Candid shots policy

stephenbruno

I have candid shots of people and I am uncertain of my rights in posting them...I believe that as long as they are in public places I can, and I thought as long as they were not for sale? Does this mean I must remove them since they all can be purchased at SmugMug, or do you recommend a statement in the gallery description? Any other suggestions? I wonder what others do.

System

I don't know what is right regarding candids, but you can say no to having them available for printing when the pics are on smugmug-

click on customize at the gallery and it's at or near the bottom of the page-

LuckyBob

Not that I'm an expert or anything but I do carry a printout of this in my camera bag at all times: The Photographer’s Right

surly

commercial
I think for art prints it is legal
I think for advertising you might have a problem

I am not a lawer

stephenbruno

thank you all
i want to thank everyone...i posted the photos of faces in a Candid gallery where the photographs can not be purchased.


quote=surly]I think for art prints it is legal
I think for advertising you might have a problem

I am not a lawer[/quote]

clove

You can't publish or sell a recognizable photo of someone without that person signing a model release. Whether or not posting on a website constitutes "publishing" is debatable, but just about every photographer with a website does it and I've never heard of problems (as long as you don't offer the photos for sale).

gus

clove wrote:

You can't publish or sell a recognizable photo of someone without that person signing a model release. Whether or not posting on a website constitutes "publishing" is debatable, but just about every photographer with a website does it and I've never heard of problems (as long as you don't offer the photos for sale).

Off topic however it is very rare that i will sit through anyones entire slide show on their site however i did for your work ...excellent

stephenbruno

Thanks!!!
I appreciate each of you taking the time to comment. I wanted to hear from more experienced photographers in this matter.

I never want to abuse the 'rights' of a photographer. Of equal importance, I only want to post candid photographs of people whom I have not asked for releases, in an honorable presentation and insure that these photographs are not available for sale.

clove wrote:

You can't publish or sell a recognizable photo of someone without that person signing a model release. Whether or not posting on a website constitutes "publishing" is debatable, but just about every photographer with a website does it and I've never heard of problems (as long as you don't offer the photos for sale).

TS4F

clove wrote:

You can't publish or sell a recognizable photo of someone without that person signing a model release. Whether or not posting on a website constitutes "publishing" is debatable, but just about every photographer with a website does it and I've never heard of problems (as long as you don't offer the photos for sale).

How do the Paparazzi avoid legal problems? Is it because they're reporting "news"?

-Alex

clove

TS4F wrote:

How do the Paparazzi avoid legal problems? Is it because they're reporting "news"?

-Alex

I forgot to mention that photos that are for editorial use or that are "newsworthy" don't require a model release. Celebrities, politicians, etc. out in public are considered "newsworthy" events and can be published for editorial value. (This doesn't mean taking candid shots of celebrities in their backyards with your 1200mm lens is newsworthy.) There are also exceptions for people at public events such as football games where they can expect to be in the public eye. You can't be expected to go get model releases for all the recognizable fans in the background of a shot of a football play, for example.

I'm certainly not an expert in this area and I know there is a lot of grey area.

stephenbruno

I appreciate your support
Gus, I visited your website and I am really impressed with your photography. I left a comment in your gallery section.

gus wrote:

Off topic however it is very rare that i will sit through anyones entire slide show on their site however i did for your work ...excellent

jcp

This is such a grey area that I think no one really knows. Besides the fact that this is an international site, which really blurs what we may know about law. (i.e. I take a photo in Germany of a German, can I sell it under German law? Or is it under US law because the photo is hosted in the US? Would the German in the photo have to go to the US to take me to court?)

That confusion aside (each country has different laws regarding this)

Generally speaking, for commercial use it is recommended to have a model release form signed by every recognisable face in the photo, and any photo's of buildings (where the building is the main focal point) should have a property release. By commercial sales, I would imagine that is defined by advertising, corporate publications etc.

The problem then lies in artistic shots. I have heard of a court case in the US where a photographer photographed people walking past a certain point in Manhattan and then placed the photos in a art gallery. One of the subjects saw himself and then sued the photographer. In the end, the photographer won, as there was a US law that stated photos could be sold for artistic purposes without the need of a signed release.

But what really constitutes art? How do all those street shots end up in travel books or postcards? They have many corporate logo's, recognisable faces and buildings. Are travel books and postcards considered art or editorial?

I'm no lawyer, and would love to know the answer to this. So far, on any photography forum I've been on, no professional has ever been able to answer that question for me.

I'm new to this site, and I'll probably play it safe. Any photo which has a person as the main focal point that I don't have a model release form, I won't put on sale... until someone can clarify exactly if I can sell it as art. That said, I would never put a person on this site where it would put them in bad light in any way.

gus

stephenbruno wrote:

Gus, I visited your website and I am really impressed with your photography. I left a comment in your gallery section.

Tks stephen..i also checked yours out & liked your work as well.

LiquidAir

If you took the shot in a public place (at least in the USA), you can display it for editorial purposes without a model release. Generally photojournalism, art and education are all considered editorial but they have not been fully tested in court. However, if you misrepresent the person in the photo in any way you can be subject to a libel suit. Commercial of a photo without a model release are not legal. Using a photo of someone to sell something is implying an endorsement by the subject.

While display of photos of unreleased subjects as art is generally considered legal, I am not sure about selling art prints. Personally I avoid publicly selling prints unless I have a release.

Using photos of unrelased photographs to promote your photography business is also an area I feel uneasy about. At the moment my site smugmug site does not advertise my services as a photographer. However, when I do start using the site to promote my photography business, I am going to make sure all shots I have a model release for all shots I display there.

Note: I am a not a laywer so I cannot give you legal advice. This is my policy around model releases; you should research the topic of model releases and potentially consult a laywer before you devise your own.

jdryan3

LiquidAir wrote:

If you took the shot in a public place (at least in the USA), you can display it for editorial purposes without a model release. Generally photojournalism, art and education are all considered editorial but they have not been fully tested in court. However, if you misrepresent the person in the photo in any way you can be subject to a libel suit.

Even if it is in a public place, for art, etc. besides LiquidAir's "misrepresentation" note, there is an exception related to holding someone up to public ridicule. No, I am not a lawyer, no I can't define a bright line for ridicule in this case, and, no, I have no clue how all those 'funny videos' found across the internet aren't holding someone up to ridicule.

But of course, anybody can sue anybody for any reason. The issue is whether you have a defensible position.