Should we get permission to photograph people?
Apr 16, 2023 13:32:32 #
kb6kgx wrote:
By this, then the concept of "candid street photography" does not exist in France? Although I was only in Paris once, in 1982, all of those people I photographed, including police officers… I was doing something illegal?
Well...maybe we all did something wrong in Paris.....(and didn't get caught
)......Apr 16, 2023 13:33:21 #
Apr 16, 2023 13:34:25 #
Apr 16, 2023 13:35:18 #
Apr 16, 2023 13:37:08 #
Delderby wrote:
IMHO - NO! But we should get permission to publish those pics in any shape or form.
If we see a picture to shoot - walk not talk, but to get permission first might lose what we saw.
ALWAYS offer a freebie of the shot and get permission to publish.
I don't do street - simply because I believe in privacy, whereas many "street" photogs seem to invade people's privacy without a second thought.
If we see a picture to shoot - walk not talk, but to get permission first might lose what we saw.
ALWAYS offer a freebie of the shot and get permission to publish.
I don't do street - simply because I believe in privacy, whereas many "street" photogs seem to invade people's privacy without a second thought.
One area of caution I would like to share. In the past 12 months I have photographed a couple of (young) teenagers. One at a show jumping event ("behind the scenes" washing down her horse) in the presence of her mother and grandparents having asked if they minded me taking the shot, On a separate occasion at an annual Dragon Boat Race when photographing a mixed age (i.e., children/adults) Asian dance competition at the event. In this latter case a senior pointed out to my wife that one of the dancers was her granddaughter; my wife asked if she wanted us to photograph her during the routine. In both cases we asked for the respective email addresses so we could forward the photographs, and in both cases we did not get a response. We believe that this was not simply forgetfulness or bad manners but could well be more to do with them being subsequently cautioned by other family members wrt heightened awareness of their children being photographed by strangers; somewhat emphasized by some of our friends who will not not share photographs of their children or grandchildren on line. Quite understandable and rightly makes me now cautious of photographing young children of whatever age in the future. A sign of the times.
Apr 16, 2023 14:02:42 #
Jsykes wrote:
One area of caution I would like to share. In the ... (show quote)
I think most of us (UHH) would agree that photographing young children in public without parental/guardian consent is the most sensitive subject in street photography. (I think there's some legal restrictions). So discretion is highly advise!
Apr 16, 2023 14:03:30 #
RightOnPhotography
Loc: Quebec,QC
Rongnongno wrote:
In the US, you can be introduced to the Gruyère family.
What does this reference mean? Something to do with a cheese or?
Apr 16, 2023 14:03:57 #
You are basically asking if you need a model release if a person is in the picture. The Wikepedia response is appropriate:
Model release
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another. The legal rights of the signatories in reference to the material is thereafter subject to the allowances and restrictions stated in the release, and also possibly in exchange for compensation paid to the photographed person. A model release is not needed for most photograph publication because of freedom of speech rights (which vary by country.) A model release is needed for publication where personality rights or privacy rights would otherwise be infringed. No release is required for publication, as news, of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public place. In general, no release is required for publication of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public space unless the use is for trade or direct commercial use, which is defined as promoting a product, service, or idea.[1] Publication of a photo of an identifiable person, even if taken when the person is in a public place, that implies endorsement, without a model release signed by that person, can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph.[2]
No model release is necessary to take a photograph. Rather, the model release applies to potential publication of the photograph. Liability rests solely with the publisher, except under special conditions. The photographer is typically not the publisher of the photograph, but normally licenses the photograph to someone else to publish. It is typical for the photographer to obtain the model release not merely because they are present at the time and can get it, but also because it gives them more opportunity to license the photograph later to a party who wishes to publish it.
The topic of model release forms and liability waivers is a legal area related to privacy that is separate from copyright. Also, the need for model releases pertains to public use of the photos: i.e., publishing them commercially. The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or non-commercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal liability, at least in the United States.
The legal issues surrounding model releases are complex and vary by jurisdiction. Although the risk to photographers is virtually nil (so long as proper disclosures of the existence of a release, and its content is made to whoever licenses the photo for publication), the business need for having releases rises substantially if the main source of income from the photographer's work lies within industries that would require them (such as advertising). In short, photojournalists almost never need to obtain model releases for images they shoot for (or sell to) news or qualified editorial publications.
Photographers who also publish images may need releases to protect themselves, but there is a distinction between making an image available for sale (even via a website), which is not considered publication in a form that would require a release, and the use of the same image to promote a product or service in a way that would require a release.
Types of release
Adult release: This is the form most commonly referred to as a "model release". The language of this release is normally intended for use by models over the age of majority.
Minor release: This variant of the model release contains language referring to the model (who is a minor) in the third-person, and required signature by a parent or other legal guardian of the model. A release which is not signed by a parent or guardian may afford no legal protection to the publisher.
Group release: This is a modified version of the adult release, which includes additional signature lines to accommodate use by multiple models or subjects in a single image.
See also
Personality rights
References
FAQ about privacy and libel Archived 2014-03-12 at the Wayback Machine ASMP.org
Legal rights of photographers COB.org
External links
Basics of model releases
"Basic model release". NY Institute of Photography. Archived from the original on 20 May 2013.
Further reading
Dan Heller (2008). A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things. ISBN 978-0-470-22856-2.
