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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Al Dykes, Jun 21, 2007.

  1. Al Dykes

    Al Dykes Guest

    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?

    --
    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
     
    Al Dykes, Jun 21, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Al Dykes

    Bill Guest

    On 21 Jun 2007 16:00:32 -0400, (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?


    Try this:

    http://www.photolawnews.com/

    Bill
     
    Bill, Jun 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Al Dykes

    Matt Ion Guest

    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.
     
    Matt Ion, Jun 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Al Dykes

    Scott W Guest

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

    On Jun 21, 10:00 am, (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?


    You have no issues with putting them up on a website.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jun 21, 2007
    #4
  5. Al Dykes

    Russ Guest

    The Pap's would be out of business if they were not allowed to photograph
    and publish photos of people in public places.


    "Al Dykes" <> wrote in message
    news:f5eld0$4df$...
    >
    > 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?
    >
    > --
    > a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    > Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
     
    Russ, Jun 21, 2007
    #5
  6. On 21 Jun 2007 16:00:32 -0400, 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?


    Google has no qualms about putting up pictures of folks picking their
    noses in public places. No releases executed in those cases - I'm sure.

    Of course, Google has more, and bigger lawyers than you. IANAL.
     
    Allodoxaphobia, Jun 21, 2007
    #6
  7. Al Dykes

    timeOday Guest

    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.
     
    timeOday, Jun 22, 2007
    #7
  8. Al Dykes

    ssim Guest

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

    On Jun 21, 3:38 pm, " 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.
    >

    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.
     
    ssim, Jun 22, 2007
    #8
  9. Al Dykes

    Aaron Guest

    And lo, Al Dykes <> 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?

    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.

    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.)

    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.

    --
    Aaron
    http://www.fisheyegallery.com
    http://www.singleservingphoto.com
     
    Aaron, Jun 22, 2007
    #9
  10. Al Dykes

    Aaron Guest

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

    And lo, ssim <> emerged from the ether
    and spake thus:
    > On Jun 21, 3:38 pm, " 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.
    >>

    > 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.


    That's not entirely true. You can sell the rights to images of people
    in public places. It's the responsibility of the publishing entity to
    defend that publication.

    What you say about editorial content is also absolutely true.

    --
    Aaron
    http://www.fisheyegallery.com
    http://www.singleservingphoto.com
     
    Aaron, Jun 22, 2007
    #10
  11. Al Dykes

    Aaron Guest

    And lo, timeOday <> 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
     
    Aaron, Jun 22, 2007
    #11
  12. Al Dykes

    Aaron Guest

    And lo, Matt Ion <> 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
     
    Aaron, Jun 22, 2007
    #12
  13. Al Dykes

    Bill Funk Guest

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

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:43:31 -0000, ssim <>
    wrote:

    >On Jun 21, 3:38 pm, " 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.
    >>

    >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.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 22, 2007
    #13
  14. Al Dykes

    Jer Guest

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

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:43:31 -0000, ssim <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Jun 21, 3:38 pm, " 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.
    >>>

    >> 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'
     
    Jer, Jun 22, 2007
    #14
  15. Al Dykes

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:49:36 GMT, Aaron <> wrote:
    : And lo, Al Dykes <> 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
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 23, 2007
    #15
  16. Al Dykes

    Russ Guest

    Sued for what exactly? It's not for taking photos of people in public
    places, that's for sure.


    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Russ, Jun 23, 2007
    #16
  17. Al Dykes

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:21:34 +0100, " Russ" <> 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" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : > 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.
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 23, 2007
    #17
  18. Al Dykes

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:53:22 -0400, Robert Coe <> 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.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 24, 2007
    #18
  19. Al Dykes

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:19:47 -0700, Bill Funk <> wrote:
    : On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:53:22 -0400, Robert Coe <> 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
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 24, 2007
    #19
  20. Al Dykes

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:58:58 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:19:47 -0700, Bill Funk <> wrote:
    >: On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:53:22 -0400, Robert Coe <> 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.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 24, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. One-Shot Scot
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    847
    Robert Morgan
    May 23, 2004
  2. Eolake Stobblehouse

    street photography and shutter lag

    Eolake Stobblehouse, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    533
    Ed Ruf
    Dec 11, 2004
  3. Joe Kotroczo

    Street photography in London...

    Joe Kotroczo, Apr 16, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    426
    Bruce
    Apr 17, 2012
  4. PeterN
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    250
    PeterN
    Nov 23, 2012
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] Reminder: 14 days to go for Street Photography

    Robert Coe, Dec 7, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    202
    PeterN
    Dec 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page