Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Need Advice About Posting Here
Aug 13, 2017 16:17:24 #
First, I am awed by the quality of submissions here. I would never expect to have the opportunity to shoot the models we see here.
BUT...serendipity: I was shooting surfers from a pier and a woman entered the water on an Ocean Rescue longboard. She was wearing a rather provocative swimsuit (and had the form to flaunt "it".) I could not pass the chance so I shot...and shot.
I got several good shots, but one in particular is a "celebration of the female form" (IMHO.)
I would like to post it here, but I am concerned about what is acceptable in our current society. I have no model release. The shot only captures a partial profile of her face (no nose.)
Still, there is little question that someone might recognize her because the uniqueness of the swimsuit...although I doubt her circle looks at UHH.
Advice, anyone?
BUT...serendipity: I was shooting surfers from a pier and a woman entered the water on an Ocean Rescue longboard. She was wearing a rather provocative swimsuit (and had the form to flaunt "it".) I could not pass the chance so I shot...and shot.
I got several good shots, but one in particular is a "celebration of the female form" (IMHO.)
I would like to post it here, but I am concerned about what is acceptable in our current society. I have no model release. The shot only captures a partial profile of her face (no nose.)
Still, there is little question that someone might recognize her because the uniqueness of the swimsuit...although I doubt her circle looks at UHH.
Advice, anyone?
Aug 13, 2017 18:27:23 #
As I understand it, if she was in public and you don't plan on selling the photo, you may use it in almost any situation. That would include UHH, your portfolio, even gallery display. It can be used to advertise YOUR work, but not a product or any other commercial use. But I'm sure someone will disagree with me.
Aug 13, 2017 19:14:37 #
lukan
Loc: Chicago, IL
Public domain! Post it, even if it's "pubic" domain. Just don't post it elsewhere to sell it; for that you'll need a release. What you capture privately in the public domain is your property, to do with as you choose.
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
Aug 14, 2017 07:26:15 #
Jaackil
Loc: Massachusetts
buckwheat wrote:
As I understand it, if she was in public and you don't plan on selling the photo, you may use it in almost any situation. That would include UHH, your portfolio, even gallery display. It can be used to advertise YOUR work, but not a product or any other commercial use. But I'm sure someone will disagree with me.
Not exactly correct he may in fact sell it. He may not use it without permission for any commercial gain or purpose which includes using it to promote or advertise products or services which includes his own business. That is the current interpretation of the law based on the most recent DOJ letters.
So he is free to post it.
Aug 14, 2017 12:35:57 #
Aug 14, 2017 13:54:12 #
buckwheat wrote:
As I understand it, if she was in public and you don't plan on selling the photo, you may use it in almost any situation. That would include UHH, your portfolio, even gallery display. It can be used to advertise YOUR work, but not a product or any other commercial use. But I'm sure someone will disagree with me.
Well said. Just check out my thread, Mutton Dressed as lamb, on this section of UHH, and you will see the controversy of posing candid shots of this genre
Aug 15, 2017 03:27:25 #
buckwheat wrote:
As I understand it, if she was in public and you don't plan on selling the photo, you may use it in almost any situation. That would include UHH, your portfolio, even gallery display. It can be used to advertise YOUR work, but not a product or any other commercial use. But I'm sure someone will disagree with me.
No disagreement. I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of the law and custom.
Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
Aug 15, 2017 06:46:50 #
Many thanks to all who commented. You confirmed what I knew about the "legality". I had a PM conversation with Shutterbugsailer about what constitutes "creepy" in our hypersensitive society. Now I will consider...
Aug 15, 2017 11:31:04 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
You can post them... In fact you can post just about anything and be protected by the first amendment if it meets two criteria.
To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.”
We are all number (2)
Nussenzweig v DiCorcia
Key concepts: Right of Privacy/Publicity
Philip-Lorca DiCorcia photographed Hasidic Jew Ermo Nussenzweig walking on a public street in New York without his knowledge or consent. DiCorcia sold 10 prints of the image for between $20,000 – $30,000 through the Pace/McGill gallery. Nussenzweig sued DiCorcia and the gallery for privacy and religious reasons.
The court ruled that the photograph was art, not commerce, and protected by the First Amendment.
I think your surfer is basically the same as those characters in this story and in fact anybody in a public place who can not expect any "reasonable expectation of privacy" . Ie; why video & recording of traffic and the ability of law enforcement to actually issue tickets and or prove guilt from remote and automatic devices is not an infringement of your rights.
Source: (https://petapixel.com/2014/10/28/8-legal-cases-every-photographer-know/)
Photographs as speech
No Supreme Court decisions directly address a photographer’s First Amendment rights. The rulings closest to that issue involve expressive speech and conduct.
“The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of ‘speech,’ but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word … we have acknowledged that conduct may be ‘sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.’
“In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether [a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Six years later, the Supreme Court reiterated, “To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group (1995)
Once again we are all number two in this.
Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment/
To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.”
We are all number (2)
Nussenzweig v DiCorcia
Key concepts: Right of Privacy/Publicity
Philip-Lorca DiCorcia photographed Hasidic Jew Ermo Nussenzweig walking on a public street in New York without his knowledge or consent. DiCorcia sold 10 prints of the image for between $20,000 – $30,000 through the Pace/McGill gallery. Nussenzweig sued DiCorcia and the gallery for privacy and religious reasons.
The court ruled that the photograph was art, not commerce, and protected by the First Amendment.
I think your surfer is basically the same as those characters in this story and in fact anybody in a public place who can not expect any "reasonable expectation of privacy" . Ie; why video & recording of traffic and the ability of law enforcement to actually issue tickets and or prove guilt from remote and automatic devices is not an infringement of your rights.
Source: (https://petapixel.com/2014/10/28/8-legal-cases-every-photographer-know/)
Photographs as speech
No Supreme Court decisions directly address a photographer’s First Amendment rights. The rulings closest to that issue involve expressive speech and conduct.
“The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of ‘speech,’ but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word … we have acknowledged that conduct may be ‘sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.’
“In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether [a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Six years later, the Supreme Court reiterated, “To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group (1995)
Once again we are all number two in this.
Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment/
Aug 15, 2017 14:09:53 #
The shot was not on private property and there was no assumption of privacy. You may post and sell without a release.
Sep 9, 2017 09:36:05 #
hookedupin2005
Loc: Northwestern New Mexico
I believe you have to follow the laws of the state in which the photo was taken.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.