Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Your answer makes a lot of sense to me. I see a problem with your last sentence. If I give the image to the church for free, but then they decide to include those images in a publication for which they charge a fee, I'm I liable to make sure the church follows the law?!

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

I fully understand the motivation. I also have interesting photos of people at football games. I took a photo of a guy who went into a complete rage when his team was loosing. He turned around and was screaming at the fans behind him. I took a good sharp photo of his rage filled face with my 500mm lens. The cops came and tossed him out of the game. It's a great photo but I never used it to make money. Faces are interesting.

jdedmonds

Wait a minute, here. Why is is "wrong" to take a picture? Narrow it down; what you're objecting to is taking a picture of a child; doesn't that assume that the photographer has a lurid purpose in taking the picture? I prefer to think that my fellow men or women have no such purpose unless something else (e.g., posting the picture on the internet) tells me otherwise. Even in this latter case, the salacious purpose has to be attributed to the photographer with no evidence. As a lawyer, I'm more or less certain that if I were sued because I took a picture of a child I would win a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. If I were sued for then posting the child's picture (viz., the picture I took) on the internet, I think I'd have significant exposure for damages for invasion of privacy. I think I'd have equivalent exposure for posting a picture of an adult. You may or may not be politically correct to say it's wrong, but that seems to me to reflect your own cynical approach to the problem.

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

Here is my understanding - If the young man's picture appeared as content in the book, you likely are not required to produce a model release. The church might ask for one to protect themselves anyway.

If the picture were to be used as a front or back cover image, or in any promotion of the book, then a model release is an absolute must.

As the photographer, it's up to you to follow the law, and obtain the model release.

I am not a lawyer, and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn in years.

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

I thought the same thing when I read his post. Beauty/Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. That's his problem, not mine.

jdedmonds

If you wound up as the defendant in a suit brought by or on behalf of the person in the picture, I think it would be a jury question: was publication by the church a foreseeable consequence of giving the church the photo. Unless you're a lawyer with a lot of time to spend, getting to the point where you're waiting for a jury verdict in such a case would cost you a pretty penny even if you won. Trial lawyers (or any lawyers for that matter) ain't cheap.

jdedmonds

I don't think anybody is ever "required" to obtain a release; this is done essentially to prevent the subject from later bringing an action for invasion of privacy. If you're in a public place and take a picture of somebody without getting a release, I think any halfway decent lawyer would see that for the subject to bring an action against you would be a fool's errand, and would advise either the subject or you accordingly.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

"Taking a photo [in a public area] never requires a model release. The publishing of that photo including someone's likeness, however, may require a model release. Generally, a model release is only required if the way the photo is published makes it seem that the person in the photo endorses the product, service, or organization. A model release would almost always be required if the use is for advertising. A model release is not needed for publishing the photo as news, or for artistic or editorial expression."
This, and more practical situations can be found at https://improvephotography.com/48423/model-release/

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Wow, many different legal opinions posted here! I would have never thought that doing a favor for the church would expose one to such liability.

At this point I'm hoping that the minister does NOT send the email I requested so I can get out of taking photos of people. Photo of inorganic items are safer.

(Download)


(Download)

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

Thank you for the link to a definitive answer to my question. I'll study this in depth.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Regardless of man’s laws, Dave ask yourself if you were the parent of that child, would you want someone you do not know posting it on the internet? Does that feel right to you?

Find the parents and offer them a print.

Just saying...

jdedmonds

I tell all my clients, civil and criminal, that when you go to trial, only two things can happen and one of them is bad.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

The fact that you mention an "angelic looking" boy and a "pretty" wife give me pause. Did you take any pictures of elderly or disabled attendees? Are you really that selective in your choice of subjects? As the "authorized" photographer for a church I attended many years ago, my responsibility was to photograph a significant sampling of the attendees. I NEVER took pictures of prayer sessions. If I took pictures of children, it was with the family or a responsible adult. One young teen was particularly "inappropriate" in the way she dressed and acted in church. I never took her picture, even with her mother, and I told the pastor why. One of the parishioners, an elder and member of the board of directors of the church, was a retired judge. I made it a point to give him a contact sheet of my pictures; he asked for an enlarged print of one shot and said the picture was "borderline" whereupon I went home and destroyed the negative. The only time releases were required was when one of my shots of an entire family was used as on the cover of the annual report. Nobody ever objected to my photographic methods or results.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

You haven't done anything illegal.

Photography isn't a crime.

Posting your photos online for "all to see" isn't a crime.

You are just asking in a forum where folks are afraid of their own shadow...ask this in the Photrio forum and you will get different answers.

Having said that...IF this isn't truly public, it's on private property and those attending are of a certain group of folks (those who are members of a certain denomination) then I'd say that it's a bit different. You'd have to talk to those who organized it.

If however the function is on public property and there is no restriction of who can attend then it's no different than you shooting street photos. (legally)


Posting photos isn't a crime, I wouldn't have a problem with it...if we would restrict ourselves like some here would want, we'd never take another picture again.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Wow. Under suspicion without even doing anything. That's messed up.

So unless he takes pictures of the entire demographic his character and motives are suspect?

Unbelievable.