Legality of posting someone's photo: Hello, this is my first post on the forum. I was visiting an historic graveyard in Galveston, TX and took a couple distant photos of a man who was...

Floyd R Turbo Loc: Kingwood, TX

Hello, this is my first post on the forum. I was visiting an historic graveyard in Galveston, TX and took a couple distant photos of a man who was visiting a gravesite. He appeared to be homeless and possibly was just hanging out there. When I realized I had captured something special, the man was gone and I have no idea who he is. I would like to share the photos on the forum but I'm not sure it's legal or the proper thing to do. Comments please, and thank you.

FJT Loc: Delaware

You only need a model release if you use the photo for commercial purposes. The kind of photography you're talking about is not covered and would be perfectly okay as long as it's not ridiculing or embarrassing the person.
Please note that I'm not a lawyer but I'm telling you what I've been told by a lawyer.

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

You also said distant which would imply no discernible characters with which to identify the person anyway in which case you would not need a release even for commercial use

Joe Blow

You own the image and he owns his character.

Essentially, you may use someone's character provided it is either 1) not commercial or 2) in a documentary or newsworthy way.

If you licensed your image to be used in a commercial manner then you would have to pay him royalties but only if he was recognizable.

If you sold your image to a news outlet then he gets nothing, even if he is recognizable. (such as the paparazzi do with celebrity photos) That is if he was in the news in some way.
***

Now the fun part. If you register your photo with the Copyright Office, you may sue if someone uses your image without your permission for damages. If you don't register you may only sue for the actual loss. And yes, there are lawyers that do nothing but copyright law.

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

If you are out in the public, you have no expectation of privacy.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Floyd R Turbo wrote:

Hello, this is my first post on the forum. I was visiting an historic graveyard in Galveston, TX and took a couple distant photos of a man who was visiting a gravesite. He appeared to be homeless and possibly was just hanging out there. When I realized I had captured something special, the man was gone and I have no idea who he is. I would like to share the photos on the forum but I'm not sure it's legal or the proper thing to do. Comments please, and thank you.

He's probably wanted in 4 states. You might get a reward. LOL

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

[quote=duane klipping]You also said distant which would imply no discernible characters with wDi

If the face is recognizable you need one. Distance makes no difference.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Post it...This is the new America, if you can't sue, get sued or get involved in Litigation, then you're obviously doing something wrong.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

foathog wrote:

He's probably wanted in 4 states. You might get a reward. LOL

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Floyd R Turbo wrote:

Hello, this is my first post on the forum. I was visiting an historic graveyard in Galveston, TX and took a couple distant photos of a man who was visiting a gravesite. He appeared to be homeless and possibly was just hanging out there. When I realized I had captured something special, the man was gone and I have no idea who he is. I would like to share the photos on the forum but I'm not sure it's legal or the proper thing to do. Comments please, and thank you.

If he is as you say homeless. How will he see your picture??

spraguead Loc: Boston, MA

The Villages wrote:

If you are out in the public, you have no expectation of privacy.

Privacy, no.

Copyright, yes.

spraguead Loc: Boston, MA

As others have said, commercial use would open you to liability if the person is recognizable.

One thing to consider, "commercial" can mean beyond getting paid for that image. For instance, if you sell any images, and use the photo on your web site, and can be deemed that you are gaining value to your business, therefore it is a commercial usage.

If you're just doing it for fun. Don't worry.

whitehall Loc: Canada

There is not much jurisprudence on point, but at least in Canada some insight could be from reading Jones v. Tsige (2012)108 O.R.(3d)141. where Courtof AppearJustice Sharpe acknowledged and embraced the well known and oft quoted pronouncements of Warren and Brandeis in their work "The Right To Privacy" of 1890 and that of Prosser of 1960, "Privacy". Professor Prosser identified a four-tort classification:

intrusion upon the Plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs;
public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the Plaintiff;
publicity which places the Plaintiff in a false light in the public eye;
appropriation for the Defendant's advantage of the Plaintiff's name or likeness.
I note that Justice Sharpe relied on US authority!

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

duane klipping wrote:

You also said distant which would imply no discernible characters with which to identify the person anyway in which case you would not need a release even for commercial use

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Joe Blow wrote:

You own the image and he owns his character. br ... (show quote)

The difference between commercial and editorial use was explained to me this way. If you include it in a collection of your photography in book it is an editorial use but if you put it on the cover of that book or use it to advertise your book then it becomes a commercial use.