Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Street Photography; What to do with people pictures on my website?

Reply
Thread Tools

Street Photography; What to do with people pictures on my website?

 
 
Aaron
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2007
And lo, timeOday <(E-Mail Removed)> emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
> Russ wrote:
>> The Pap's would be out of business if they were not allowed to
>> photograph and publish photos of people in public places.

>
> I think "public figures" (including celebrities) are treated differently
> under US law.


If anything, their "image" is protected more closely by US law
(remember the Schwarzenegger bobble head fiasco?) Still, photographing
a person in a public place, whether they be a public figure or not,
falls under the same laws.

There may be slightly more stringent "libel" or "defamation" laws
applied to public figures, but in an editorial context they'd
scarecely have a legal leg to stand on.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Aaron
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2007
And lo, Matt Ion <(E-Mail Removed)> emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
> Al Dykes wrote:
>> I've got a few nice shots of strangers taken at street festivals and
>> similar public events. In most cases, the people knew that their
>> picture was taken by me, a stranger and they didn't indicate any
>> objection. In general, we never talked. None of these pictures show
>> the subject in any way embarrassing. I'm not selling these pictures.
>>
>> What are the issues with putting these pics on my public website?

>
> That will depend in part on your local laws, but in general, there's
> likely not a problem - out in the open like that, there is (or should
> be) no expectation of privacy; they could just as readily be picked up
> in the background of a news photo or a sweep of a news video camera.


Further, in a public place, you would not be limited to editorial use,
though that is certainly the most protected case.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2007
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:43:31 -0000, ssim <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Jun 21, 3:38 pm, " Russ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> The Pap's would be out of business if they were not allowed to photograph
>> and publish photos of people in public places.
>>

>Two totally different subjects. The paparazzi can classify their
>images as editorial content and as such no release is required.
>Someone just taking shots on the street can publish them on their
>website but cannot sell them for a commercial enterprise.


As the paparazzi demonstrate so well, pics of very famous people can
be used for commercial enterprises if they are taken in public, even
over the very express claims of the famous people to the contrary.
Many magazines even go so far as to offer 'bounties' for certain pics
of certain celebraties, which said mags will use for commercial
enterprise (making money for the publishers).
It is another thing, though, to use pics of celebraties in commercials
for products, as I understand it.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Bill and Hillary Clinton shot a commercial in
a diner spoofing the last scene of The Sopranos.
It's not the first time they acted like mobsters.
They spent so much time in front of grand juries,
the Sons of Italy granted them honorary membership.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2007
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:43:31 -0000, ssim <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 21, 3:38 pm, " Russ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> The Pap's would be out of business if they were not allowed to photograph
>>> and publish photos of people in public places.
>>>

>> Two totally different subjects. The paparazzi can classify their
>> images as editorial content and as such no release is required.
>> Someone just taking shots on the street can publish them on their
>> website but cannot sell them for a commercial enterprise.

>
> As the paparazzi demonstrate so well, pics of very famous people can
> be used for commercial enterprises if they are taken in public, even
> over the very express claims of the famous people to the contrary.
> Many magazines even go so far as to offer 'bounties' for certain pics
> of certain celebraties, which said mags will use for commercial
> enterprise (making money for the publishers).
> It is another thing, though, to use pics of celebraties in commercials
> for products, as I understand it.
>



Or like this...
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=3305972

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2007
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:49:36 GMT, Aaron <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: And lo, Al Dykes <(E-Mail Removed)> emerged from the ether
: and spake thus:
: >
: > I've got a few nice shots of strangers taken at street festivals and
: > similar public events. In most cases, the people knew that their
: > picture was taken by me, a stranger and they didn't indicate any
: > objection. In general, we never talked. None of these pictures show
: > the subject in any way embarrassing. I'm not selling these pictures.
: >
: > What are the issues with putting these pics on my public website?
:
: There is absolutely no problem. First, they are in a public place, a
: festival in the street, where legally there is no "expectation of
: privacy."
:
: That said, I have had this conversation with Dan Heller and he has
: always made it completely clear that he doesn't even see a reason for
: model releases (with a couple of exceptions). Here we go:
:
: 1. If you sell use rights to someone off your website and they get
: sued for defamation or whatever, that's their problem, not yours;
: you hold no responsibility as the seller of the rights. Surprised?

How does this differ from posting a commercially recorded song on your
computer or Web site for downloading? Many who did that have gotten sued by
the RIAA.

: 2. If the work is used in an "editorial" context, which is to say
: anything published in a newspaper, magazine, etc., you don't have
: to ask permission. That's how the Paparazzi can do what they do.
: It's legal.

And paparazzi get sued all the time. For them, having a good lawyer is just a
cost of doing business.

: The only reason you'd have to have an actual written release is if you
: are photographing the subject in private (in the studio, etc.) and you
: sell the work as an art product directly to a consumer (not the rights
: to publish, stock use, etc.)

Sure of that, are you? My gut tells me that selling the "rights" to publish a
picture that you took privately in a studio without a release would risk
making you a party to any resulting suit. A clever lawyer might get you off
the hook, but it could be an expensive and time-consuming process.

: I'm talking about America here, YMMV around the world, etc. Check your
: own local statutes to be sure, but for the most part photographing
: people in public, even without their knowledge, isn't a violation of
: their privacy.

