[gryhnd]

can you take a picture of Brad Pitt in public on the street and do what you discuss - sell it I mean, not keep it for yourself.

how about Brad Pitt performing in a play?

again, my memory of copyright law is old and most likely out of date but have you ever attended a MLB ball game?

I believe that photos and video recordings are restricted for personal use only, no commercial use allowed without written permission. MLB claims copyright in the "performance" of the ball players, I believe, but am not sure that a dancer or actor might be able to claim copyright in their performance

again, I am not sure, sorry

That's in an MLB owned/controlled venue where you agree to those restrictions either by entering the stadium and/or purchasing a ticket. In my case, this was a public high school auditorium with no connection to the event other than being its host.

[aslyfox]

That's in an MLB owned/controlled venue where you agree to those restrictions either by entering the stadium and/or purchasing a ticket. In my case, this was a public high school auditorium with no connection to the event other than being its host.

good distinction, you are right, to gain access to a MLB ball park, you purchase a ticket (license) and agree to certain terms

[DeadJohn]

Adding another nuance, if you take photos somewhere that says "no photography", you retain copyright and can sell the photo (with the previously mentioned advertising and photos-of-other-copyrighted-things restrictions). The venue can kick you out but the photos are still yours. If you refuse to leave you are trespassing.

So, for the OP, the photos are yours. Taking the photos down might be a nice thing to do but not a legal obligation.

---------- Post added 01-10-17 at 07:06 PM ----------

good distinction, you are right, to gain access to a MLB ball park, you purchase a ticket (license) and agree to certain terms

That license is only shown to you after you buy the nonrefundable ticket. I've always wondered how enforceable that is, but MLB has deep pockets and can bury you in lawyers regardless of the law.

[gryhnd]

So, for the OP, the photos are yours. Taking the photos down might be a nice thing to do but not a legal obligation.

Right. if you note in my OP:

Now, I'll take them down so as not to create any friction between the dancers and the studio for future benefit concerts, but in reality, do the dancers have any leg to stand on (see what I did there)?

[UncleVanya]

can you take a picture of Brad Pitt in public on the street and do what you discuss - sell it I mean, not keep it for yourself.

how about Brad Pitt performing in a play?

again, my memory of copyright law is old and most likely out of date but have you ever attended a MLB ball game?

I believe that photos and video recordings are restricted for personal use only, no commercial use allowed without written permission. MLB claims copyright in the "performance" of the ball players, I believe, but am not sure that a dancer or actor might be able to claim copyright in their performance

again, I am not sure, sorry

Read the first link. Yes in public I can photograph him and sell the photo. I can't turn his likeness into an ad campaign. But I'm not an expert. This is what I am reading.

---------- Post added 01-10-17 at 09:07 PM ----------

Editorial use of a Brad Pitt photo taken in public might be acceptable depending on the circumstances but definitely not commercial use without a release. The dancers were photographed performing in a private show but in a public building. Photography on the street is permissible because there is no expectation of privacy; that logic may not apply in the OP's circumstances.

The specific example I mean is a photo taken in public and then sold. It is exactly how paparazzi make their living. Commercial use is not really defined. If you mean use of likeness in ads - I agree. If you mean something else please clarify.

[aslyfox]

Read the first link. Yes in public I can photograph him and sell the photo. I can't turn his likeness into an ad campaign. But I'm not an expert. This is what I am reading.

---------- Post added 01-10-17 at 09:07 PM ----------



The specific example I mean is a photo taken in public and then sold. It is exactly how paparazzi make their living. Commercial use is not really defined. If you mean use of likeness in ads - I agree. If you mean something else please clarify.

i think I agree that you can take his picture in public and do as you suggest

I am not sure you could do that if he was in a play, whether in the theater or as some do outside, the key difference is it is when he is working, a performance

[UncleVanya]

i think I agree that you can take his picture in public and do as you suggest

I am not sure you could do that if he was in a play, whether in the theater or as some do outside, the key difference is it is when he is working, a performance

We agree.

[Wheatfield]

Interesting situation, and looking for knowledgeable input please.

Scenario: benefit concert for a family, primarily all dance related. A good chunk of the show is performance put on by a mix of professional dancers (ballet, step, etc), the rest student dancers from the studio that organized the benefit, and student band/chorus from the host high school where the event took place.

I know the people the benefit is for, and am friendly with many of the students participating. Of my own accord, I went to the event and photographed it. To be clear, I was not asked to attend or photograph the event by anyone.

The photos have since been posted to my photography & FB site as I always do after events.

Today I have received several calls, emails and messages from the organizing studio "requesting" I take down all photos of the professional dancers (mostly the ballet ones) because they (the organizing studio) doesn't "...have their consent to have any pictures taken of them".

Now, I'll take them down so as not to create any friction between the dancers and the studio for future benefit concerts, but in reality, do the dancers have any leg to stand on (see what I did there)?

