[yeatzee]

Alright so before I ask the real questions I want to ask, is it legal for a shirt "company" to use this picture on one of their shirts (with my consent)?

[Ash]

They have your 'consent' Tanner, but have you given them rights (on paper) to reproduce the image? Will they be exclusive or free rights to the image?

[icywarm]

Do you mean because there are people in it and you likely don't have client releases... the photographer doesn't need a client release... the publisher does (well they do here anyways)

and since it is a picture taken in public(I am assuming) you 'could' be ok....

[adpo]

im pretty sure there would be an issue of an identifiable person being in your picture without a model release. now if only the cop had his head turned the other way....

[-Spooky-]

The picture would be (borderline) legal if it was for editorial purposes. By printing it and selling it on shirts (for profit or not for profit), you lose your legal right to use the picture as an editorial shot, so the fact that the picture was taken in public means nothing. In order to legally use the shot for the intended purpose posted in the original post, you would need two model releases. The cop is recognizable, so you would need a signed model release from him. The cop being recognizable provides enough context into the shot to make the "suspect" recognizable as well, so you would need a signed model release from him as well. The reason why I said "borderline" in the first sentence was because in some states police are given legal protection from being photographed or captured on video by the expectation of privacy, even in public places. You could just print the shirts and never have any issues what so ever, but personally I would cover my own @$$.

[jatrax]

Rule of thumb is if the people in the photograph can tell it is them. In this case yes both would be able to say it was them so you would need a model release from both of them.

It might be possible to use it for editorial, as in a news article in the local paper. Using it, or selling it to someone else to print on shirts would leave you open to legal action. No stock agency would touch it.

[yeatzee]

The picture would be (borderline) legal if it was for editorial purposes. By printing it and selling it on shirts (for profit or not for profit), you lose your legal right to use the picture as an editorial shot, so the fact that the picture was taken in public means nothing. In order to legally use the shot for the intended purpose posted in the original post, you would need two model releases. The cop is recognizable, so you would need a signed model release from him. The cop being recognizable provides enough context into the shot to make the "suspect" recognizable as well, so you would need a signed model release from him as well. The reason why I said "borderline" in the first sentence was because in some states police are given legal protection from being photographed or captured on video by the expectation of privacy, even in public places. You could just print the shirts and never have any issues what so ever, but personally I would cover my own @$$.

im not sure i follow with the beginning part. I lose the right to use my own photo? For what? How?

Surely if I did need a release for the cop the other guy wouldn't need one! His face is turned the other way!
Im 90% sure california has no such law against me photographing cops but again im not 100%.

Obviously I post this because I do want to cover myself

im pretty sure there would be an issue of an identifiable person being in your picture without a model release. now if only the cop had his head turned the other way....

If only if only

Do you mean because there are people in it and you likely don't have client releases... the photographer doesn't need a client release... the publisher does (well they do here anyways)

and since it is a picture taken in public(I am assuming) you 'could' be ok....

Yes. And yes it was taken in public. If the above were true that would be awesome but I need verification.

They have your 'consent' Tanner, but have you given them rights (on paper) to reproduce the image? Will they be exclusive or free rights to the image?

Well ill go into more detail. Some old friends of mine have created a T-shirt company. They messaged me on facebook (havent talked to them in years) asking if they could use the image. Now obviously im not just going to give it away so i created this thread to ask what to do. Before that however, i wanted to know if I could be affected in ANY way if they use the image for their shirt. I.e. could *I* be prosecuted or something because the person is recognizable in the shot and I do not have a model release.

[stevbike]

There are a number of things I would be looking at before doing anything. The first item is to get release forms for the people in the picture. That will help you out by letting the people know the image is being published. The next step it see what rights you have to the image. It is best to retain ownership of it. Otherwise, you will be giving up any future use of the picture if you do not do this.

Once you get these items settled you know where you stand. As for payment, it can can be done either by a one time payment for the people wanting to use the image or a deal can be set-up for percentages of the sales of the shirts.

The most important things to cover are the model release and your rights to retain copyright of the image. I was doing some work for people years ago and signed a contact that signed off all my rights to anything I took for a time frame of one year. I basicly stopped taking a lot of picture in that time frame because of this. You have to protect your rights to your work.

[George Lama]

For editorial, you likely wouldn't need a model release.

For profit, and because you can see the officer's face, this is likely not going anywhere without the gentleman's consent. Had the officer been facing away from the camera, you likely wouldn't have a problem selling the image.

[yeatzee]

Getting a model release would be near impossible. I took the shot a while ago and it's about an hour away from where I live.

What if the officers face is covered by a graphic or something?

[billtin59]

The picture would be (borderline) legal if it was for editorial purposes. By printing it and selling it on shirts (for profit or not for profit), you lose your legal right to use the picture as an editorial shot, so the fact that the picture was taken in public means nothing. In order to legally use the shot for the intended purpose posted in the original post, you would need two model releases. The cop is recognizable, so you would need a signed model release from him. The cop being recognizable provides enough context into the shot to make the "suspect" recognizable as well, so you would need a signed model release from him as well. The reason why I said "borderline" in the first sentence was because in some states police are given legal protection from being photographed or captured on video by the expectation of privacy, even in public places. You could just print the shirts and never have any issues what so ever, but personally I would cover my own @$$.

If what you say was true, there'd be no such thing as supermarket tabloids or newspapers for that matter, both are sold for profit! People in public areas have no reasonable expectation of privacy and are fair game.

[-Spooky-]

Primarily using a photograph for commercial purposes (i.e. shirts) changes your legal standing in arguing editorial use (if you were to have charges filed against you). All I'm saying is that in the off chance that one of the people in the photograph were to sue you, you would likely lose if you were arguing editorial use. Tabloids and newspapers are considered by the courts to be editorial. It doesn't matter that they are for profit. Yes, people in public areas should not expect the same amount of privacy they would expect in private places, but photographing police in some areas can lead to trouble (although I don't think that should be the case).

[eddie1960]

As pointed out this use would require a model release. If they do what old navy and the gap did to the photos they stole from photographers the nature of the line drawing would make the cop unidentifiable and then it would be ok i would think (provided they paid you and you ok'd use for that purpose)

Old Navy Follows in Gap’s Footsteps and Uses Photo without Permission

At least they asked you.

[RioRico]

Put a black bar over the cop's eyes so he's not recognizable, or shoop in a false face, and you're fine.

[George Lama]

If they do what old navy and the gap did to the photos they stole from photographers the nature of the line drawing would make the cop unidentifiable and then it would be ok i would think (provided they paid you and you ok'd use for that purpose).

Not really... if you look at the dual image comparison at the bottom of the article, it would be very difficult and expensive for Gap to prove otherwise.

Perhaps a settlement is in the works before it even gets to a lawsuit.

Isaac contacted Gap asking for compensation and for them to cease and desist, and received a message from a lawyer asking him to contact them.