I'm not a great fan of relying on legal advice from individuals on the
Internet, especially from those who don't state their legal qualifications.
The law, at least in the US, can be very arcane in such matters, and you may
be putting a lot of money at risk. I'm not singling out Aaron; he may be a
university law professor, for all I know. But until you know that, I'm not
sure I'd rely too heavily on what he's telling you here.

And since I'm not a lawyer, you should treat my "advice" just as skeptically.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Russ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2007
Sued for what exactly? It's not for taking photos of people in public
places, that's for sure.


"Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:49:36 GMT,
>
> : 2. If the work is used in an "editorial" context, which is to say
> : anything published in a newspaper, magazine, etc., you don't have
> : to ask permission. That's how the Paparazzi can do what they do.
> : It's legal.
>
> And paparazzi get sued all the time. For them, having a good lawyer is
> just a
> cost of doing business.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2007
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:21:34 +0100, " Russ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Sued for what exactly? It's not for taking photos of people in public
: places, that's for sure.

Trespassing, harassment, being in the way, failure to show sufficient
deference to the rich and famous, stuff like that.

: "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:49:36 GMT,
: >
: > : 2. If the work is used in an "editorial" context, which is to say
: > : anything published in a newspaper, magazine, etc., you don't have
: > : to ask permission. That's how the Paparazzi can do what they do.
: > : It's legal.
: >
: > And paparazzi get sued all the time. For them, having a good lawyer is
: > just a
: > cost of doing business.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2007
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:53:22 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>: 1. If you sell use rights to someone off your website and they get
>: sued for defamation or whatever, that's their problem, not yours;
>: you hold no responsibility as the seller of the rights. Surprised?
>
>How does this differ from posting a commercially recorded song on your
>computer or Web site for downloading? Many who did that have gotten sued by
>the RIAA.


That one's easy:
Selling the rights is one thing, and distributing without the right to
do so is another.
If you owned the rights to the commercially recorded song, then the
RIAA couldn't do anything to you if you posted the song on your site
for others to download.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Bill and Hillary Clinton shot a commercial in
a diner spoofing the last scene of The Sopranos.
It's not the first time they acted like mobsters.
They spent so much time in front of grand juries,
the Sons of Italy granted them honorary membership.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2007
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:19:47 -0700, Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:53:22 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >: 1. If you sell use rights to someone off your website and they get
: >: sued for defamation or whatever, that's their problem, not yours;
: >: you hold no responsibility as the seller of the rights. Surprised?
: >
: >How does this differ from posting a commercially recorded song on your
: >computer or Web site for downloading? Many who did that have gotten sued by
: >the RIAA.
:
: That one's easy:
: Selling the rights is one thing, and distributing without the right to
: do so is another.
: If you owned the rights to the commercially recorded song, then the
: RIAA couldn't do anything to you if you posted the song on your site
: for others to download.

I think you're missing the point. I was responding to an article whose author
had advanced the notion that one could sell (or give away) the "right" to
publish a picture that he took in a studio but for which he didn't have a
model release.

Something you didn't quote from my article was my suggestion that those who
make post their opinions on legal matters as though they were truth (like your
statements above, for example) should state their own legal credentials. Just
so we'll now how seriously to take such pronouncements.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2007
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:58:58 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:19:47 -0700, Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:53:22 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>:
>: >: 1. If you sell use rights to someone off your website and they get
>: >: sued for defamation or whatever, that's their problem, not yours;
>: >: you hold no responsibility as the seller of the rights. Surprised?
>: >
>: >How does this differ from posting a commercially recorded song on your
>: >computer or Web site for downloading? Many who did that have gotten sued by
>: >the RIAA.
>:
>: That one's easy:
>: Selling the rights is one thing, and distributing without the right to
>: do so is another.
>: If you owned the rights to the commercially recorded song, then the
>: RIAA couldn't do anything to you if you posted the song on your site
>: for others to download.
>
>I think you're missing the point. I was responding to an article whose author
>had advanced the notion that one could sell (or give away) the "right" to
>publish a picture that he took in a studio but for which he didn't have a
>model release.
>
>Something you didn't quote from my article was my suggestion that those who
>make post their opinions on legal matters as though they were truth (like your
>statements above, for example) should state their own legal credentials. Just
>so we'll now how seriously to take such pronouncements.
>
>Bob


First, my explanation is valid for the question asked.
Second, if I (or anyone else) needed to be a lawyer for this, then you
shouldn't have asked here, but instead you should have asked a lawyer.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Bill and Hillary Clinton shot a commercial in
a diner spoofing the last scene of The Sopranos.
It's not the first time they acted like mobsters.
They spent so much time in front of grand juries,
the Sons of Italy granted them honorary membership.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People Helping People!!!!!!!!!!!! celeste96795@aol.com Java 1 06-11-2008 05:49 PM
Some people tell that at present, most web hosting servers supportall kinds of programming language, some people tell me that many web hostingserver don't support Java, What is the truth? Erwin Moller Java 3 05-07-2008 05:09 PM
people helping people......king kong, underworld 2, mi3, movie, dvd,music, games cam slade Computer Support 1 01-19-2006 06:07 AM
Night Pictures - Fremont Street, Las Vegas, Nevada - 1952 Gary Edstrom Digital Photography 7 06-18-2005 07:30 PM
Street Date? We don't have to honor no stinkin' street date! One-Shot Scot DVD Video 3 05-23-2004 11:56 AM



Advertisments