George
enthusiast
Posts: 140
Reg: 04-25-07
|
12-10-08 11:33 PM - Post#72869
When I was in college, there was a construction accident at the campus. Thankfully, no one was hurt. However, as I was snapping some photos, a foreman came over and told me it was illegal to photograph the accident. Being young and naive, I complied with his request.
As the day wore on, I began to wonder how it could be illegal to me to take photos of something that occurred on public property and started doing some research. I was young and naïve, but I was also inquisitive.
What I found out surprised me. I want to preface what I am about to write with a disclaimer: I am not a professional photographer or a lawyer and this is only my personal opinion, which may be totally incorrect.
Myth: It is illegal to photograph someone or something without the person’s or owner’s permission.
Fact: It is legal to photography anyone or anything on public property or that's visible from public property.
Myth: It is illegal to sell photos of someone or something without the person’s or owner’s permission.
Fact: It is legal to sell the photographs as long as it is for non-commercial purposes.
Myth: Commercial means making money, so selling a photograph for profit without a model release is illegal.
Fact: In the legal realm, for commercial purposes means supporting a cause, product, or idea. Simply selling a photograph of someone is not, in the law's eyes, a commercial purpose.
Myth: If the photograph is for a non-profit organization, a model release is not needed since it is for a non-commercial purpose.
Fact: No matter how noble the cause or idea, you must have a model release to use someone’s likeness to support that cause or idea. For example, encouraging people to donate blood may be a worthwhile cause, but you still need someone’s permission (a model release) to use his likeness in support of that idea.
Myth: A photographer cannot sell a photograph of something or someone for commercial use without a model release.
Fact: If the photographer discloses that a model release is not available while selling the photograph, the buyer assumes legal liability if the buyer uses it for commerical purposes anyway.
However, it is a different matter entirely if the photographer lies about having a model release.
A person or entity buying a photo for a commercial purpose should obtain a copy of the model release when purchasing the photograph. If the photographer knows the buyer intends to use the photograph for commerical purposes, the photographer should protect himself by getting a signed document from the buyer that states the buyer knows a model release is not available.
Myth: If a photograph of a crowd will be used for commercial purposes, a model release is needed for every person in the crowd.
Fact: A model release is not needed for every person in a photograph of a large crowd even if it will be used for commercial purposes.
However, if the focus of the photograph is one person and everyone else is out of focus, then the photograph is really of that one person who happens to be in a crowd.
What constitutes a large crowd? That varies depending on many factors, but some stock photo companies consider 20 or more people a large crowd.
Most stock photo companies, who are notoriously over cautious, also require that a model realease be obtained from any person in the crowd who is personally identifiable.
Myth: You cannot photograph or sell photographs of a copyrighted building.
Fact: In 1998, Cleveland’s Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum sued a photographer for selling his photos of the building and putting, “Rock N’ Roll Hall of Fame” on them.
The court ruled building owners can only trademark a few angles of the building and that the name, “Rock N’ Roll Hall of Fame” was a description of the building itself and could be used to identify the photograph.
Myth: If it is on the internet, I can use it.
Fact: The moment someone creates something like a drawing, article, or photograph, it is automatically copyrighted and can only be used with the author’s permission, even for non-commercial purposes. The only exception is if usage is protected by “Fair Use,” and that is far too long and complex of a concept for this article.
Edited by George on 12-11-08 02:09 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
civicminded
Community Guide
Posts: 9576
Loc: Lone Star State
Reg: 04-24-02
|
12-11-08 12:50 AM - Post#72872
In response to George
Interesting subject. And in today's Internet world, a number of photogs have found big trouble by circulating pics of accident victims. So beware folks.
Gee, hope my participation in the FM sign game is OK, haha. 
|
George
enthusiast
Posts: 140
Reg: 04-25-07
|
12-11-08 09:15 AM - Post#72880
In response to civicminded
My understanding is that if the accident is on or viewable from public property, it is legal to take photos and circulate them.
However, if you put a "Don't Drink and Drive" caption on the photo, that would be illegal without a model release because you are then using someone's likeness to support an idea.
There have been cases where hospital workers have been fired for taking and circulating photos of accident victims. But that was a hospital worker who was legally obligated to protect all patients' medical privacy taking a photo of someone in a place the general public could not access.
I also remember a case where a police officer illegally confiscated someone's camera because he was photographing a car accident on a public road and the victim happened to be the sheriff.
