DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photography: Legal Question
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 33, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/25/2014 09:30:35 AM · #1
I took a photo in 2006 of a person at a public parade, no face was shown at all, just the back of there head and there jacket, because the jacket looked really cool, I have posted the shot online to sell years ago and forgot about it. No release was needed because the person was not identifiable at all (no face).I am now getting emails and phone calls from a person claimining to be the person in the photo and copying an attorney because they say I took this photo without there pernission and want me to contact them to discuss. Am I right in this, or do they have a legal leg to stand on? I have since taken the photo down because I dont need any problems and I have not replied to the emails as of yet.
 03/25/2014 09:52:48 AM · #2
You don't need permission to sell prints of people taken in public. You don't need their permission to take their photo in public either, there's no expectation of privacy. If the person is recognizable, you need a release IF you're using it for ad purposes, even then, the key is that it's their likeness, it has to be readily evident that it's them in the shot. In other words, if someone they didn't know, saw the picture, then later saw them, would they say, "Hey, I just saw your photo!"? Saying "Hey, I just saw a photo with that same jacket in it.", isn't enough.

Of course, if they have the money and the time, they can sue you for anything, but that's why you countersue for legal fees.

disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I do try to keep up on this stuff. If you're really concerned, consult with a real attorney in your state.

Message edited by author 2014-03-25 09:54:13.
 03/25/2014 10:02:29 AM · #3
Thanks for the comment Spork99, this is how I believe as well, I will see what transpires.
 03/25/2014 10:14:01 AM · #4
More info:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

Message edited by author 2014-03-25 10:14:11.
 03/25/2014 10:25:28 AM · #5
Did his jacket say Litigious Angels?
 03/25/2014 10:40:53 AM · #6
or you could just write back and say "funny -- that's my cousin. He and I were out and I snapped this shot of him. You must have a doppelganger!" :)
 03/25/2014 10:49:22 AM · #7
The new lotto - winning a lawsuit.

I'm no lawyer, but the previous posts sound right. If I remember right, I've even read that taking a picture of a person on private property with the photographer on public property is OK as well, as long as the photog doesn't use a super zoom to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy (like shooting through the window of a house from the sidewalk).
03/25/2014 10:54:06 AM · #8
even then, the guy who shot people in the windows of their apartment in NYC got away with it just fine -- because they weren't necessarily recognizable.

New Yorkers Upset Over Photographer’s Secret Snaps Through Their Windows

These are a lot more likely to have an invasion of privacy, but "According to experts contacted by the NYPost, there is likely no misdemeanor criminal case against Svenson due to the fact that faces in his photos “aren’t fully visible”."
 03/25/2014 11:02:19 AM · #9
Thank you all for your comments and information, this is very helpful.
 03/25/2014 11:04:02 AM · #10
Originally posted by dtremain:
The new lotto - winning a lawsuit.

I'm no lawyer, but the previous posts sound right. If I remember right, I've even read that taking a picture of a person on private property with the photographer on public property is OK as well, as long as the photog doesn't use a super zoom to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy (like shooting through the window of a house from the sidewalk).


lawsuits suck until a photographer has to sue to prevent someone from using their photo online or for some other use- in that instance- lawsuits are awesome...(sarcasm button)

Message edited by author 2014-03-25 11:05:52.
 03/25/2014 11:09:32 AM · #11
Movie stars get their photo taken all the time, they are recognizable, the photos is sold and published, and yet surely they rarely give permission? Is there some 'if you're famous' clause that says we can photograph them and publish, but if you're nobody you're safe? Seems weird.

Or do those photographers just live with the chance of a lawsuit because they didn't get a model release?
 03/25/2014 11:28:25 AM · #12
As others have said, there is no case. It doesn't mean he won't sue, but that he doesn't have a case. But that's not the issue. Most of these people don't expect to go to trial - they make their money in the settlement their chosen defendant is willing to pay to make them go away.

I like Wendy's advice - tell him it was your cousin :)
 03/25/2014 01:10:55 PM · #13
Is there any chance the person's upset because of the ARTWORK on the jacket? That they think you're profiting off their art?
 03/25/2014 01:22:52 PM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Is there any chance the person's upset because of the ARTWORK on the jacket? That they think you're profiting off their art?

Does that artwork have a copyright notice on it? Is it registered at the copyright office, prior to the date the photo was taken?

Anyway, if the artwork itself was being reproduced (putting it on another jacket, coffee mug, etc.) there might be a case, but a selling an individual photograph/print of a scene which includes artwork is not the same as reproducing the artwork, or else we'd never be able to take a photo which includes a copyrighted image on a billboard, or a car with a registered logo, or a building with a copyrighted design.
 03/25/2014 01:44:44 PM · #15
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Is there any chance the person's upset because of the ARTWORK on the jacket? That they think you're profiting off their art?

