| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/07/2011 11:03:51 AM · #1 |
Hi all, I have a question regarding legalities of photographing strangers.
If I'm walking around town and taking picture of folks going about their daily business, am I legally "allowed" to post those picture online without their permission?
What if that person allows me to take their picture, but I do not request from them if I can post online?
I'm very new to this, but would like to know where the legal limits lie with regards to photographing others. |
|
|
|
01/07/2011 11:23:20 AM · #2 |
| In the US, the general rule is that if they are in public, then they have no expectation of privacy... If you try to sell the photos then other factors come into play, but for just posting, and entering into contests, you should have no problems, legally, or ethically. |
|
|
|
01/07/2011 11:24:08 AM · #3 |
| Read THIS. I would also suggest printing out a copy to throw in your camera bag. As far as posting photos if they were legally obtained then you can post them you just can't sell them as stock without a release. I do try to be courteous of others though and if they really do not want to have their picture taken I won't do it. I am sure there will be others that have more experience with this that will jump in. |
|
|
|
01/07/2011 11:32:25 AM · #4 |
| Jminso, How would you define "legally obtained"? |
|
|
|
01/07/2011 11:33:28 AM · #5 |
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've heard here and other places....
If you are in a public place and the person you've taken a photo of has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" you can take their picture and do with it pretty much what you want.
There was a story a while ago (can't seem to find it) of a photographer that took a photo of someone on the streets of NYC and then started selling prints of it. The guy found out and tried to sue...but the courts sided with the photographer saying that the subject was on the street and had no expectation of privacy and the photographer was well within his rights to sell copies. |
|
|
|
01/07/2011 11:39:31 AM · #6 |
| My understanding is that only if you are using it for commercial purposes, i.e. stock photography or advertisement, that you need a model release. |
|
|
|
01/07/2011 12:03:03 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
Jminso, How would you define "legally obtained"? |
I was referring back to the link. But Nathan pretty much answered that anyways. |
|
|
|
01/07/2011 12:13:33 PM · #8 |
Here's the case Nathan referred to in NYC. I think it's an interesting read.
NYC Street Photography Case
|
|
|
|
01/07/2011 12:33:03 PM · #9 |
The example I've heard of "reasonable expectation of privacy" was where a photog was using a long zoom, shooting from a public sidewalk, through the windows of a person's home to capture pictures of them in their house. The subjects had a reasonable expectation of privacy because they were in their home.
It might also be helpful to read some of the stock photo sites' guidelines for submission. Not all pictures taken in public can be used for commercial purposes - some car shapes, even buildings are copyrighted, and you must obtain a release to use them commercially. |
|
|
|
01/07/2011 12:34:48 PM · #10 |
| The NY case really wasn't settled - except that it was not filed within the statute of limitations. For commercial use, it is probably best to have model releases... |
|
|
|
01/07/2011 12:37:17 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by dtremain:
The NY case really wasn't settled - except that it was not filed within the statute of limitations. For commercial use, it is probably best to have model releases... |
Well, that's a bit misleading...
It was originally settled on both points, but then an appeals court made no decision on the first point, but instead simply ruled on the "easy" issue of timeliness..
Originally posted by wikipedia:
In a decision dated February 8, 2006, the trial court ruled in favor of diCorcia and Pace/MacGill on both grounds, and dismissed Nussenzweig's lawsuit. It ruled that the defendants' uses of Nussenzweig's likeness were not "commercial," but rather were forms of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. Accordingly, the court held that Nussenzweig could not block the publication, display or sale of the photograph containing his likeness, and that he was entitled to no money from the photographer, the gallery or the book publisher. The court also dismissed the lawsuit as untimely, holding that Nussenzweig had only one year to file suit after the picture was first "published."
The dismissal was affirmed in March 2007 by the Appellate Division, First Department. All five justices on the Appellate Division panel agreed that Nussenzweig's complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. Two of the justices wrote a separate concurring opinion expressly upholding the trial court's decision on constitutional grounds, as well.
In November 2007, the New York Court of Appeals - the state's highest court - affirmed the victory for diCorcia. The Court of Appeals limited its opinion to the timeliness issue, holding for the first time that claims under New York privacy law must be brought within one year after first publication, whether or not the plaintiff learns of the publication during that period. The Court of Appeals did not reach the core dispute between privacy rights and photographers' rights of free expression. |
|
|
|
|
01/07/2011 01:23:44 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by dtremain:
It might also be helpful to read some of the stock photo sites' guidelines for submission. Not all pictures taken in public can be used for commercial purposes - some car shapes, even buildings are copyrighted, and you must obtain a release to use them commercially. |
Those are not legal restrictions though. They are there to reduce the stock company's chances of being sued.
In the case of buildings, there is a specific exemption for photography in the copyright laws regarding buildings. What building copyright means is that you can't copy the design of a building when you are building one. If you had to get property releases for every building in a picture, you could never submit a picture of any town or city that might have a building in it without getting a release from every building owner.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2011 03:26:25 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by alohadave:
Originally posted by dtremain:
It might also be helpful to read some of the stock photo sites' guidelines for submission. Not all pictures taken in public can be used for commercial purposes - some car shapes, even buildings are copyrighted, and you must obtain a release to use them commercially. |
Those are not legal restrictions though. They are there to reduce the stock company's chances of being sued.
In the case of buildings, there is a specific exemption for photography in the copyright laws regarding buildings. What building copyright means is that you can't copy the design of a building when you are building one. If you had to get property releases for every building in a picture, you could never submit a picture of any town or city that might have a building in it without getting a release from every building owner. |
There are legal restrictions -- for certain buildings constructed after 1986 you must have a property release in order to use them commercially (in ads, as stock, etc.). In some caes, this is the result of Trademark law, which can be different from Copyright.
You typically do not need a release (either model or property) if the picture is used for editorial (accompanying a news story) or educational purposes, or for selling individual "fine art" prints; you can sell an individual photo, but can't sell bulk reproductions (cards, calendars, coffee mugs, etc.).
Please download and read the PDF sheet referenced earlier -- it is written by an attorney specifically for photographers; he also has a more complete book for sale. I keep a copy of the 1-page summary in my camera bag.
Here is a partial list of buildings and other items for which you need a property release in order to use commercially.
For complete information of Copyright law (in the USA), virtually all documents and forms are available as PDFs from the , and there is some good information in [url=//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=539600]this thread. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 12:33:58 AM EDT.
