Z990 bridge camera" back in july 2012 and got over 80 responses; more than any of my other threads, and to this day, that thread continues to get viewed. Some might regard my approach as "cheating or unethical, but to each his own

Bushymonster Loc: Oklahoma City. OK.

If you only knew how many times your photographed everyday and if they need the shot from a security photograph how could they get everyone's signature. A lot of security photo's are in magazines or in court and they don't blur faces. Personally I don't worry about it but then I go out of the way as to try not to get strangers in my photo's just to be sure and I haven't had anything published since I shot for the newspaper here in Oklahoma. Never had a problem but everyone wants to sue now days to make a few bucks.
-Bushy

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I don't think it's cheating or unethical. Some might consider that you appear to be a perv. That is pointed out by many street photographers.
--Bob

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Why not, NASA does it every day and they never get releases either!! :lol: :lol:
SS