Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

If the images are taken in public places, no release is necessary no matter how you intend to use the images. That includes public facilities and buildings, vehicles and alike. Open public streets, public parking lots are without restrictions. If you are taking an image standing on a public street or place any image you take is not subject to law and release. I can cite a million examples of paparazzi, and others who make a living doing just that. The law supports this.

On private property using hired and paid models releases are indeed in order.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

No. Technically, a model release is not needed for "fine art", even if selling individual or limited edition prints. Nor is one needed for images displayed in your portfolio (at present, even if it's "publicly" displayed online), or for educational purposes, or for editorial purposes. And, it sounds as if you could make the argument that your project falls into one or more of these categories.

However, whenever possible I'd recommend a proper, signed release anyway... anytime anyone or their property is recognizable in your images. One is generally required for commercial purposes to protect you and anyone who ever uses your images from frivolous lawsuits. more and more, editorial users and others are asking for releases, too... Simply as a reasonable precaution. Plus, it's a relatively simple thing to get one signed at the time the photos are taken... far more difficult to try to get one signed after the fact.

A released photo has much more value than an unreleased one, everything else being equal. That's because it can be used for most anything, including high dollar uses like advertising, without much concern. A release doesn't guarantee you or the party using the photo won't be sued, but it makes it much more difficult to do so and far less likely. With a solidly written and signed release in place, it's much less likely a knowledgeable attorney would even be willing to take on and try to argue the case.

Go to the ASMP website to read up on releases (model, minor, property). ASMP's are some of the most well vetted and widely used general releases. Some types of photography or certain uses of images may require a more specialized type of release and/or additional documentation. For example, a release for nude photography needs to be more detailed than a standard release, plus should be augmented with proof of age (such as a copy of a driver's license).

The ASMP web pages regarding releases are here: http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#.VlCb7b9v2uo

Previous responses are correct about copyright: It's automatically yours the moment you take the shot, unless you have signed it away to a client or it is taken in the course of your employment ("work for hire" ) or in a few other very specific instances.

You can optionally "register" your copyright at a later date, to more fully protect your ownership of the images. You should do so within 90 days of the first publication or public display of the images, for maximum protection.

What it comes down to is that with violation or misuse of any intellectual property with unregistered copyright, the best you can do is ask the offending party to cease and desist and bill them "standard usage fees", usually something in the hundreds of dollars, at most. Since little money is involved, you'll most likely not have legal counsel, unless you pay for it yourself out of your own pocket.

In contrast, if copyright were properly registered you have additional opportunity to collect penalties and recover court and legal costs from the offending party, too. This might be in the thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars in some of the most extreme cases. Because of the possible dollars involved, it's more likely that you'll have legal counsel pursuing misused of intellectual property with a registered copyright.



Sorry, but that is ABSOLUTELY AND ALMOST ENTIRELY INCORRECT!

For many uses, you had better have a signed model release, regardless. You may not need a property release, if it's a public location or even if it's private property that's publicly viewable... but in the latter case would be much better having one if the photo will be used commercially.



That's just plain silly. How many photos of terrorists and arsonists will you be using commercially?

It's different with evidentiary and editorial images. Someone I worked with years ago took one of the most iconic news images of the 20th century... the photo of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald, in the basement of the Dallas police station, as Oswald was being brought in under arrest for the assassination of JFK. Obviously, there is no reasonable way to get releases from all the recognizable people in an image like that... but it's not really needed since the image's uses will be almost exclusively editorial. In this case, the photo was taken by a staff photographer of the Dallas Morning News, so they owned the copyright and sold usage of the image worldwide. Many years later, when he "retired" from the newspaper, they gifted him the copyright and he and his heirs have continued to sell the usage rights. They literally had tens of thousands of sales of it (many, many dollars worth, I'm sure) a couple years ago on the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination. However, all that was editorial usage, and no releases are required. But you can bet that they have the copyright registered, as the image continues to be used widely.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I would say it depends on the situation. That is, if you're shooting in public, on a sidewalk, street, public part, etc., no releases are required. The rule, and I believe the law, is that if they can be seen by anyone walking by then a photo doesn't need permission from the person being photographed.

Inside a police station is a different story. You may want to check with the local police leaders for their position.

Good luck.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Inside a police building is a public facility. There may be restrictions which must be posted for security reasons but other than that, shoot at will and use as you like. Mug shots are routinely released to the public. I am sure no permissions were required.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Actually that's not true. In a public building they can restrict what you do. That would be including photography. As a journalist I face these restrictions all the time.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Actually that is not true???? Please read what I posted, There "MAY BE RESTRICTIONS" which need to be posted. Not posted, shoot at will. Not sure - ask. But for the most part, it is allowed!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

ONCE AGAIN, it depends upon the usage of the image, not the location where it was taken.

If the final use of the image is fine art, portfolio display, editorial or educational... a release is TECHNICALLY not required, although recommended - whenever possible - for any recognizable subject in an image. More and more of these types of users are asking for releases, too.