Categories:
PhotographyLegal documentsPersonality rights
This page was last edited on 21 March 2023, at 1
Model release
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another. The legal rights of the signatories in reference to the material is thereafter subject to the allowances and restrictions stated in the release, and also possibly in exchange for compensation paid to the photographed person. A model release is not needed for most photograph publication because of freedom of speech rights (which vary by country.) A model release is needed for publication where personality rights or privacy rights would otherwise be infringed. No release is required for publication, as news, of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public place. In general, no release is required for publication of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public space unless the use is for trade or direct commercial use, which is defined as promoting a product, service, or idea.[1] Publication of a photo of an identifiable person, even if taken when the person is in a public place, that implies endorsement, without a model release signed by that person, can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph.[2]
No model release is necessary to take a photograph. Rather, the model release applies to potential publication of the photograph. Liability rests solely with the publisher, except under special conditions. The photographer is typically not the publisher of the photograph, but normally licenses the photograph to someone else to publish. It is typical for the photographer to obtain the model release not merely because they are present at the time and can get it, but also because it gives them more opportunity to license the photograph later to a party who wishes to publish it.
The topic of model release forms and liability waivers is a legal area related to privacy that is separate from copyright. Also, the need for model releases pertains to public use of the photos: i.e., publishing them commercially. The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or non-commercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal liability, at least in the United States.
The legal issues surrounding model releases are complex and vary by jurisdiction. Although the risk to photographers is virtually nil (so long as proper disclosures of the existence of a release, and its content is made to whoever licenses the photo for publication), the business need for having releases rises substantially if the main source of income from the photographer's work lies within industries that would require them (such as advertising). In short, photojournalists almost never need to obtain model releases for images they shoot for (or sell to) news or qualified editorial publications.
Photographers who also publish images may need releases to protect themselves, but there is a distinction between making an image available for sale (even via a website), which is not considered publication in a form that would require a release, and the use of the same image to promote a product or service in a way that would require a release.
Types of release
Adult release: This is the form most commonly referred to as a "model release". The language of this release is normally intended for use by models over the age of majority.
Minor release: This variant of the model release contains language referring to the model (who is a minor) in the third-person, and required signature by a parent or other legal guardian of the model. A release which is not signed by a parent or guardian may afford no legal protection to the publisher.
Group release: This is a modified version of the adult release, which includes additional signature lines to accommodate use by multiple models or subjects in a single image.
See also
Personality rights
References
FAQ about privacy and libel Archived 2014-03-12 at the Wayback Machine ASMP.org
Legal rights of photographers COB.org
External links
Basics of model releases
"Basic model release". NY Institute of Photography. Archived from the original on 20 May 2013.
Further reading
Dan Heller (2008). A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things. ISBN 978-0-470-22856-2.
Categories:
PhotographyLegal documentsPersonality rights
This page was last edited on 21 March 2023, at 1
Apr 16, 2023 14:21:47 #
Sometimes there will be a character that just jumps out at me. I do ask permission if this is a single person whose photo I want to take. Only once was someone offended. I apologized. He saw me later and covered his face with his hand. After thinking about this, I came to the conclusion that he must have been in the protection of the US Marshall's identity program. Of course, this is why I stick to landscape photography.
Apr 16, 2023 14:31:15 #
Delderby wrote:
I hear you. I referred to the "US" (Unit... (show quote)
Rude trolls?? How about rude Brits looking down their noses at the colonials with a sniff and a dismissive attitude about history? I'll pass on the European history that Europeans are so proud of!
Yes, I was referring to OUR civil war. One and done. Learned from our mistake. It was about something a little more important than what color robes the king could wear and who had to take a knee when his "betters" pranced past.
The North American continent didn't belong to a race, it was inhabited by many races who were also immigrants.
Apr 16, 2023 15:31:01 #
Jersey guy
Loc: New Joisey
Absolutely. Children seem to comprise a separate category when discussing this topic.
Apr 16, 2023 15:34:24 #
billnikon wrote:
If your in a PUBLIC space, you can take anyone's image. But, like you said, if your going to make money off of it or publish it, you need a model release signed by the person. Verbal permission to take their image and then sell it is a NO NO.
You cannot use a person’s image for commercial purposes without obtaining a model release (at least that’s the case in the United States) - but, you can use the image for artistic or editorial pursuits including the sale of art prints, coffee table books, etc. Having said all that, I still think using an image of a person without their permission is a concern - especially if they are the main focal point of the image and/or portrayed in a negative light - simply for artistic reasons. Different story for editorial or photojournalistic images.
Apr 16, 2023 18:36:30 #
billnikon wrote:
If your in a PUBLIC space, you can take anyone's image. But, like you said, if your going to make money off of it or publish it, you need a model release signed by the person. Verbal permission to take their image and then sell it is a NO NO.
That isn't necessarily true. Newspaper photographers do not need permission to publish images. You are over generalizing. Also if the individual is not recognizable, for example if their back is turned then you still might not need a model release to sell it.
Apr 16, 2023 18:37:40 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
As I understand it, a release is required to use a photo for advertising or promotion of something. But it can be published as a news photo or shown in a gallery as art without the release, given that the photographer and the subject were in public. Of course, anyone can sue over anything and you don't know how that will come out.
You are correct. At least in the U.S.
Apr 16, 2023 20:41:15 #
jhtall
Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ
In the USA, while you are in a public space you can photograph anything you can see from the public space. In the USA there is no privacy in a public space. I believe selling does require permission except assign a news photograph.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.