Right to photograph in public (Page 2): I notice that it was in small claims court....so how precedent making can that ruling be? I doubt that you'll find Judge Judy's rulings in books...

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I notice that it was in small claims court....so how precedent making can that ruling be? I doubt that you'll find Judge Judy's rulings in books of law.

Country Boy Loc: Beckley, WV

It also related to the persons desired image. I think in the event of commercial use the release should be a must. The lady may have been running to get away from some very undesirable items in the area yet used to show just how great the area was. Would put the subject in a totally wrong setting and the subject should have the final say. Interesting topic.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Jaackil wrote:

You are not correct. In the US the right to take people public images does not include for commercial use which is defined as to promote or advertise. A release would be required. In the US you can take a picture of anyone in a public area and sell that image however, selling images is not considered commercial.

Thank you.. I think you need to reread what I wrote. I said that using it commercially was a no-no. You can take photos on public property but can NOT use it commercially (with some exceptions). But, I think (not sure) that the photos in question were taken in Canada so I don't know what their laws are.

And as I said, if the photos had been shot in North Korea, the photographer probably would have been shot too. However, if you are shooting from a public place and using it commercially, you need to MAKE SURE that none of the peoples faces are identifiable. You wouldn't want to accidently get a photo of some guy out walking with his girlfriend when his wife though he was at work. lol

Country Boy Loc: Beckley, WV

I understand what you wrote, my comment was that the argument made in court was that a person has a right to protect their image. I know it was not in the US but my point is although you can't just use public taken photos commercially if you get a release, the person's image is not in question regardless of where you are. Lots of crazy things could get published as you said if you just take photos and publish them.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Country Boy wrote:

I understand what you wrote, my comment was that the argument made in court was that a person has a right to protect their image. I know it was not in the US but my point is although you can't just use public taken photos commercially if you get a release, the person's image is not in question regardless of where you are. Lots of crazy things could get published as you said if you just take photos and publish them.

You are correct. The solution is to either have your DOF such that any people are out of focus enough that they can not be recognized, or physically blur them in post processing. If they are behind a wall on private property, then they are "off limits". However, if you are covering a legitimate news story, say a bank robbery, murder or whatever, then all photos are fair game and probably desired for their evidence value. In fact, the police, the defense lawyers and prosecutors will all want to see them (which will possibly delay your ability to get them to print). When I was working for the Fire Department as public relations officer, it didn't matter who was in what. If they were at the scene, we wanted photos of them. Also, working for the newspaper (back in the days of print) you wanted to shoot at least 2 rolls of everything and then let the editors decide what they wanted. Then you could take the rest and do what ever you wanted. And, unless the paper bought your film, you owned all of the negatives.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

dcampbell52 wrote:

You are correct. The solution is to either have your DOF such that any people are out of focus enough that they can not be recognized, or physically blur them in post processing. ...

No that is NOT correct.

The law is if the person can be identified, and that is not restricted to visual identificion of a face in the image.

An example would using a model for fashion images where only some limited part of the body is in the picture. If the model release restricts use of the image then any use otherwise is a violation if it can be identified as a restricted image. Other images, a contract, and dated payment receipts for the work done could all be used to "identify" the person in the image... even if only one single painted fingernail is visible!

Rest assured that for any commercial use that shows any part of a person it is required to have a signed model release allowing the specific way the image will be used.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

ELNikkor wrote:

The frugal ad agency didn't want to hire a model for a 3 second clip. They could have used the producer's office personnel or significant other...

I admire your restraint as shown by the use of the word “frugal”.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

dcampbell52 wrote:

In the United States, anyone can photo anyone else from public property (and theoretically use it commercially).

If the photo is endorsing a product, I believe you would still need a release form in the US.

stlevine

What about news photography?

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

So, I guess all government and private security cameras are being disabled and removed in Canada now, eh. Public Privacy in the age of constant or near constant surveillance.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

whitehall wrote:

I thought I would include an article from today’s ... (show quote)

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Its Canada with no Constitution, LOLOL....and it figures with their court system working under whatever law happens to be in vogue at the time and the politically correctness of today's culture (juries) where every action seems to be an affront to another persons feelings.

However, using an image for commercial purposes, they should have obtained a release, IMHO.

Aeneas Loc: Somers, NY

New York's Civil Rights Law clearly provides that use of a photo for advertising purposes or purposes of trade creates in the photographed person a cause of action for damages for invasion of privacy.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

A Question....so if NYC (lets say tourist bureau or other Ad agency) is using a photo of a group (1,10, 15, etc) of people visiting the city for advertisement purposes, do they need a release from ALL individuals? Just curious.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

dcampbell52 wrote:

Thank you.. I think you need to reread what I wrot... (show quote)

Actually this is your exact wording.

In the United States, anyone can photo anyone else from public property (and theoretically use it commercially)

I think maybe you should re read your own words. Not sure exactly what part I missed or where you said using it commercially is a “no no”.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I realize that most of you on this forum will probably think that ruling was wrong, but I think it was totally correct. I do abhor the sentiment that photographers have the right to take images of anyone they please, anywhere they please and do anything they please with them. My sense of ethics says I must ask permission to take anyone's picture - unless they are participating in a public performance of some kind. Which is one of the reasons why I try to avoid people in my photos as much as possible!