[Wheatfield]

If you take a photo to sell for artistic purposes you don't need a model release? I am just asking not accusing.

If you are on public land:
I believe in general, if the picture is used for commercial gain, then a release is required. Art which is sold would probably fit into this.
If the image is used in a purely non commercial way, then generally you can do what you want with it
Added to this is privacy laws. A rule of thumb is that if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy, but this isn't necessarily the case, so check you individual jurisdiction.
Also, you can always raise the ire of either real or imaginary law enforcement people who, while they don't necessarily have the right to do anything about your activities, my still decide to give you a difficult time.
It is now dangerous to photograph children in public as well, as the reasons for taking the photographs are almost always presumed to be nefarious.

If you are on private property, then all bets are off. Whatever the landowner or his assignees says is pretty much the law.

[roentarre]

Well said. Glad to hear this clarified.

[baltochef920]

In the United States the general rule of law is that photographic images of subjects taken in public that are used in any manner for the purposes of art do not require a model release..

Examples would be a street photograph of a person that is easily recognizable that was made into a print and sold in a gallery, or online..

Another example would be that same image that was published in a book..

If either image were to be used by an individual, or a company, in any fashion that resulted in commercial gain for the person, or company; then a model release, and or financial compensation for the person depicted in the image, would be required by law..

An example would be an advertising campaign for Coca Cola..

Although there is commercial gain to be had from the sale of books and prints, they are considered art, and are generally exempt from the commercial applications of the law..

These are not hard and fast rules, as individual states and local jurisdictions can have their own laws that augment or supercede the above generalizations..

Ethics are strictly the province of the individual photographer..Each person must act as they feel is morally right..

Just remember, a photographic image ceases to be considered a "Street Photograph" when the photographer starts to have verbal intercourse with the subject of the photograph..

It then becomes a portrait, a snapshot, or some form of documentary photograph..

The whole purpose of street photography is to photograph human subjects without them being aware of the fact that their photograph was being taken..

Street photography has always had a certain element of voyeurism to it, which is why there are so many photographers uncomfortable with it..

Nowadays, we only tend to consider the word voyeur in sexual, or pornographic terms..In simplest terms, it means for one human being to observe another human being without that person being aware of being observed..

[FHPhotographer]

If you are on public land:
I believe in general, if the picture is used for commercial gain, then a release is required. Art which is sold would probably fit into this.
If the image is used in a purely non commercial way, then generally you can do what you want with it

Sorry, but that may not be correct; it may be that somebody could sue you for defamation regardless of your intention if you provided the image by posting it on the internet.
The issue, again, is not taking but posting the image, and it's going to become more important, and troubling, in the years to come.
Here's a hypothetical: you take a photograph of somebody in public, post it to this Forum, somebody downloads it and composites the face onto the image of somebody doing something illegal, or generally considered immoral that he/she claims affects his/her reputation. It happens to "public people" like entertainers all the time; but the rules are a lot tougher for "private" individuals. Are you then liable in a civil defamation suit? Should you be? And why wouldn't you be is you should have reasonably known that, once posted, the image might be used in that way.
Or, if there was commercial gain directly or indirectly (the artist that took your image and posted the composited image might have contributed to the profit of another web site?) then you might be party to a misappropriation law suit.
Again, I don't have the answers. I can set and hold my individual ethical standards, but there are some tough issues coming down the pike on this.

Added to this is privacy laws. A rule of thumb is that if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy, but this isn't necessarily the case, so check you individual jurisdiction.

I'm guessing there is a big grey area where I can reasonably expect, as a private individual, a certain level of privacy if that privacy is thought of as protection from unreasonable intrusion by a photographer. The devil is in the details, and what a good lawyer might get a judge or jury to agree the reasonableness is the issue. I for one don't want to trust my fortune (in the most abstract sense of course) to the whims of a judge and jury. I'd rather know I had a defensible position rather than simply sail along on the belief that I can photograph what I want, where ever I want to, and get away with it.

Also, you can always raise the ire of either real or imaginary law enforcement people who, while they don't necessarily have the right to do anything about your activities, my still decide to give you a difficult time.
It is now dangerous to photograph children in public as well, as the reasons for taking the photographs are almost always presumed to be nefarious.

If you are on private property, then all bets are off. Whatever the landowner or his assignees says is pretty much the law.

