Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
In a message dated 21/5/01 5:05:05 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This area of law is not my area of expertise - I am a corporate lawyer. I know enough to be wary. I do some street photography and do not get model releases. I have always wondered what a model release is anyway. If I were to draft one that truly covered my risks, the release would probably be several pages long. Actually model releases cover two different things. The right to expose the persons privacy and the right to exploit the image. If you are dealing with a professional model you are asking for use related to commercial exploitation. You probably will have to pay more for a poster than a small trade ad. There is a general theory which holds that the more work a model gets the less future work they will get. They can often only work for one perfume company for instance. This argument cannot be used by a non-professional model or a child who is deemed to not suffer financial loss of earnings with the publication of their image. This is where invasion of privacy seems a bit of a minefield. A few years ago the context had to be defamatory or cause actual emotional pain. Now it seems that lawyers get called because someone wants to get rich quick. Bob Croxford Cornwall England www.atmosphere.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Johnny Deadman wrote: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? Yes, but I don't think a snap in a public area would implicate it in most if not all states. It's a matter of state law, not federal law, so it's impossible to draw a general rule about what US law is in this context. California and New York could be very different. A more likely problem is an area generally called right of publicity; it basically allows an individual to prevent the use of his likeness to aid in the sale of a product (in California, it's in Civil Code section 3344; I don't know about other jurisdictions). An interesting case is where the product being sold is the image itself -- for example, if you sell a photo of a street scene including an individual. I know that Tiger Woods has a case pending trying to prevent someone from selling paintings of him; I don't know how that case has progressed. I am a lawyer, but this area is a little outside of my area (which is copyright, patent and licensing), so don't take any of the above to the bank -- if you have concerns, check with someone who knows the law in your particular jurisdiction, or err on the side of caution and get the release. -- Terry Carroll | Denied. Santa Clara, CA | Baltimore Ravens v. Bouchat, no. 00-1494, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (U.S. Supreme Court, May 21, 2001) Modell delendus est |
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Lynn Allen wrote: With the 3 Stooges decision, one can see that the law seems to favor whomever wants to be vindictive enough to pursue it. The Stooges' rights are owned by Comedy III Productions, and they're very protective of their property. In another recent case, they went after the producers of the film The Long Kiss Goodnight, because the film included a brief scene in which a TV showing a Three Stooges episode was on in the background. (The case was dismissed, and they lost on appeal.) One of the judges on the Ninth Circuit (the federal court of appeals for the area that includes California) characterizes his court as the Court of Appeals for the Hollywood Circuit! One has to wonder how healthy a practice this is for the big picture(puns not intended, but useful parallels). :-) I think it's way overdone -- and I'm a lawyer. Don't get me started on patents and copyrights. -- Terry Carroll | Denied. Santa Clara, CA | Baltimore Ravens v. Bouchat, no. 00-1494, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (U.S. Supreme Court, May 21, 2001) Modell delendus est |
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
A nice general overview of many of the issues that have come up here re model/properly releases and invasion of privacy in the United States can be found on the Photo District News website . . . . http://www.pdn-pix.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html Perhaps some of you will find it of interest. Regards Dan Bowdoin
RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Johnny, There is no one US statute or even set of statutes at the federal level. Each state has its own statutes and /or sets of applicable statutes; some of the state statutes recognize things that the relevant federal laws do not as well as recognizing things that other states do not. Most of the references that I was able to get from the internet mostly pertain to journalists and celebrities rather than to street photographers/artists and non-celebrities. However, I think that the links below should call into question the completeness of your awareness with respect to the statement that As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. It also responds to your statements: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. While it is true that there is no law or set of laws officially designated and labeled as The Invasion of Privacy Act in the United States or in any of its individual states, many of the things usually considered as being related to the invasion of privacy, as you will note from the materials in the links, fall under differently named laws and torts. http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/library/weekly/aa032601a.htm http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:// www.rcfp.org/photoguide/index.html http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:// www.publaw.com/photo.html http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:// www.photosecrets.com/p14.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:38 PM To: Filmscanners Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is to photograph happy people enjoying themselves on the excursion. One photo shows a happy, smiling couple obviously enjoying the trip, and the company uses it in a *small* brochure. The couple's spouses, who were *not* on the trip, are less than thrilled. Divorce. Lawsuit. Greyhound settles out of court. Art Director is fired (I get his job). Okay but that's not invasion of privacy in the sense of the French law or touted UK law (it won't happen). That's just non-released commercial usage. As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Douglas Landrum wrote: Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If so, what so they say? Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give up all rights and privileges granted you under all jurisdictions as a result of your assumed humanity ;) You are correct that a really inclusive one is several pages of fine print. I only use these when I am working on a commercial shoot with models who are paid to model and represent a specific scenario. My street releases are two paragraphs. They say that the person is of the legal age of majority to sign a contract (or can do so on behalf of a minor or an animal/pet in question). They say that for value considered and received (usually comprised of photographic prints) they relinquish rights to further compensation. That the image is property of the photographer who may use it in a commercial manner, including changing the name the person is depicted under, and also the image may be manipulated. It says that the terms within the document are transferable as part of the estate of the photographer. It's slightly fleshier, but not much more so. Art