I signed no contract with the dancers, I was not hired or requested by the studio to photograph, and this is a public location being in a High School auditorium. All of this suggests to me I can photograph freely and offer the pictures up for sale if I choose to do so.

Does anyone have any experience in such matters where a performer claims no one can take their photograph during a performance in what amounts to a public venue?

Thank you.

---------- Post added 01-10-17 at 12:54 PM ----------

To add to this, the only announcement made at the beginning of the benefit was that there be no videoing, or flash photography, Specifically they said flash photography.

You were on their property, they get to make the rules, you get to follow them. Next time ask what restrictions they place on publishing images.

[cpk]

If you mean use of likeness in ads - I agree. If you mean something else please clarify.

I don't think you could present a photo of Brad Pitt as fine art either, the other class of photography which could bypass the need for a release.

[gryhnd]

You were on their property, they get to make the rules, you get to follow them. Next time ask what restrictions they place on publishing images.

Please re-read my post. I was not "on their property". They were using the auditorium of a public high school.

---------- Post added 01-11-17 at 11:41 AM ----------

Thanks everyone.

I see several posts stating essentially that I should take the photos down. If you read my O.P. you'll see that I was doing that already.

Whatever stipulations the dancer had were with the studio putting on the event and not with the host venue, nor were there any notices or notifications of restrictions beyond no-video/flash given during the performance.

This has been an interesting discussion with no clear-cut answer, but I am grateful for everyone's input. Thank you.

[victormeldrew]

This has been an interesting discussion with no clear-cut answer

There is absolutely, definitely, 100% no clear answer, because there is no clear law in place that I know of, in any jurisdiction. Most laws include phrases such as 'reasonable expectation of privacy' or 'what a reasonable person would expect'...plus there is a major difference between what someone would like you to do or not do at their performance or in their building, and what would be an unlawful act or simply a civil damages matter. In nearly all cases that are not as clear cut as you were shooting through someone's bathroom window, or taking a photo of the sky, you are in a grey area that would take a judge to interpret.

The advice I have seen repeated many times is that - unless the image is of great value to you - if someone complains, just delete it.

[lithedreamer]

The advice I have seen repeated many times is that - unless the image is of great value to you - if someone complains, just delete it.

I'd probably concede myself, but it just feels wrong- on principle. Maybe that's just me.

[eddie1960]

Please re-read my post. I was not "on their property". They were using the auditorium of a public high school.

---------- Post added 01-11-17 at 11:41 AM ----------

Thanks everyone.

I see several posts stating essentially that I should take the photos down. If you read my O.P. you'll see that I was doing that already.

Whatever stipulations the dancer had were with the studio putting on the event and not with the host venue, nor were there any notices or notifications of restrictions beyond no-video/flash given during the performance.

This has been an interesting discussion with no clear-cut answer, but I am grateful for everyone's input. Thank you.

Ok first I will point out that a high school auditorium is not a public place. try walking in on a school day and shooting pictures indoors on school property.

I do think you did the right thing taking them down i think. there is a disconnect between the performers and the organizers i believe. If you wanted to use them in an editorial manner (ie a newspaper or blog reviewing the performance etc) i doubt they would have a leg to stand on (stealing your pun) , selling them to attendees is a dodgier prospect, it's not truly a commercial venture but not worth the hassle in this case
and public space is hard to define. reality is if brad pitt had shown up aqnd spoke and you posted his picture you wouldn't hear a peep, even if you sold it to a supermarket rag and he looked goofy in the shot. what is public changes a little when you yourself are a public figure. take a picture of him in a private home though and you will have issues selling it (if you caught him in bed with Jennifer Anoiston and Angelina, it would probably be worth selling anyway, sleazy but financially rewarding

[CarlJF]

There is absolutely, definitely, 100% no clear answer, because there is no clear law in place that I know of, in any jurisdiction.

It depends on where you live. In Canada, it's quite clear: you need a release to publish any picture with a recognizable person. The only exceptions being editorial use, in the sense of "newsworthy", or if the person is just an incidental character on the picture and not its subject. It doesn't matter if you make money or not with the picture. The difference between public and private place is only related to the right to take a picture. Obviously, you can't publish a picture if you did't have the right to take it in the first place. Or, in other words, there's a difference between the right to take a picture and the right to publish it... Or as, stated in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the matter:

Since the right to one’s image is included in the right to respect for one’s private life, it is axiomatic that every person possesses a protected right to his or her image. This right arises when the subject is recognizable. There is, thus, an infringement of the person’s right to his or her image, and therefore fault, as soon as the image is published without consent and enables the person to be identified.

In the specific case described by the OP, it would be clear: a release from the dancers would be needed to put the pictures on his photography website assuming the dancers are recognizable, even if it could have been perfectly legal to take the pictures since it was a public event in a public place.

[gryhnd]

Ok first I will point out that a high school auditorium is not a public place. try walking in on a school day and shooting pictures indoors on school property.

True during the school day only but who holds a public benefit during school?

The auditorium after hours is for public events and anyone can use it.