I raised this issue for one reason only, to get folks who are involved in photography to think about, and discuss, what IMO are important questions. And no, I am not a lawyer, and would never care to be one,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

In the United States the general rule of law is that photographic images of subjects taken in public that are used in any manner for the purposes of art do not require a model release..

Examples would be a street photograph of a person that is easily recognizable that was made into a print and sold in a gallery, or online..

Another example would be that same image that was published in a book..

If either image were to be used by an individual, or a company, in any fashion that resulted in commercial gain for the person, or company; then a model release, and or financial compensation for the person depicted in the image, would be required by law..

An example would be an advertising campaign for Coca Cola..

Although there is commercial gain to be had from the sale of books and prints, they are considered art, and are generally exempt from the commercial applications of the law..

These are not hard and fast rules, as individual states and local jurisdictions can have their own laws that augment or supercede the above generalizations..

Ethics are strictly the province of the individual photographer..Each person must act as they feel is morally right..

Just remember, a photographic image ceases to be considered a "Street Photograph" when the photographer starts to have verbal intercourse with the subject of the photograph..

It then becomes a portrait, a snapshot, or some form of documentary photograph..

The whole purpose of street photography is to photograph human subjects without them being aware of the fact that their photograph was being taken..

Street photography has always had a certain element of voyeurism to it, which is why there are so many photographers uncomfortable with it..

Nowadays, we only tend to consider the word voyeur in sexual, or pornographic terms..In simplest terms, it means for one human being to observe another human being without that person being aware of being observed..

I think you're mixing up different legal standards. First, I don't believe there is a uniform legal standard for "art." Or at the least, it varies from community to community as does the standard for obscenity. It isn't art that's the problem, but commerce; and it isn't commerce per se, but commercial (image) use, and that's a separate issue. It really comes down to misappropriation. Nobody would assume they could use somebody's name to endorse a product without their permission; why would they then assume they could use that person's image to do the same thing? I wouldn't want to try and defend myself against a civil suit by telling the judge "yeah, we made money with the guy's image, but it's art."
Brian

[flyer]

If you are on public land:
I believe in general, if the picture is used for commercial gain, then a release is required. Art which is sold would probably fit into this.
If the image is used in a purely non commercial way, then generally you can do what you want with it
Added to this is privacy laws. A rule of thumb is that if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy, but this isn't necessarily the case, so check you individual jurisdiction.
Also, you can always raise the ire of either real or imaginary law enforcement people who, while they don't necessarily have the right to do anything about your activities, my still decide to give you a difficult time.
It is now dangerous to photograph children in public as well, as the reasons for taking the photographs are almost always presumed to be nefarious.

If you are on private property, then all bets are off. Whatever the landowner or his assignees says is pretty much the law.

You can sell pictures of people without a release in Canada if:

1 the picture is used for educational purpose

2 the picture is newsworthy.

example: You take a picture of Tom Cruise climbing in one of his plane, put it on T-shirts and sell those T-shirts. It won't take long before you hear about Tom Cruise's lawyers. Take the same picture, sell it to a TV station having a segment about stars and their plane, and you won't hear a word about Tom Cruise's lawyers.

[Wheatfield]

OP, some disagreement
Originally Posted by Wheatfield

If you are on public land:
I believe in general, if the picture is used for commercial gain, then a release is required. Art which is sold would probably fit into this.
If the image is used in a purely non commercial way, then generally you can do what you want with it

Sorry, but that may not be correct; it may be that somebody could sue you for defamation regardless of your intention if you provided the image by posting it on the internet.
The issue, again, is not taking but posting the image, and it's going to become more important, and troubling, in the years to come.
Here's a hypothetical: you take a photograph of somebody in public, post it to this Forum, somebody downloads it and composites the face onto the image of somebody doing something illegal, or generally considered immoral that he/she claims affects his/her reputation. It happens to "public people" like entertainers all the time; but the rules are a lot tougher for "private" individuals. Are you then liable in a civil defamation suit? Should you be? And why wouldn't you be is you should have reasonably known that, once posted, the image might be used in that way.
Or, if there was commercial gain directly or indirectly (the artist that took your image and posted the composited image might have contributed to the profit of another web site?) then you might be party to a misappropriation law suit.
Again, I don't have the answers. I can set and hold my individual ethical standards, but there are some tough issues coming down the pike on this.

