Laws regarding people in photos.

padocon

I am just wondering if you take a photo of someone in a public place what can you do with it? Can it be sold, displayed anywhere.I'm talking about photos where the person didn't know you were taking a photo of them. For example a shot of someone walking down the street. It just crossed my mind and I wondered to what degree can it be used?

Thanks for the help

magicbastarder

you can't use a recognisable photo of anyone for commercial purposes - e.g. in an ad - without their permission, usually handled by model release forms.

if you are taking a photo as an artwork, that is allowed; so you'd be able to sell it in a gallery.

Hogzy

Christ all mighty would you do a search. There is literally a Photography Law thread every other day.

Ballyman

magicbastarder wrote: »

you can't use a recognisable photo of anyone for commercial purposes - e.g. in an ad - without their permission, usually handled by model release forms.

Actually you can use a recognisable photo of anyone for commercial purposes if you wish. However they would have the right to sue you if they wanted to but they may not!!

A model release removes this element from happening.

the_tractor

padocon wrote: »

I am just wondering if you take a photo of someone in a public place what can you do with it? Can it be sold, displayed anywhere.I'm talking about photos where the person didn't know you were taking a photo of them. For example a shot of someone walking down the street. It just crossed my mind and I wondered to what degree can it be used?

Thanks for the help

If they are the main subject in the photo, or a significant part of the photo, then you would need a model release to use it commerically.
If it's not for commerical purposes, just for exhibiting, or editorial purposes, then it's probably ok.

If they are just background, i.e. happen to be walking past your subject, then you should have no issue, as long as you are taking your photo in a public place.

padocon

the_tractor wrote: »

If they are the main subject in the photo, or a significant part of the photo, then you would need a model release to use it commerically.
If it's not for commerical purposes, just for exhibiting, or editorial purposes, then it's probably ok.

If they are just background, i.e. happen to be walking past your subject, then you should have no issue, as long as you are taking your photo in a public place.

Ya, see I thought that element would come into it. Isn't it arguable that they are not the subject of the shot?

magicbastarder

for commercial purposes, you mean?
you can't use their likeness, no matter whether or not they are the primary subject.

the_tractor

padocon wrote: »

Ya, see I thought that element would come into it. Isn't it arguable that they are not the subject of the shot?

Yes it is, but if they are in the background, blurred, either through longer exposure, or in an out of focus area, basically not recognisable, there should be no issue.

EyeBlinks

I'd hazard a guess that the OP has not got a request from a top advertising agency for use of a street shot for a worldwide advertising campaign.

Would people ever stop worrying about stuff that in all probability will never happen .... and get out there and take a few shots. :rolleyes::rolleyes::p

the_tractor

EyeBlinks wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that the OP has not got a request from a top advertising agency for use of a street shot for a worldwide advertising campaign.

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Would people ever stop worrying about stuff that in all probability will never happen .... and get out there and take a few shots. :rolleyes::rolleyes::p

+1

That sounds like good advice Tommie.

padocon

EyeBlinks wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that the OP has not got a request from a top advertising agency for use of a street shot for a worldwide advertising campaign.
ha ha I wish.

Would people ever stop worrying about stuff that in all probability will never happen .... and get out there and take a few shots. :rolleyes::rolleyes::p

I'm sure everyone on here does that but I feel you have to be in the know if you want to keep your camera!

121FOTO

I got in trouble today for using a photo of the great Steve Jobs, photo reflected on the back of an iPhone 4. The Title 17 of the US Copyright Act was mentioned to me. :rolleyes: I just mentioned all the implicated parts and life goes on.

EyeBlinks

You've obviously never heard of iSue

121FOTO

I heard of iSue and iSmartAss . The case was closed after I amended the copyright and included Apple and Albert Watson. Everyone is happy and I now have a new friend in US