kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I’m not a lawyer, either, but I do have a law degree (for whatever that’s worth!). Yes, as long as you are not using said photo for commercial gain, you’re OK. Better still, give credit to the source of the photo.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Well, now. I do agree with this. HOWEVER - be advised "recognizable" can vary from place to place. I was once affiliated with a "print-on-demand" agency. They gave me a web page on which to display my work. Were someone to order a print, the agency would do the printing, shipping and billing, and they'd forward my specified profit level to me. Sounded like a no-brainer, were it not for a few less-than-apparent factors. This agency also made my work available for licensing. So one day, I added an image to my collection. It's attached here - "McPhearson's Pier."

You may notice the fellow running along the beach - lower right. The agency said they would not license this image without a model release. Of course, I hadn't gotten one. IMHO, the fellow was so far away and was very dramatically backlit so as to render him totally unrecognizable. I pointed this out. They continued to insist on a release, so I told them to just not license the image. They refused to relent, saying they didn't even want to sell prints w/o a release. So I told them to delete the image. A few weeks later, I deleted the agency, in lieu of my own, self-operated online store. (https://jaigieesephotoart.com)

Lot less hassle if I do things myself, y'know? And truth be told, I was surprised they dint ask for a release on the seagull ....

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

I'm not a lawyer but I played one in a high school play one time.....and I say POST it and move on. Your post stated you wanted to share in UHH and/or Facebook, well you're getting bogged down in the minutiae and its all totally insignificant. Its like worrying you're doing 66 in 65 mph zone. Just do it. Besides, after all this I'd love to see the photo

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

In December, I responded to an email from Adobe offering a free trial of their Adobe Stock service. I took them up on their offer although there was no information provided on payment. They rejected several photos I uploaded for similar reasons because their policy functionally was that you had to provide a release for any person in a photo without regard to recognizability. I canceled the trial, but apparently they continued to post two or three of my landscapes. Two days ago I received an email informing me that they sold a one time use of one of my photos and that I had earned $0.99. Whoopi! I can't wait to receive the payment so I will join the ranks of the idle rich. Big ripoff all around.

P.S.: Are you sure they rejected your photo because of your lack of a release for the runner and not for a release for the bird?

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

They specified the runner. And the payment you got for your image is the primary reason I no longer deal with stock agencies. I do all the work, save for making the image available on-line, and they keep most of the money. On my online store, ALL the images are mine (except for my profile photo and one other 19th-century-style glass-plate image of me at a CivWar reenactment. Those two aren't for sale.). With that caveat, I own the copyright on each and every one of my for-sale images. I primarily sell prints and specialty items which incorporate my images, but I do have a page from which one may license my images. My rate is in-line with Adobe and most other agencies, and were someone to to license my image, I get ALL the money.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Nice photos on your site

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Key question: Is the person recognizable?

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Welcome and congrats on your first post...post the photo and let all of us judge!!!! Believe me, you're not going to make a penny here

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

See my photo post and the comment immediately following it. Recognizability is apparently - with some agencies - no longer the rule. The agency in my case and Adobe in the other poster's case, both insist on releases if any person is in the image, recognizable or not.

The reason given in my case was that, even if the guy is just a silhouette, HE might recognize himself. If so, he might well seek recompense from the agency - and me. I suppose that is valid, in legal terms. In the real world, perhaps less so.

Of course, my image contains, within the metadata, the date and time of image capture. Were this fellow attempt to extract compensation, I would, of course, demand that he provide verifiable proof that he was, in fact, on that beach at that moment, and could therefore be the fella in my image. I have to wonder how many people recall exactly where they were at a specified moment in time.

When I post-processed the image, it was my belief that no one could possibly identify the runner. This is still my stand.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Thanks. Much appreciated.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

No way can the person on the beach be recognizable by anyone. Not even by his own mother. Makes more sense to get the seagull’s release.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

The pier photo does not need a rls for any use; the human is not recognizable nor is the bird.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

The main issue is “commercial purpose” or “financial gain”.

Floyd R Turbo Loc: Kingwood, TX

I was about 100 yards away from the man and zoomed in on him. He could definately identify himself in the photos. I will post the pics in a few days when I can find them, figure out how, etc. Thank you all for your comments.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This may help. Contact an attorney to be safe.

http://www.photoattorney.com/2005/09/rights-of-privacy-concerns-for.html