If the image ever might be used commercially, such as in an advertisement, then a release is very necessary, regardless of who was photographed or where they were photographed.

You are talking about privacy laws, which are a largely different matter. A person can sue for invasion of privacy if you photograph them surreptitiously, unless they are in a public place or easily seen from a public location. The same is true of property.

When I was running a photo dept. some years ago I had a property case with an advertisement photo. There were two competitive funeral homes in town. One of them was owned and operated by a guy who was quite a character (I'm being nice) and would stop at nothing, as far as I could tell.

Both of the funeral homes offered cremation services, among other things. The one guy wanted me to send out a photographer to take some shots of the other funeral home's crematorium... which was literally located in the middle of a junkyard! And he wanted to use that photo in an ad with the headline "Don't send your dear departed loved one to a junkyard!" and promoting his own, far nicer crematory facilities. Needless to say, we weren't going to get a property release and I was a bit nervous about the whole thing, so I checked with our attorneys before agreeing to take the photo or even run the ad. I was a little surprised when they told me the photo(s) were fully usable, even commercially in this manner, as long as there were no recognizable persons in the image and the photo were taken from public right-of-way, which it was (from a public street that ran adjacent to the junk yard). Even though I still didn't feel very comfortable about it, we took the photo and ran the ad several times.... And didn't get sued (but would have won anyway, had we been, our lawyers said).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, this is correct.

In a public building or even outdoors in a public park there can be restrictions.

A local park here is popular for wedding photos... but a permit is required to do so. If you just wander around and take photos for fun there, no permit is needed.

It's similar with a city-owned zoo... they require a permit, which effectively is a property release, if there will be any commercial usage of the images. OTOH, if just taking snapshots for personal use... no problem.

And, if photographing kids, such as at a baseball or soccer game, even in a public park... if you aren't one of the parents or a relative taking shots of little Joey for your own use... You'd better have permission from the event organizer, at least! That's different from a release, though. Now for this type of thing, I also require signed model releases before I'll display any of the images I take online ("publicly" ). Some would argue releases aren't necessary for that purpose. But I really don't want to be a legal "test case". Even if I win the case, in the end I still might be bankrupted defending myself.

When it comes to privacy laws, the courts can and do extend greater protections to kids, in particular, as well as for other reasons that are "in the public interest"... Such as controlling use of a city-owned park so it's not overrun by wedding photogs who impinge upon other peoples' enjoyment of the park.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

When I shoot for the my SO and chaplains group, I have never got releases as the images are used by the agency for promotional material and not sold. Eveyone in the images knows the picture is being made.

There might some obscure regulaiton about a private citizen making money using government paid poeple. It would be good to communicate with your agenices attorney to get the information you are asking aboaut.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Sandi, I've done work like this on a number of occasions. The local police were aware of what was going on. The work was for them and that was all that was necessary. Anyone who asked why I was taking photographs of them received the same answer. I was asked to photograph by the police dept. That ended any discussion.
--Bob

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Amfoto1 is getting everything correct. A few other folks are muddying the waters by confusing entirely different issues.

Lets add some organization to the discussion.

1) Copyright ownership and/or infringement.

If an image is a copyright infringement, for example if it is a picture of a copyrighted painting and includes nothing other than that painting, the issue is not can you push the shutter release but what you can do with the resulting picture. The answer is very nearly nothing. I doubt it is legal to hang it in your own home and let visitors see it! Kept in a drawer where it can't be seen though would be fine.

It has nothing to do with any right to take pictures, the locations involved, or a model release, nor with ownership of the image.

2) Legally permitted to even take a photograph.

This is a very complex legal issue. You absolutely can take pictures of anything if you are on "public property". Any one who owns property can refuse to allow photography on their property, but they cannot confiscate any image you do take. Their only recourse is to tell the photographer to exit their property and perhaps call the police and charge the photographer with trespass for not leaving when told to.

This is strictly about the location. It has nothing to do with copyright and it has nothing to do with a release. It also has nothing to do with possession and/or ownership of the images.

3) Model or Property release requirements.

This has nothing to do with taking pictures. In particular it has no relationship to permission to take pictures or the location where the pictures are taken. Nor with ownership of the images.

It is solely about permission to use an image to promote commercial enterprise. You can sell a picture of a person without having a model release. But you cannot use the picture to advertise something else that is for sale, absent the model release.

PhotosBySteve

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

NOT TRUE ABSOLUTE GARBAGE

"And, if photographing kids, such as at a baseball or soccer game, even in a public park... if you aren't one of the parents or a relative taking shots of little Joey for your own use... You'd better have permission from the event organizer, at least!"

Please provide a legal citation or court case where this was proven to be an infringement or illegal. FIND ONE, CITE IT AND POST IT. In a public facility like a park, photography is perfectly legal.

You can search the internet as you like.

http://content.photojojo.com/photo-technique/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/

Kennybob712 Loc: West Chester, PA.

Can you elaborate on establishing the copyright process for pictures?

Kennybob712 Loc: West Chester, PA.

How do you register for a copyright?