Does that artwork have a copyright notice on it? Is it registered at the copyright office, prior to the date the photo was taken?

Anyway, if the artwork itself was being reproduced (putting it on another jacket, coffee mug, etc.) there might be a case, but a selling an individual photograph/print of a scene which includes artwork is not the same as reproducing the artwork, or else we'd never be able to take a photo which includes a copyrighted image on a billboard, or a car with a registered logo, or a building with a copyrighted design.

I understand all that, I just wonder if THAT might be the tree the offended party is barking up? This thread is worthless without pictures :-)
 03/25/2014 01:49:50 PM · #16
The leather jacket doesnt contain any artwork per say, just logos of bands etc. I think this is a person wanting money, and they are definetly barking up the wrong tree for that. There is none to be found here.
 03/25/2014 01:54:37 PM · #17
Here's a novel solution.

Tell him that you'd be glad to share the profits with him, and that his share comes out to exactly a beer or two - which you'd be glad to meet up and buy.

Never know, you might make a new and interesting acquaintance. It's far more polite and friendly than the alternatives.
 03/25/2014 02:13:35 PM · #18
Originally posted by Cory:
Here's a novel solution.

Tell him that you'd be glad to share the profits with him, and that his share comes out to exactly a beer or two - which you'd be glad to meet up and buy.

Never know, you might make a new and interesting acquaintance. It's far more polite and friendly than the alternatives.


Would he really want to make acquaintances with a person who jumps straight to the "I'ma sue the bastard!"?
 03/25/2014 02:21:22 PM · #19
Originally posted by aliqui:
Originally posted by Cory:
Here's a novel solution.

Tell him that you'd be glad to share the profits with him, and that his share comes out to exactly a beer or two - which you'd be glad to meet up and buy.

Never know, you might make a new and interesting acquaintance. It's far more polite and friendly than the alternatives.


Would he really want to make acquaintances with a person who jumps straight to the "I'ma sue the bastard!"?


It's not an uncommon response. Lots of people feel really uncomfortable with having their picture taken. And there's really no harm in having a beer with the guy, you never know who he'll turn out to be.

The one thing I know is that it's likely to make the guy feel better about the situation, which really should be the first attempt. If that isn't sufficient then I'd feel a hell of a lot more comfortable telling him to stuff it.

Then again, I've found that a friendly response to an aggressive maneuver can often be hugely successful, if only because it is so unexpected.
 03/25/2014 02:32:36 PM · #20
What were the bands on the jacket? How you respond could depend, in part, on what this person listens to.
 03/25/2014 02:34:34 PM · #21
Originally posted by aliqui:
What were the bands on the jacket? How you respond could depend, in part, on what this person listens to.


+1 damned good advice. :D
 03/25/2014 02:49:54 PM · #22
Originally posted by aliqui:
Originally posted by Cory:
Here's a novel solution.

Tell him that you'd be glad to share the profits with him, and that his share comes out to exactly a beer or two - which you'd be glad to meet up and buy.

Never know, you might make a new and interesting acquaintance. It's far more polite and friendly than the alternatives.


Would he really want to make acquaintances with a person who jumps straight to the "I'ma sue the bastard!"?


Especially one who isn't smart enough to realize that there's nothing for which he can sue -- that it's not illegal.
 03/25/2014 03:35:45 PM · #23
Originally posted by Jules1x:
Movie stars get their photo taken all the time, they are recognizable, the photos is sold and published, and yet surely they rarely give permission? Is there some 'if you're famous' clause that says we can photograph them and publish, but if you're nobody you're safe? Seems weird.

Or do those photographers just live with the chance of a lawsuit because they didn't get a model release?


Nope, if you're in public, you're fair game, celeb or not.

You just can't use that image in a way that implies endorsement. Like say you took a pic of Tom Cruise, you can't use that image (without a release) in an ad for your new herbal erectile dysfunction cure. But you can sell it to a site like TMZ or whatever.
03/25/2014 03:47:58 PM · #24
Although it becomes less clear when they start claiming "religious" reasons. Not that long ago, a photographer go into it when he was photographing a demonstration/parade/public gathering thingy in NY involving Muslims, and they demanded no photos be taken. It got into the courts and I'm not sure how it ended.
 03/25/2014 04:09:23 PM · #25
Originally posted by tanguera:
Although it becomes less clear when they start claiming "religious" reasons. Not that long ago, a photographer go into it when he was photographing a demonstration/parade/public gathering thingy in NY involving Muslims, and they demanded no photos be taken. It got into the courts and I'm not sure how it ended.


You mean like the Nussenweig case that bvy cited?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/24/2025 10:37:32 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/24/2025 10:37:32 PM EDT.