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
My street releases are two paragraphs. A friend has a model release printed on the back of his business card ... obviously, it's not very long but he feels it's better than nothing and they're much more convenient to carry around than a sheaf of papers. He also prefers a cash payment on the spot (usually a $1 or $2) over the promise of a print since 1) it's cheaper and 2) it's easier. Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Excellent post, Douglas. And more enlightening, probably, than my story of the runaway excursion (which did happen in California, by the way). With the 3 Stooges decision, one can see that the law seems to favor whomever wants to be vindictive enough to pursue it. One has to wonder how healthy a practice this is for the big picture(puns not intended, but useful parallels). :-) For example, with your 3-page release form, you'd miss about eleventy-seven good street pictures while securing 12 signatures--unless of course you were doing a photo-documentary piece on the confusion of people signing contracts. ;-) On the flip side, predatory Paparazi can hound a princess to death with no major consequences besides bad publicity. Somewhere there must be a middle ground--where the Truth is worth something and Freedom's not just another word. Best regards--LRA My response: In California, where I practice law, a state constitutional right of privacy was added by initiative about 25 years ago. What it really means in the context of street photography, I do not know. The area of privacy is constantly changing. All of these discussions are interesting as to what various people believe is the law in this area. It is complex, constantly changing and very fact specific. People in California in particular look at being slighted in some manner as an opportunity to win the lottery of litigation assuming that they can find a lawyer to prosecute a lawsuit on a contingency fee basis. I think that the law is evolving into the concept that you cannot publish a person's likeness without permission subject to some very narrow exceptions. I think that this is unfortunate. A recent case decided by the California Supreme Court found that the likenesses of the Three Stooges drawn by an artist and placed on T-Shirts sold a Venice Beach were misappropriations of the likenesses for commercial purposes. Other cases have found that broadcasts of non-celebrities engaged in personal traumas - car accidents, rescues from peril, criminal activities and the like - by reality TV shows were not protected by journalistic privileges but were violations of the right to privacy. Can plain old HCB street photography in jeopardy? This area of law is not my area of expertise - I am a corporate lawyer. I know enough to be wary. I do some street photography and do not get model releases. I have always wondered what a model release is anyway. If I were to draft one that truly covered my risks, the release would probably be several pages long. Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If so, what so they say? - Original Message - From: Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:37 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is to photograph happy people enjoying themselves on the excursion. One photo shows a happy, smiling couple obviously enjoying the trip, and the company uses it in a *small* brochure. The couple's spouses, who were *not* on the trip, are less than thrilled. Divorce. Lawsuit. Greyhound settles out of court. Art Director is fired (I get his job). Okay but that's not invasion of privacy in the sense of the French law or touted UK law (it won't happen). That's just non-released commercial usage. As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Beautiful, Art. A simple statement that says it all. You're gonna get crucified for this, I hope you know. :-) Best regards--Lynn --Original Message-- From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 21, 2001 11:47:37 AM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street Douglas Landrum wrote: Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If so, what so they say? Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give up all rights and privileges granted you under all jurisdictions as a result of your assumed humanity ;) You are correct that a really inclusive one is several pages of fine print. I only use these when I am working on a commercial shoot with models who are paid to model and represent a specific scenario. My street releases are two paragraphs. They say that the person is of the legal age of majority to sign a contract (or can do so on behalf of a minor or an animal/pet in question). They say that for value considered and received (usually comprised of photographic prints) they relinquish rights to further compensation. That the image is property of the photographer who may use it in a commercial manner, including changing the name the person is depicted under, and also the image may be manipulated. It says that the terms within the document are transferable as part of the estate of the photographer. It's slightly fleshier, but not much more so. Art --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to ceding to the subject's wishes. In any event, unless someone does relatively static 'street portraits' I have a hard time imagining a way of even approaching most subjects of a streetphoto: do you run after a passerby or interupt their conversation? There are times when such photographs include a number of unrelated people moving off in all directions; do you hire crews to run after then with explanations? It would seem that having to get releases would just make classic street photography impossible, so if you are committed to do this type of work you have to take your chances. Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a published or exhibited streetphotograher on privacy grounds? For what it's worth even Rudolph Giuliani of NY, nor famous for his love of free expressions but a himself a shutterbug, once was quoted that there is a right to photograph anyone one wants in public places. John M.
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
There are various Releases at http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:/ /www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/ Maris - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:09 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street | Beautiful, Art. A simple statement that says it all. You're gonna get | crucified for this, I hope you know. :-) | | Best regards--Lynn | | --Original Message-- | From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: May 21, 2001 11:47:37 AM GMT | Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street | | | | | Douglas Landrum wrote: | | | | Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If | so, what so they say? | | Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give | up all rights and privileges granted you under all jurisdictions as a | result of your assumed humanity ;) | | | You are correct that a really inclusive one is several pages of fine | print. I only use these when I am working on a commercial shoot with | models who are paid to model and represent a specific scenario. | | My street releases are two paragraphs. They say that the person is of | the legal age of majority to sign a contract (or can do so on behalf of | a minor or an animal/pet in question). They say that for value | considered and received (usually comprised of photographic prints) they | relinquish rights to further compensation. That the image is property | of the photographer who may use it in a commercial manner, including | changing the name the person is depicted under, and also the image may | be manipulated. It says that the terms within the document are | transferable as part of the estate of the photographer. | | It's slightly fleshier, but not much more so. | | Art | | | --- | FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com | Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com | | |
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a published or exhibited streetphotograher on privacy grounds? There was a mention of a Cartier-Bresson case before. But on reading the Stirling article in turns out that it wasn't the photograph that was at issue but its use as an illustration to an article. According to the court in that context the picture could be interpreted as implying that couple portrayed were only interested in each other for sex, although the picture in itself had no such implication. There is a larger issue that I hope the courts would take into consideration: that documentation of social life is a public good that outweighs the discomfort that might be felt by some subjects (and by many photographers for that matter). The issue especially comes to a head with paparazzi, but I'd probably especially defend them, as long as they act within reason. It would be better if we didn't live in a culture where celebrity was as important as it is, but as long as we do it is essential that celebrities not have total control of their image, as many would like to be. John M.
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Yeah, but I wonder about the fine print! :-) OTOH, it's a darned good idea. Of course, Street People, if they know the guy is giving out $1 bills, might hog the camera! Kinda restricts your subject matter a little! :-) --LRA My street releases are two paragraphs. A friend has a model release printed on the back of his business card ... obviously, it's not very long but he feels it's better than nothing and they're much more convenient to carry around than a sheaf of papers. He also prefers a cash payment on the spot (usually a $1 or $2) over the promise of a print since 1) it's cheaper and 2) it's easier. Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/21/01 11:07 AM, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are various Releases at http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:/ /www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/ nice one! this is great http://www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/pocket_release.html -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Yeah, but I wonder about the fine print! :-) OTOH, it's a darned good idea. It's a pretty simple release and I'm sure it's far from bulletproof, legally speaking. The funny thing is this guy has no intention of ever selling his photographs -- he's retired and living off a seven-figure pile of money -- but told me gets releases when he can because he'll never be able to get them later, should the need ever arise. Of course, Street People, if they know the guy is giving out $1 bills, might hog the camera! Kinda restricts your subject matter a little! :-) True enough but so far as I know, he doesn't shoot them very often. Actually, from what I've seen of it, there are actually very few people in his street photographs and fewer still in mine. I mostly shoot things like dumpsters and condemned buildings and faded signs, etc. ... the fewer people in my photos, the better! :^) Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; Yes; but you could say that the additional problems are the cost of doing the business of street photography. There is no free lunch. once someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to ceding to the subject's wishes. True; but shouldn't you out of shear sensitivity and respect for the wishes of another human being. Unless you are a journalist and relying on the public's right to know a newsworthy event, you do not have an absolute right to use an individual's image for public display or sale once they have explicitly denied you permission in some states and have knowingly opened yourself up to the possibility of legal action which you just might lose. Why would you want to do this unless you were a journalist and were justifying it on not artistic grounds but on the newsworthiness of the photograph. As an aside, some courts have found that, if the person's