bigb Loc: Central New Jersey, USA

My wife and I were playing at a drum circle on the Grounds for Sculpture,a several acre outdoor facility.Someone was taking pictures for the facility and then went around to everyone and had them sign a release,in case their picture showed up in any promotional materials.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Actually since the use of the image is for commercial purposes (advertising their facility), if you are prominently shown and recognizable in the photo that would normally require a signed model release... one for each of you, especially for kids under 18 (signed by parent or adult).

If you and your family are just in the background, or in a crowd and/or at a distance not particularly recognizable, it's possible no release would be needed.

Doesn't matter at all that you were on their private property at the time or who took the photos. And it is definitely NOT an infringement on intellectual property. That would be a copyright infringement, for example, such as would be the case if you took the photo, posted it on your personal website and they downloaded and used it without your permission. As I understand it, they took the photo... not you. So the person who took the photo or the party employing them to take the photo is who owns the copyright (i.e., intellectual property).

At worst this is a matter of using you and your families' image without proper model release(s). But unless you are a very famous person whose "face is worth a million bucks", it's a pretty minor usage and the best you could expect is some share of the commercial proceeds generated by use of your image(s) in the photos, which sounds as if it would be minimal and likely wouldn't be worth the legal and court costs to pursue. Though if you won, you could make them pay for any legal costs too.

I probably wouldn't worry about it... Or, as some others have suggested, you might just ask for a copy of the photo for your scrap book. If for some reason it really bothers you that they are using your image, your first step would be to send them a cease and desist letter. It's too late to do anything about brochures they've already distributed with the image, though. If they have a website, they might be using it there, too.

DrWilk Loc: .

Geez! People, get a grip. This is a small family farm that has a corn maze and a few other things for the kiddies, it isnt Disney World. Any and all legal action taken against these people, who are just trying to make a little extra cash for their farm, would likely hurt them irrepairably. At the least they would likely be forced to shut their operation down hurting the hundreds of people who arent thin skinned, and lets face it, A**holes. As the original poster said, it's his son-in-law who was simply wondering about it, thats all.

lobo-1 Loc: New Park,Pa

I've learned all I need to know

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Agreed, but we live in such a litigious society these days where people have such thin skins they are easily offended, and in many cases looking for a substantial payday, usually pursued by some sleazy ambulance chasing shyster. How sad!

wolfd Loc: Vancouver, Canada

What exactly is your problem with the photo of you on their brochure?

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I am not a lawyer (yet), though I did just finish my final class in law school.

The “private property” issue is a wobbler. Yes, if such a place IS “private property” there MAY be an “expectation of privacy. For example, a paparazzi cannot enter into a private restaurant and photograph the celebrity having dinner at their table, but they are free to take all the photos they want of the celebrity entering and/or leaving the place. Out in “public”, there IS NO “expectation of privacy”.

At an outdoor venue, such as a private park (even a place such as Disneyland or similar amusement park), even though “private”, it could be considered “public” by virtue of being so open and difficult or impossible to enforce who takes photos of what.

As such, it is highly likely that you may appear in someone else’s photos.

Many/Most admission tickets and brochures do have that disclaimer that says you may appear in photos that may be used for advertising and publicity purposes and you, by purchasing a ticket and/or entering the venue, essentially consent to the possibility that your image may appear in these photos. You are free to request that your images be removed.

Minor children are a non-issue, here. As JCam stated, unless you and/or your children are identified by name, there is no issue.

For you to have a valid claim against the venue, you would have to prove that the venue MADE MONEY specifically because they used YOUR image in their advertising/promotion materials. Not sure how you would do that.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

This is a specialized field of law, and you as a non-lawyer have not properly understood the law or analyzed the issues and facts.

I won't write a treatise here, but the private/public question is a non-issue. The real issue is the USE made of the images, specially whether the business used the images in a way forbidden-without-permission by FLORIDA law. Yes, FLORIDA, and you are in California; the laws differ.

You also misunderstood that commercial use is broadly defined and broadly interpreted. You certainly DON'T have to prove they made money specifically from the images at issue.

Finally, you and everyone else here should realize that these right of publicity laws often include "statutory penalties." Automatic penalties so you don't have to prove your harm or how much the defendant financially benefitted.

And for heaven's sake, learn the difference between right of privacy and right of publicity! Although the latter arguably grew out of the former, they are distinct and different from each other!

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

The FL law apparently has no provision for statutory (automatic) penalties, so you are more or less correct as to this incident. In some other states, such as NY or CA, there are also statutory penalties.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

The world's top experts on Constitutional Law are second year law students.

I am retired. You are right that the right of publicity is what is dealt with here. The right of privacy somehow veered off into penumbras of the Fourth and Ninth Amendments in the intervening years since the Warren and Brandeis article.

There is, however, no such thing as an open and shut case. The Florida statute you cited looks fairly clear, but there may be posted notice that purchase of a ticket is implied consent and that may be determined to be sufficient.

There is also a possibility that the Park may be what the trial lawyers association refers to as a turnip. That being the case, litigation would not be warranted. If it were the Mouse, that would be different.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Interesting insights. I believe the OP mentioned that there weren't signs or any fine print on a ticket. As to the "turnip" those present who aren't lawyers should understand you're referring to the possibility of collecting on a judgment, with the old maxim, "You can't squeeze blood from a turnip."

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

It would take lots of money and expensive lawyers to get this all settled, HOWEVER, in general practice I believe that once a person "pays admission" to an event, garden, display, etc, they are essentially giving that location their consent to photograph them and use those photos for any LAWFUL purposes "related to that business/activity" but NOT for anything else.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

And if the current society continues to pursue issues like this, when you go to ANY event, display, etc, the BIGGEST signs outside will be those proclaiming that "by purchasing a ticket or entering into the location you are giving implied consent for them to take photos that include you and use them for any purpose RELATED TO THAT LOCATION OR EVENT." There would also be signs indicating that by entering the event/facility/etc, you are giving them a 'release of liability' for any injuries or damages that are 'not related to the location's negligence or lack of proper maintenance.' This is basically what happens when you enter baseball stadiums and you are agreeing that if you get hit by a foul ball, etc, that you are accepting responsibility simply by being inside the park.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles