Public Photography Rights

fbixtreme · November 29, 2009

I have a question regarding to this topic, and hope I will get an answer in this forum. I was invited to a friend's house for a party, and I took some group shots as well as individual shot w/ my DSLR camera. I posted those pictures on my site, and there is one odd person requested to have their pictures taken down. The picture has nothing related to a person "privacy" or "national security." FYI: I do not get pay to get pics, and there is no contract written. I'm assuming I have full rights to all my images.

Also just to let you all know that I intend to use it for commercial purposes.

THanks

holzphoto · November 29, 2009

i would take it down just to avoid the headache.

fbixtreme wrote:

I have a question regarding to this topic, and hope I will get an answer in this forum. I was invited to a friend's house for a party, and I took some group shots as well as individual shot w/ my DSLR camera. I posted those pictures on my site, and there is one odd person requested to have their pictures taken down. The picture has nothing related to a person "privacy" or "national security." FYI: I do not get pay to get pics, and there is no contract written. I'm assuming I have full rights to all my images.

Also just to let you all know that I intend to use it for commercial purposes.

THanks

fbixtreme · November 29, 2009

holzphoto wrote:

i would take it down just to avoid the headache.

. They're all my friends. I always respect my friends wish if they don't want to have their picture posted on the website, but because they initially brought up w/ legal issue. I like to know where I stand.

Pupator · November 29, 2009

fbixtreme wrote:

. They're all my friends. I always respect my friends wish if they don't want to have their picture posted on the website, but because they initially brought up w/ legal issue. I like to know where I stand.

In your case it could go either way - if someone wanted to take you to court over it.

A judge would not be unreasonable to decide that at a private party where you were not a paid photographer the attendees had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since you did not obtain a model release you would not be able to use those images for commercial purposes.

If you were at a public event where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy it might be treated differently. Both of these assume that the person in question is not a main part of the image in question but rather only a part of the image.

IANAL.

holzphoto · November 29, 2009

they probably have the "right" to make you take it down.

i would go back and put a big yellow face (like a walmart one) with a frown over their face.

only to protect the innocent.

bmoreshooter · November 30, 2009

What if it were you? I would take it down and I certainly would not publish it without permission. This has been covered in several other threads here with no clear answer. In the event that this went to court even if you win it is going to cost you. Not to mention the cost of losing a couple of friends. Is the photo really worth it?

fbixtreme · November 30, 2009

bmoreshooter wrote:

What if it were you? I would take it down and I certainly would not publish it without permission. This has been covered in several other threads here with no clear answer. In the event that this went to court even if you win it is going to cost you. Not to mention the cost of losing a couple of friends. Is the photo really worth it?

All of them are my close friends, and beside, I always respect other people wished if they wouldn't want their pic to be published. I just wanna to clear up what rights do I have. Even if I have all the rights, I would take it down to make every1 happy.

coldclimb · November 30, 2009

When I had questions about this sort of stuff I was sent to http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html so I'll pass that along to you. It's an awesome resource to learn more about the legal issues we face.

From what I gather in my reading, your rights to use the image depend on how you use it. You say you intend to use it for commercial purposes, and even there it will depend on how it is used in the final form whether or not you will need a model release. One issue already mentioned here is that since it was a party on private property, the subjects in the photos have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that may present your legal blockade in this instance. If it were a public place and you got pictures where people are recognizable, you'd have more leeway, but still you wouldn't be able to use them commercially in a context that the person supports or is related to a product or idea without having a signed model release.

As far as just sticking an image on your website, obviously you want to keep your friends, but if your purpose is to simply display your photos without commercial interests, I'm fairly certain you have every right to do so.

But don't take my word for it, I'm just a dude on an internet forum and I've never stepped into a courtroom.

Read through that link and even the rest of Dan Heller's site there, and you'll come away with a bit more of an understanding and likely a lot of spent time.

There's a lot of info there.

FlyNavy · December 1, 2009

"i would go back and put a big yellow face (like a walmart one) with a frown over their face. "

I really love that idea!

NateWagner · December 1, 2009

right, my understanding is that if you're using it as an editorial (for example you're telling what happened at the party or something) and not for a commercial purpose you should be fine.

I don't think a party would generally (in my non lawyer opinion) count as a reasonable expectation of privacy. I mean, it's a party, even if there aren't a ton of people there. You are telling the events that are going on. If you took the images in a bathroom or something you may have a problem.

Another way of considering this is that weddings are inherently parties, and they are generally private, yet the guests have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Pupator · December 2, 2009

NateWagner wrote:

I don't think a party would generally (in my non lawyer opinion) count as a reasonable expectation of privacy. I mean, it's a party, even if there aren't a ton of people there. You are telling the events that are going on. If you took the images in a bathroom or something you may have a problem.

Another way of considering this is that weddings are inherently parties, and they are generally private, yet the guests have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Actually, yes, they do.

At non-public events where there is no paid photographer every judge on the planet will say that the guest had the reasonable expectation that their likeness would not be used for commercial purposes. Even at a wedding, when people know their photos are being taken, with the exception of the photographer's own portfolio, most judges would side with the person who sued because their image was used commercially without a model release. Just going out of your house does not mean that you're agreeing to have your image used for commercial purposes.

If your suggestion is true then I can't think of any scenario, ever, when a model release would be needed. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" doesn't mean that the picture won't be taken - it means that it won't be used for commercial purposes.

bmoreshooter · December 2, 2009

To make matters even more confusing each state has their own version of privacy laws. You might try looking up "Multi Media Law and Business Handbook" If this were a million dollar shot i'd say it's worth fighting over, but it's not. If you wound up in court the people in the photo would not recover very much except to stop you from using their image. However they could cause you a significant legal fee.

NateWagner · December 4, 2009

Pupator: why did you leave out the important part of what I stated.

if you're using it as an editorial (for example you're telling what happened at the party or something) and not for a commercial purpose you should be fine.

What I was talking about are images that are "NOT FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE". How I was referring to this through weddings for example is that in a wedding for people that are not the bride and groom (I.E. the guests) are basically being photographed in an editorial fashion. They are being photographed to tell the story, not for a commercial purpose, thus we don't need to get a model release from them.

You're right, there are pretty much no situations that a model release are needed IF IT IS FOR AN EDITORIAL PURPOSE WHICH IS WHAT I SAID

Pupator · December 4, 2009

Sorry, I didn't make the connection between the two paragraphs. Especially since the OP explicitly asked about photos for commercial use.

Also just to let you all know that I intend to use it for commercial purposes.

NateWagner · December 5, 2009

Pupator wrote:

Sorry, I didn't make the connection between the two paragraphs. Especially since the OP explicitly asked about photos for commercial use.

Actually, as you will notice the original thread has been edited. Prior to the thread being edited there was no mention of the fact they were intended to be used for a commercial purpose (As you will notice, it was added at the very end). Similarly the topic of editorial vs. commercial had been brought up a number of times.

Obviously you came late to the thread, or you would have known this.

Pupator · December 5, 2009

Nate - I don't know what your beef is but I think you're making a big deal out of nothing. When I posted on this thread the first time, 2 hours after the first post, the line was there specifying commercial use. Actually, the first reply to the OP, only 30 minutes after the first post, contains the commercial purposes sentence. It was certainly there when you posted two days later.

I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way, it wasn't my intent. After all, we're just talking about a hypothetical situation on a photography forum. There's no real need to take it personally.

NateWagner · December 5, 2009

my mistake.

Cmau · December 8, 2009

Worth clarifying... Saying wedding photos are editorial is fine, until you use one of them in a portfolio... at which point it becomes commercial use since its being used by you to market you.

NateWagner · December 8, 2009

right, which is typically why only images of the bride and groom are on the portfolio.

However, I would assume that for a blog, images of others could be considered as an editorial usage as you are telling the story of the bride and grooms day.

Do the images benefit you? perhaps, but as they are clearly being used to show the bride and grooms day and the event of the wedding they are therefore being used in an editorial context (IMHO).

Public Photography Rights

Comments