Being sued for defamation is not the same thing as breaking a criminal law.
Using your example, the person doing the defamation is the person who stole the image, not the person who posted it. Whether a jury would side with the person who posted the image or not is, of course, the issue.

But, if we start down this road, do we sue the makers of baseball bats when a Louiseville slugger gets used to stave someone's head in? Or a knife manufacturer when some disgruntled wife offs her husband with a Henkel? How about suing General Motors because someone used a Malibu as a getaway vehicle?
Would we sue Ford because the contractor that botched our bathroom renovation used an F150 to bring materials onto the jobsite? Will we name DeWalt in the suit as well?
All of these are situations where the creator of the product has reason to believe that his creation might be misused.

People can be sued for anything, any slight, real or imagined can bring on a lawsuit, if we allow ourselves to be ruled by whether or not our activity might have a liability attached to it, we can pretty much give up our jobs, driving, or even leaving our houses at all.

Generally though, if a person has something they own stolen from them and used in an illegal manner, they are viewed as a victim of theft, not as a party to a crime.

Now, if you email me a picture and I use it to defame someone, that might make for a valid case, but posting a picture taken in public, of someone also in public on a non commercial website, which is something millions of people do on a daily basis is, in and of itself, not going to provide much basis for a legal action.

Added to this is privacy laws. A rule of thumb is that if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy, but this isn't necessarily the case, so check you individual jurisdiction.

I'm guessing there is a big grey area where I can reasonably expect, as a private individual, a certain level of privacy if that privacy is thought of as protection from unreasonable intrusion by a photographer. The devil is in the details, and what a good lawyer might get a judge or jury to agree the reasonableness is the issue. I for one don't want to trust my fortune (in the most abstract sense of course) to the whims of a judge and jury. I'd rather know I had a defensible position rather than simply sail along on the belief that I can photograph what I want, where ever I want to, and get away with it.

This is a huge gray area, and laws are being created at an alarming rate that make it even grayer. I believe the French Parliament has pretty much made street photography illegal in the aftermath of the Princess Diana killing. Perhaps one of our French members could enlighten us.
IIRC, there have been some modifications to copyright laws both in Europe and North America which can make photographing certain structures illegal as well, so while it may be OK to photograph a person on the street, including the edifice behind them is what will land you in trouble.

Privacy laws are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Yves might have a better idea than I do, but I believe Quebec has passed some fairly harsh privacy laws that are fairly unique.

BTW, I have no idea who I am quoting here, other than some stuff from one of my previous posts.

[FHPhotographer]

Being sued for defamation is not the same thing as breaking a criminal law.

People can be sued for anything, any slight, real or imagined can bring on a lawsuit, if we allow ourselves to be ruled by whether or not our activity might have a liability attached to it, we can pretty much give up our jobs, driving, or even leaving our houses at all.

Generally though, if a person has something they own stolen from them and used in an illegal manner, they are viewed as a victim of theft, not as a party to a crime.

We can go around and round about, but with all due respect, I'm afraid the majority opinion on the Forum that we can keep doing and posting is going to be proved wrong on this issue.

The time (and case law) probably is coming when the (online) provider of the purloined image will be a corespondant in the civil action (never said it was criminal by the way).

What will protect most of us is that tort is used for compensation; most of us will take, and post, images that may be misused but no damage will attach to that use. No damage, no money, so no suit. However, to pretend that's protection, or that nobody would really sue over something this trivial, is sticking our heads in the photographic sand.

When there is profit, somebody will find a way to make it; and if money can be made in suing somebody for taking an image and for posting it, then somebody will sue both the photographer and the online "publisher."

Let me give you a personal example. Years ago I was brought in as a consultant for a company that used a photograher whose random crowd shot and published it in a brochure. The catch was that the photographer didn't bother to get a release because the image was taken in a "public place." The real kicker was that the business was a Nevada casino; the person who sued wasn't in the casino, but she contended that using her image in material to promote a casino held her up to public disrepute. I negotiated a compromise with her, but it still cost the casino $50,000. A good chunk of change back in the 1980s, but still a lot less than what she would have sued for (and won according to the legal advice).