image, even if identifiable, is merely incidental to the image and not the central focus of it, a release may not be necessary and the plaintiff may not have any standing in an invasion of privacy suit - especially if they were in a public place and in public view - even if the image was sold commercially. In any event, unless someone does relatively static 'street portraits' I have a hard time imagining a way of even approaching most subjects of a streetphoto Of course that depends on what type of street subjects you shoot. I have found that many of the street scenes that I have shot do not comprise down and dirty grab shots of scurrying people but of people who are relaxed or, at least, are staying put for a while and where I even had time to consider different camera angles or to change lenses. If you do mostly street photographs of dynamic street scenes and people on the run, I would imagine that you would have to be somewhat brazen and bold to engage primarily in that type of street photography to begin with so you should be bold and brazen enough to go up to people and ask for permissions even if it means interrupting a conversation of stopping them on the street. There are times when such photographs include a number of unrelated people moving off in all directions Two key questions you need to ask yourself in determining if you pragmatically should or really need to go after releases are: are the people recognizable and are they central or incidental to the image. If they are unrecognizable or are incidental to the image, commonsense would tell you that the odds of being sued and of losing are low so it might not be necessary to obtain permissions as well as impractical to do so. However, if the people are clearly recognizable and central to the image, then you had better give serious consideration to obtaining releases if you intend to publicly display or sell the image or you should forget about taking the shot even if it is a key photographic moment. It would seem that having to get releases would just make classic street photography impossible, so if you are committed to do this type of work you have to take your chances. Not impossible, just more difficult. Obviously, no matter what you do, you have to evaluate the odds and then take your chances; nothing is 100% safe or certain. The name of the game is to minimize your exposure as much and as often as possible. Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a published or exhibited street photograher on privacy grounds? Yes, there have been a number of them; check the links that I gave earlier. Rudolph Giuliani of NY, nor famous for his love of free expressions but a himself a shutterbug, once was quoted that there is a right to photograph anyone one wants in public places. That is more true of New York State than it is for some other states in terms of the nature of their various privacy and privacy related statutes and in terms of their court decisions and opinions. Moreover, as I noted elsewhere, it all turns on what the courts define as public places. But he is absolutely right in the US, you have a right to photograph anyone in public places, you just may not have a right to display, publish, or use the resulting image anyway or anywhere that you want. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Matturri Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to ceding to the subject's wishes. In any event, unless someone does relatively static 'street portraits' I have a hard time imagining a way of even approaching most subjects of a streetphoto: do
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
I have a problem with giving out money for photographing people on the streets. (a) your relationship is contractual rather than a voluntary arrangement but much more importantly (b) I'd rather people wanted to be photographed without payment entering into it. I appreciate the reasoning here, but.. I was a street musician for a few years, so can offer a different perspective. I think it's entirely appropriate to give such people some money for photographing them (a dollar was fine). If there is anything about a person that is photogenic, and they reside in public in some way, they will find cameras pointing at them a lot, mostly by people who have no idea how to relate to them. It gets to feel like one is being ripped off in this case. And having been close to the other street people, when I photograph them now face-to-face now, I ask and offer a dollar - and so far my instinct has not failed me in that the very fact that they are seen as having something of value to sell, and that I am having a transaction with them as equals, seems to visibly increase their self-esteem and incidently makes for some wonderful pictures as they display themselves as participants in life vs. begging flotsam and jetsam. Also (c) it is kind of unfair to all the people you DON'T give money to, I simply don't buy this - it's a specious argument philosophically, one step from we've got to screw everyone because we can't avoid screwing someone. If you do want to photograph street people and you feel that you should give them something in return I think the most gracious thing to do is to give them money FIRST and then ask if you can have a picture. This isn't bad, but the transactional aspect can be better, I find. Here's an experiment - dress up as something photogenic, clown or bum, and spend some time every day for a week in a public place asking for money (be careful not to steal some needier person's spot). It may be very useful for negotiating this situation from the other side. And bring a P/S to pull out just in case :-) Bill Ross
RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
