billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The paparazzi can do that with PUBLIC figures, yes, but no, they cannot do it with private individuals. They would have to get their permission to publish.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Funny! "Look! A man is taking a picture. Take a picture of him!"

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

I understand but it has to be vague definition between private and public. :) :) Has every street person signed a model release? Simply saying, it's very hard when people are in public space to say they are private. I agree better to be safe than in court. To note, I only shoot people under duress or ordered by my wife.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If you're out in public, you're fair game. You need permission for commercial use, which means selling a product.

tbpmusic Loc: LaPorte, Indiana

Many photographers are averse to being photographed themselves.
I can almost count on one hand hand how many shots have been taken of me (that I know of) in the past 40 years.
Can't explain why, I just don't like it and avoid it diligently.......

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Not to belabor the point but the paparazzi get paid and sure as hell don't get a model release first! Do papers/magazines have special dispensation?

epd1947

Yes - you can take a photo of pretty much any thing or any one so long as both you and the subject are in a public place. I don't agree entirely with your point about using the photo "for profit" - you can use the photo without a model release for either artistic or editorial purposes (and that is true even should you receive compensation for the use of the photo) - you need a model release if the picture is to be used for commercial purposes. NOTE: specific requirements do vary from country to country (and perhaps even from location to location within a country) - so it is always advisable to consult with an attorney when in doubt.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If the photographer is out in public, anything he can photograph is permissible. Of course military, etc., would be the exception. Commercial use requires a release. "Commercial use" means advertising, not just making money. Of course, many publications cover themselves by requiring a release even though it isn't technically required.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

For the same reason I engage in regular street photography - people are interesting in their natural environments.

My current primary camera is a blue Pentax, because I don't want others to view me as a serious photographer. I would never ask permission because I don't want to call attention to myself. In general, I don't want my presence to change behaviors.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Of course you can take photos of photographers! It can be fun... They sometimes look pretty silly.



Common courtesy and all the usual rules about model releases and image usage apply.



"Commercial usage" isn't just advertising, by any means... It's use of a photo on T-shirts, posters, coffee table books, packaging, websites, lunch boxes, or just about anything else.... The key distinction that makes a usage "commercial" is that the image is being used in a manner that will generate income to the user. In that case, the person whose image is being used has potential claim on it and it would be risky to use the image unless they release their claim in writing. Look around sometime, at all the photos being used in commercial manner, that you may not have noticed before.

Educational, fine art, editorial and a few other uses don't technically require a release..... but it's nearly always better to have one signed than not. As noted, many publications now ask for one, for editorial uses. I'd also always get one for fine art usage that involves nudes or might be seen as derogatory to the subject in the image.

Above images are not released but are essentially only being used "educationally" here. I'm not making any money posting any of these photos here. If one of the people being depicted objects and sends me a "cease and desist", I can take it down... no harm, no foul. But if I'd somehow made money off the display of the image here, the person depicted would have claim on some share of that income, and they could sue me for that. Maybe they'd win a judgment and I'd have to pay them... It would be up to the court if I paid them "a half day modeling fee" or if there were added "penalties" of some sort. Or, maybe I'd win in court... but go broke from the legal expenses defending myself.

It's really the user of the image who has to worry about model releases and suits. The photographer would probably be named a the suit, too, but the lawyers bringing the suit are primarily going after the "deep pockets".

Commercial use generally pays a great deal more for usage of an image than do editorial, educational or fine art. The difference can be tenfold or 100X or more. Would you rather get paid $25 or $2500 for use of one of your photos? So for the photographer it also makes more financial sense to get a release signed. It's not really all that difficult. If you are shooting candidly, such as street photography, you can ask for the release after taking the shot.

BB4A

[quote=amfoto1]Of course you can take photos of photographers! It can be fun... They sometimes look pretty silly.

I think those portraits are fun, and not at all silly. I'm 100% sure I look much sillier when I'm executing portraits... I'm going to see if I can find some shots of "me, taking pictures"... Wouldn't that make a super challenge if we posted up our silliest post of ourselves, deep in concentration, while trying to execute the shot?

I'm thinking back to last Sunday evening; lying full-length on my side in a very hot & dusty barn, trying to shoo away a friendly barn cat while attempting to capture a challenging portrait of a very beautiful young lady... With my head balanced on top of my water bottle, to "steady the shot" as I don't have a tripod that goes low enough to the floor and the light was minimal.

The other beautiful young lady (2nd portraiture series) was behind me at the time, and giggling... A LOT. As I know she has a camera on her cell phone AND knows how to use it, I need to challenge her with how that pic of me came out... I'm willing to bet THAT was a very silly portrait.

On a slightly more serious note, I think we can all be a bit challenged by someone taking pics of us while we are working. However, a smile, asking permission, and a thanks afterwards go a long way. And Photography should be fun.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Photographers are among the most self-conscious people on earth... especially PEOPLE photographers. We have scrutinized the faces and bodies of countless individuals, noting every attractive and repellant feature of each. We worry that others will be doing the same to us, and that they may be unfairly judgmental!

It is fairly difficult to photograph people in a truly flattering way, and most of us don't want to settle for honest images of ourselves.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Why don't you try to be a little more discreet about it so they don't get annoyed.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Thanks. Glad someone else caught it.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

I agree. Facebook will prove itself to be a social disease.