This is one instance where I really hope I'm wrong,
Brian

[shadowraven]

Good luck getting releases on all these people, I've seen too many photos of people w/o releases to worry about them. If an editor needs one, then I won't sell to the publication. This photo for example is for sale. I have no worries

[ltdstar]

Let me give you a personal example. Years ago I was brought in as a consultant for a company that used a photograher whose random crowd shot and published it in a brochure. The catch was that the photographer didn't bother to get a release because the image was taken in a "public place." The real kicker was that the business was a Nevada casino; the person who sued wasn't in the casino, but she contended that using her image in material to promote a casino held her up to public disrepute. I negotiated a compromise with her, but it still cost the casino $50,000. A good chunk of change back in the 1980s, but still a lot less than what she would have sued for (and won according to the legal advice).

This is one instance where I really hope I'm wrong,
Brian

Yes that person was taken a picture in front of the casino and that picture was used in a brochure for advertisement purpose so she has every reason to sue. On the other hand, I don't think taken a picture of people in the street and posting on the internet (be it this forum or your personal website) and not intended to be for commercial (endorsement of a product or service) use would require any model release.

[Wheatfield]

We can go around and round about, but with all due respect, I'm afraid the majority opinion on the Forum that we can keep doing and posting is going to be proved wrong on this issue.

The time (and case law) probably is coming when the (online) provider of the purloined image will be a corespondant in the civil action (never said it was criminal by the way).

What will protect most of us is that tort is used for compensation; most of us will take, and post, images that may be misused but no damage will attach to that use. No damage, no money, so no suit. However, to pretend that's protection, or that nobody would really sue over something this trivial, is sticking our heads in the photographic sand.

When there is profit, somebody will find a way to make it; and if money can be made in suing somebody for taking an image and for posting it, then somebody will sue both the photographer and the online "publisher."

Let me give you a personal example. Years ago I was brought in as a consultant for a company that used a photograher whose random crowd shot and published it in a brochure. The catch was that the photographer didn't bother to get a release because the image was taken in a "public place." The real kicker was that the business was a Nevada casino; the person who sued wasn't in the casino, but she contended that using her image in material to promote a casino held her up to public disrepute. I negotiated a compromise with her, but it still cost the casino $50,000. A good chunk of change back in the 1980s, but still a lot less than what she would have sued for (and won according to the legal advice).

This is one instance where I really hope I'm wrong,
Brian

In your example, a picture was used for commercial gain without a release from a subject in the photo. This is a well known no-no. Both the photographer, the casino and the people who created the brochure should have known better.

Commercial gain = model release.

Although now, to be safe and you are right,

Any usage = model release

It's only fair I suppose, we've been moaning about copyrights for so long, someone was bound to turn the tables on us.

[monochrome]

Go HERE Photoethnography.com home page - a resource for photoethnographers for a truly academic (and massive) response to the questions.

OBTW - there is a massive equipment section as well, iincluding a great area on Spotmatics and Takumars.

Put aside an entire Saturday.

[KrisK10D]

Fancy that! We've just had an enormous discussion about this at my online camera club. I noticed that there will always be some folks who think one way and some folks who'll tend to another. That's humanity for ya!

The issue is, do you/me/we have a right to take somebody's photograph without their permission? And once we've captured the image, what can we do/not do ethically with that image?

Commercial use is pretty clearly defined: if you have a recognizable image of an individual, sell it, you need the subject's permission (this doesn't apply to press photography, generally, but it does explain why newspapers are so very careful these days about their photo archives and use).

But what about posting a stranger's image on the internet, emailing it to your friends, etc? Once a non-copyrighted image (i.e., a federally-filed and fee-paid copyright, not something we stick on an image to declare ownership) is posted, all control over reuse is lost and it essentially becomes public property. Somebody downloads it, amends/ blends/ composits/ clones/morphs or whatever that image into a commercial product, what then?

I don't have the answer, but it's something to think about. Maybe,
Brian

You say you "don't have an answer" yet you're implying we should not be posting peoples images on the net because we could end up being sued by that person.

I may post a strangers image to the internet but I would hardly send it to my friends (unless it was someone picking the nose or doing something stupid ) And copyright is a little different in Australia than it is in America but it also has little to do with the ethics of street photography.

The issue is, do you/me/we have a right to take somebody's photograph without their permission?

In a public place... yes!

And once we've captured the image, what can we do/not do ethically with that image?

If it is an individual, we shouldn't sell it to another agency for use, but in Australia we can. If it's a famous person, we can't use it to advertise anything that would defame that person. A crowd shot is pretty much open slather.

