Hello;
I took a few photos of costumed people in a pubic parade, and made big posters of them. Is it with my right to sell these? I can't find (or even know by sight) the persons who were dressed in those costumes...
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
Comments
This same subject expands.
Google did not get a property release from me, prior to taking and using Google Street view or Google Earth photos of my houses.
Yes, in the public images they have blurred out the house number and license plates.
However they are allowing the search based upon my using the house address as the search criteria. Hence it is fully identifiable. Also the houses, due to their uniqueness are very identifiable. The same can be stated as to my vehicles.
Their use is absolutely commercial. No model / property release needed. However their intent is to specifically identify a given property(s), which is owned by me.
Perhaps they know - Public view - photos shot from public places = no compensation or release.
Of course altering the image enough to make them not identifiable would be adequate. However unnecessary. Some can make a court case via trying to prove identifiable by extreme methods.
Another issue, not mentioned is the intent.
What is the "Focal point" of the photo?
Let's use this hypothetical situation:
If one shoots a group of people, perhaps playing soccer. Now someone in the group has a Coke shirt and symbol on. Another has a Nike symbol on, etc. We do not have to compensate those companies nor worry about copyright infringement.
Now, let's take the above example and zoom in. We isolate the shirt. Make the shirt the focal point. Ahhh, now we have an issue with copyright.
Was the focal point and image to identify the trademark?
Now equate that to the people's faces.
With enough examination and research, forensically, almost anything can be "identified". Was the intent of the photo, to identify the person?
Or
Was it to show a scenario, situation or story people might be associated with.
Why not just digitally edit their eye color and add a mustache to them?
I'm copying this from another post in regard to this one:
"You might try to contact the parade organizers. Sometimes parade organizers require all participants to sign a "model release". If the participants did sign such a release, and the release is broad enough, commercial use may be permitted. Otherwise, a photograph with recognizable people may not be sold or reproduced without their express (generally written) permission." Susan J. Cole
If those that believe, photos of people, taken without a release are "protected" and cannot be "sold" without permission...think of the slippery slope that would entail.
Almost everyone has a cell phone. People are constantly taking shots, even selfies with other people in the picture. They will then post them on FB, IG, SC or many other social media outlets.Being as there are perks with having "followers" on these social media sites, the photog is benefiting. Hence there is a measurable gain for the photog. Uh, law suit potential.
It would get insane.
I have done photography in many diverse positions ie, in studio, out of studio, newspaper, magazine, school, art, resorts, sports going back into 1970's... I'm not a legal expert but reasonably knowledgeable on when and where to obtain a model release.
Anyone can be sued at any time for anything. The likelihood of them winning that suit is what we should be concerned with.
Public location, public display, no infringement of privacy, used as art or to communicate news or ideals = no model release needed = extremely little chance of losing law suit.
As we are talking about photographs being used as "Art"... I tend to disagree:
Example of case law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia
https://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-t...
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/photography_law_righ...
https://www.rcfp.org/photographers-guide-privacy
https://alj.orangenius.com/is-street-photography-legal/
There are many more.
The big idea is about using someone else's image to make money - the facts remain: if you use someones image, there are legal repercussions. Will you get busted for using their image? probably not.
If George Clooney is Uncle Sam in a parade, and you publish a photo in your neighborhood blog? all good. Same with Joe Smith. If you use George or Joe in your art and you sell your art featuring George or Joe, without asking permission and you have a financial gain? You are violating their right to manage their image (prob what George would say) and their privacy (Joe Smith's perspective).
Contrary to what Larry Sohn says, you don't have the right to reproduce private citizens without their permission, unless its newsworthy.
You may alter the image in a way that no one can see that it's George Clooney or Joe Smith. You have a lot of rights to reproduce if they're obscured to a point that it isn't obvious who they are.
Signed,
Very Different Career before being a full time artist
To the best of my knowledge and research (I'm not an attorney), In public there is no expectation of privacy. When someone is in a parade, they are deliberately doing a public display. How can they assume any privacy? Taking photos of people in public places, in public venues is fair market. If the claim is dependent on whether or not they are recognizable...that is such a deep well to step into. A single speck, in a photo, can be claimed to be identifiable or resembles.
I have had police try to stop me from taking photos. They told me to turn off my camera...in a public setting...NO!
I will shoot whatever I want, in public and sell whatever I want, from such shoots.
There have been many "street photographers" over the years. Many great works being sold. If, every time we had to, then seek a model release, it would end.
In this world of litigation, people are more and more reluctant to sign agreements.
Again, in private, we have an expectation of privacy. In public, we have no expectation of privacy.
Think of it this way:
If you are on a cellphone call, and I publish what you said, I would be charged with violating wiretapping laws and invasion of privacy.
However: in the aforementioned, if you are doing said call, while in public and on speakerphone...I'm free to publish all I heard. No charges would hold up.
The same goes for the visual. if you display in public. I can publish it. It is my creation. It is my property. I owe you nothing. I may choose to give you a copy, if I choose to.
My understanding is that if it's in public, it's OK. But I wouldn't want to count on that. I have a large collection of musical artists that I've painted and I have a model release on every single one of them. Even still, if I decide to do something with it that I didn't initially disclose, I go back to them and ask if they mind. No one has ever said no. But I did have someone contact me (signed a release) and asked me if I owed them any money. Go figure. Take the advice of others and check with your particular state. In any case, if you took the photo, you own the copyright.
If a person cannot be recognized in a photo or a painting or sculpture or whatever, there is no basis for a privacy invasion claim. However, you said that the persons were in costumes. If those costumes were handmade, then the costume creators could claim copyright infringement of THEIR art (the costumes) if published for commercial purposes. My understanding is you are free to sell pictures of other people, as well as their art, as YOUR art, but you could not publish those pictures and likenesses that PROMOTES your art, for example book covers, flyers, ads, etc. without a model release.
There are a number of blog posts on the web that attempt to address this and can be pretty good in laying out the basics. This one is pretty good: https://improvephotography.com/48423/model-release/
It's all in the fine details of what you specifically plan on doing with those images.
Disclaimer: I certainly am not a lawyer so be careful with whatever advice people give you (including me!) and consult with an attorney that knows copyright and property law. It shouldn't cost you much to present your examples and get some expert legal advice.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next