If someone knows of cases where the courts have ruled photographing or circulating a photo of an accident or victim is illegal, please point me to the link because I'd love to check it out.
Edited by George on 12-11-08 12:54 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
sco
enthusiast
Posts: 2715
Loc: allen,TX USA
Reg: 10-26-02
|
12-11-08 09:19 AM - Post#72882
In response to George
The newspapers print pictures of people all the time without a model release. Is that not "supporting an idea?"
|
JeffB
enthusiast
Posts: 333
Loc: Cottonwood Bend
Reg: 10-22-02
|
12-11-08 11:31 AM - Post#72906
In response to sco
News photos, and i mean the photo itself, is pretty much anything goes, within the guidelines George mentioned above. If you are somewhere you shouldn't be, then it's illegal, but if it's in a public location, it's ok.
You can run into more problems with your captions then anything else. If I'm at a basketball game, and take picture, and the caption says "Dirk Nowitzki goes in for a slam dunk", you are reporting on the photo, and no model release is needed. If the caption states "Dirk Nowitzki get's higher because of his Nike shoes", well, then you are supporting an idea or product, and a model release would be needed.
|
sco
enthusiast
Posts: 2715
Loc: allen,TX USA
Reg: 10-26-02
|
12-11-08 04:44 PM - Post#72942
In response to JeffB
OK. Say you are running a program at the library or some other relatively public place and you take pictures of the people participating in the program. Can you then post the pictures on your website without a model release? Would that be considered a "news" photo even though the photographer isn't necessarily a professional?
Edited by sco on 12-11-08 04:45 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
George
enthusiast
Posts: 140
Reg: 04-25-07
|
12-11-08 06:28 PM - Post#72957
In response to sco
This is my personal opinion to be used at your own risk: The status of the photographer is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is where the photo was taken and how it is used.
The library is a public place, so you are probably OK there.
If the photo is used in an informational story about the library, then a model release is probably not needed.
However, if the story is encouraging people to do something like read more, go to the library, or join a group, then a model release probably is needed.
For example, if you are an unbiased 3rd party running the photo next to a story about students participating in a summer program at the library that has no purpose other than to inform the public, it probably falls under editorial use.
If you are associated with the library and you use the same photo to recruit program participants, then that falls under commercial use and a model release probably is needed.
To avoid these situations, some organizations use forms that all participants must sign that basically has a limited model release built into it that allows the group to use the person's likeness in support of the group.
Edited by George on 12-11-08 06:28 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
JeffB
enthusiast
Posts: 333
Loc: Cottonwood Bend
Reg: 10-22-02
|
12-11-08 06:28 PM - Post#72958
In response to sco
If the caption, or accompanying text stated no more than "susch and such occured at the library, while so and so looked on", then yes you could. Be ing a professional or not has no effect, it's in the manor that the photo is used.
|
George
enthusiast
Posts: 140
Reg: 04-25-07
|
12-11-08 06:32 PM - Post#72959
In response to JeffB
I think JeffB's answer is clearer and more succinct that mine.
|
luvyrpet
enthusiast
Posts: 2104
Loc: Allen
Reg: 09-11-05
|
12-12-08 09:27 AM - Post#72996
In response to George
How does something like me recording my 9th graders orchestra concert with a camcorder, then uploaded on a site where I can send a URL to out of towner family members. However, the video is not just of my daughter, I've zoomed out enough to capture the whole class, which, none of them know I am recording .. you know quite a lot of people do that, but no one thinks of it being illegal.
|
JeffB
enthusiast
Posts: 333
Loc: Cottonwood Bend
Reg: 10-22-02
|
12-12-08 11:40 AM - Post#73003
In response to luvyrpet
You're fine, unless you try to turn it into a commercial, or charge to see it! 
|
JeffB
enthusiast
Posts: 333
Loc: Cottonwood Bend
Reg: 10-22-02
|
12-12-08 12:04 PM - Post#73006
In response to JeffB
Here's a good Link to research photographers rights. Many photographers will print off the PDF file and carry it with them in case of confrontation. This especially came about with the fear of people photographing buildings, which with a few exceptions, is perfectly legal.
|
jimmy-laws
newbie
Posts: 1
Reg: 08-16-10
|
08-16-10 11:49 AM - Post#116677
In response to JeffB
Its A Great topic indeed regarding copyrights
|
|