If you have a shot that you think is so good that someone would want to use it in advertising, don't post it to the net. Print it and put it in your portfolio. Even if it was posted to the net, you don't lose your copyright for that image (you'd just have to know when someone has downloaded your 72dpi 800x535 image to use in their own ad campaign). Then you could sue them

He thinks the sidewalk belongs to him; it doesn't. He thinks he has a "right" to take photographs without permission, or release, for commercial use; he doesn't.

Sidewalks (in Australia anyhoo) on public streets belong as much to him as they do to you or I, and (now read this carefully) we don't have the right to not be photographed while walking on that sidewalk.

This is the same argument local governments (and law enforcement authorities) use that allow them to place CCTV on every CBD street corner.

There is no expectation of privacy while one is walking down the street. This fella might be a bottom feeder, and frankly I don't think I'd like anyone jumping in front of me and flashing a shot in my face much, but he has as much right to do that as I would to report him to police for being a twat.

However, to pretend that's protection, or that nobody would really sue over something this trivial, is sticking our heads in the photographic sand.

I don't think not bowing to pressure from morons is sticking your head in the sand. This is one of the things we talked about (in my club forum)... unless you are breaking the law in some respect, which the taking of street photography is not, then none us should have to worry that maybe someone we don't even know might sue us for posting a pic that they appear in. The world would ground to a halt if we all thought that doing something that's legal could end up getting us sued. That's just a silly way to live!

How about this... as photographers, why don't we stand up for our right to photograph anything we want in a public place. Don't bow to the nah-sayers who think they have a right to privacy in public areas. Don't be intimidated by surf life savers who think they can bully you off the beach because you're carrying a whopping great SLR around your neck. Don't allow ill informed police to tell you you're doing something illegal, when you're not, and attempt to destroy your photographs because they think they can.

Have the courage to stand up for your rights. I would have thought (in America anyway) that you'd have lost enough of them to get your goat up. Why stand around watching more erode away until we wont be allowed to do anything with the thought police giving us a big green stamp of approval?

If you take a photo to sell for artistic purposes you don't need a model release? I am just asking not accusing.

Hey Nick... check this! http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Photographers_Rights,_General_Privacy,_a...t_in_Australia

Good resource for Australian photographers. And to answer your question... with regards to street photography that is... no, you don't need a model release.

[Wheatfield]

As of yet, in North America, if you are in a public place with no realistic expectation of privacy, you can be photographed by anyone for any reason with no recourse.
Generally, if you are standing on public land, or private land with the landowners permission, you can shoot pretty much whatever you like, and publish it for non commercial purposes.
There are exceptions, military installations and things the government deems "sensitive", but at the moment that's about it.

Non commercial means that you make no money from the image.
There are exceptions, such as if it is a newsworthy photo being published by a news organization, though this will likely be a jurisdictional thing.

If you are on private property, then the property owner has the right to decide if you may take pictures or not. There are some gray areas, apparently Penn Station in NYC is one, but shopping malls are an example of a place where your right to take photos is limited by the property owners right to say otherwise.

So, it then becomes do you have a right to publish?
I've heard various opinions.
The common one, and the one I adhere to, since it is both approved by me legal counsel and seems to match the laws where I live (note that, it may differ where you live) is that as long as the image was taken legally, I can put it on my non commercial website with no worry about the person coming back on me with more than a request to remove, which I can ignore if I so choose.
Some of this has to be tempered with reason. For example, if I shoot a picture of someone sitting in their car at a red light picking their nose, it might be construed as a defamatory image, even though it meets all the legal criteria for my being allowed to shoot.
I might be able to post it to my website, but a case might also be able to be made that the image crossed the line into defamation. Your car, while private property is not something you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in if it is on a public road, so that isn't the point, the point is freezing someone's embarrassing moment of time and posting it for the world to see.

Note, I am not a lawyer (though my wife has worked in the legal profession for a few decades, so don't take any opinions I may present as fact. I's a good idea to check your local laws, as some jurisdictions are passing some fairly oppressive laws regarding public photography. What I am seeing is the creeping horsesh!t theory of law making, where, for example, it becomes a no-no to photograph children in public (and I get so tired of that stupid, lame mantra about "we are doing it to protect our children"), and then slowly more and more items are added to the list.

[roentarre]

I have sold some small photo books based on Melbourne Street Candids. I have consulted a lawyer who is also a photographer himself. I have nothing to worry about in Australia.

Speaking of most of the people shots I have, plenty have signed their lives away on the model release forms