cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

Back in July of 2007, I took a picture of another museum goer as he approached me between two gigantic steel panels of a Richard Serra sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. I guess it was sort of street photography, but he's the only person in the picture. Could I get into any legal trouble if I put this image on flickr without even knowing his name?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

One can get into legal issues just sitting on their front porch. You might google
photographs of people on a public street + model release required
non commercial photographs of people on a public street + model release required
and see if any genuine legal advice is retrieved.
--Bob

griffzky

Was he wearing a Covid mask? If not; can you photoshop one on him? That would make the image indicative of the moment in history it reflects and protect the subject's identity.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

Two issues: if you use the likeness for profit you would need a release. The other issue is whether or not the person had an "expectation of privacy". You could easily argue that in a museum open to the public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and that therefore you have the right to take their photo. The reality is that the subject of your photo will probably never know, and if he did and asked you to remove the photo and you did so, I wouldn't think you could face any serious repercussions. Many people might be honored if the photo does not show them in a bad light. Of course, one can make the argument that whoever has the most money for lawyers will win the argument...

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

The 'MODEL' would have to prove damages, which be a tall and expensive ladder to attempt to climb.

I've shot untold thousands of people at sporting events and sold many to local papers and such and did many for local museums.

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

Ourspolair

I just read that New York is considering a ban on photos of people who do not give the photographer permission to shoot a priori. It seems that this is being prompted by some women feeling violated if someone takes a photo of them. By extension, you might find yourself in trouble. This is recent, so you could, at worst, say that there were no regulations in place at the time you took the shot.

Bill_de Loc: US

Where did you read that? I tried Google but couldn't find anything.

---

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Bet the next version of editors will have a "People Removal" button.....
/s

jim quist Loc: Missouri

The general rule is that if his closest friends can recognize him with that mask then you haven't 'masked' his identity

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

cbtsam unless an individual is licensed to practice law in Maryland their counsel is likely meaningless...
That said the ASMP has stellar authoritative information to aid in your query
https://www.asmp.org/copyright-tutorial/faq-copyright-law/

Personally I've been required to provide a signed and witnessed model release along with a relivant photo ID for work I've submitted for magazine publication... Just saying...

All the best on your journey

Ollieboy

Good luck with that law passing. The courts have already ruled of no expectation of privacy in public places. The woman who complained in that article needs to enlighten herself with the reality of law, and not her emotions. By extension of this "law" there would be no paparazzi and photo journalism without the photographer chasing down the subject for a signature. "Not gonna happen".

uws Loc: nyc

Absolutely agree. Such a law would be a violation of the first amendment of the constitution guaranteeing free speech.

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

A simple answer, NO.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

How you intend to use the image will determine if you need a release.

I took a picture of a woman who was modeling outdoor winter clothing for a catalog that was never published.

35 years later I received a letter from an attorney she had hired to sue me because she was convinced a picture she saw in a magazine ad (2x2 ad, and her likeness was even smaller) was her. The pic was of a young woman wearing a ski hat and a ski jacket on a ski slope. I will admit the two could have been cousins, but the ages were wrong and the setting were different.

I challenged the lawyer to show proof (a request of a model release from the company advertising the product) of from whom they had obtained the picture. I knew the attempt was bogus because I had all the copies and the original negatives in my sole possession for all those years. I never heard back from either of them. I did not have a signed release.

The danger here is that even though you follow a good protocol and you don't use the image for commercial purposes, publishing on social media can result in someone else using the image. If your ducks are all in a row, you might be ok without a release.