You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
rules/protocol?
- Thread starter Ta2Dave
- Start date
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
Unless you're in the person's back yard ... assuming this was out in a public street, there is no expectation of privacy so you would be good.
I had shared this over on Facebook earlier this month ... don't remember where I originally saw it, but still good info...
http://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-things-you-need-to-know/
I had shared this over on Facebook earlier this month ... don't remember where I originally saw it, but still good info...
http://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-things-you-need-to-know/
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
If you plan of selling the photos you would be better getting permission.
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
If you plan of selling the photos you would be better getting permission.
Yup, selling changes just about everything. I did not take that into account with my response.
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
Yup, selling changes just about everything. I did not take that into account with my response.
But the excellent article you linked says you do not need permission to sell a photo of a person taken in a public place, so selling does not necessarily change everything. If it did, newspapers and magazines could not publish news photos without getting model releases, and that's just not possible. The article did say that if a photo is being used in advertising, and the photo shows an identifiable person, then the person could argue that it's use implies that he endorses the product. Otherwise, the law now is that any photograph taken in a public place of people who are out in public can be used or sold. This might change because some photography groups are sending out alerts about possible legislation in Arizona.
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
But the excellent article you linked says you do not need permission to sell a photo of a person taken in a public place, so selling does not necessarily change everything. If it did, newspapers and magazines could not publish news photos without getting model releases, and that's just not possible. The article did say that if a photo is being used in advertising, and the photo shows an identifiable person, then the person could argue that it's use implies that he endorses the product. Otherwise, the law now is that any photograph taken in a public place of people who are out in public can be used or sold. This might change because some photography groups are sending out alerts about possible legislation in Arizona.
I believe the stock photography agencies have been requiring model releases whenever people can be recognized/identified. It may not be legally required, but if enough potential buyers are also requiring the model release just to cover themselves, then it becomes an implied requirement.