There is no right to privacy in a public place by definition. Not necessarily true; it depends on what the courts decide is a public place and not what the photographer or the man-on-the-street defines as a public place. The courts, at least in the US, base their definition on a number of factors including if the person has a legitimate expectation of privacy even if it is a public place ( i.e., a public toilet). While one may not on each and every occasion need a release, there are circumstances where a street photographer might need a release even for art based on privacy laws. For instance, if you shoot from a public street or place into the doorway, window, or courtyard of private property - and especially if you take a photograph of someone in the private building or courtyard, then you might need or be best advised to obtain a property and/or model release if you are going to display and sell the photograph even as art. You might get away with displaying and/or publishing the photograph as journalism or news; but not as likely as art if the subject sees it and objects. Another example, might be shopping malls or hospitals which the public often treat as public places but which are technically private property. Leaving aside violations of trespass laws which might take place if you did your shooting within the confines of such locations, you could be considered to be evading someone's privacy if you take their picture in those locations for public display or sale. That street photographers have gotten away with not having releases and not being taken to court does not mean that they can't be taken to court for not having a release and invading the subject's privacy if the subject sees the image and objects. It also does not mean that a court will not find you guilty of invasion of privacy on such occasions if they so choose. I am not saying that such legal actions are common or always won by the subject; but I am saying that there is a possibility and that there have been cases in which artists have been taken to court for invasion of privacy for exhibiting and selling images of people as works of art without their permission. In a number of those cases, the artists have lost. Indeed, there have been some photographers who have taken candid images of people which were published in books long after the pictures were taken who did not have releases only to find that after publication when the subject saw the picture of themselves they took legal action for invasion of privacy or, in some cases, the family or heirs of a subject who has died will bring legal action on behalf of the dead person or themselves on those grounds (even celebrities and their executors and inheritors have done so). I do agree that such legal actions were less the case in the past than they are now in the information age where everyone realizes their identity and image is worth money as a commodity. If the subject is recognizable and your artwork defames their reputation and /or character or implies something untrue or that they find objectionable, you could be open for slander and defamation legal actions as well in the U.S. and maybe in Canada. Indeed, and a release won't help you with that. If you know for example that you will portraying someone as a drunk who is not a drunk by implication (i.e., showing the image of that person in a art show titled Images of Drunks which contains mostly images of real drunks), you could try and get permission by way of a release to show that image in that show from the person. If they signed the release, chances are that you would be off the hook for defamation or slander even if the person should later change their mind. In short there are some occasions that a release might protect you from such legal actions. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:30 PM To: Filmscanners Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/19/01 10:57 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [re needing or not needing releases for 'art'] You do in the U.S. if the person is recognizable and you do not want to get sued for invasion of privacy. There is no right to privacy in a public place by definition. We are talking about street photography remember. Do you think Frank, Klein, Winogrand, Arbus et al got releases? I can tell you now they didn't. I don't know a single street photographer (and there are 500 on my list) who gets releases. Harvey Stein (CONEY ISLAND, TWINS) said publicly in a seminar last week that I attended that he has never got a release for a street photo. Commercial use is not generally understood to include books and print sales. Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. Under French and Quebecois law things are different, which is why I don't
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Dave Buyens wrote: Art, I am a part time photojournalist. I hope my comments below encourages others to follow your lead. Further, I don't need a model release for such publication. Now, if it were for art's sake or for profit--that'd be a different story. Then, go ahead and get the release. It's also then, that I'd expect a little more resistance, though most folks still won't mind. Dave I've never quite understood why publishing an image in a newspaper is considered not for profit... does the name Randolph Hearst (and granddaughter Patti) and Conrad Black not ring any top income bracket bells? ;-)... Rosebud. (This is somewhat tongue in cheek, I do understand the concept of editorial images) Art
RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Maris, To start with, I agree that I did back off my initial statement. I did it for a couple of reasons; none of which were because I thought any of it was wrong, misstated, or untrue. I backed off because John's response made me realize that the statement came off sound much too absolute and universalistic which was not what I really was trying to suggest. Like all laws in the real world, their application and execution are contextual in terms of specific concrete cases and based on interpretation. There is also a historic and pragmatic side to the interpretation, enforcement, and application of laws. There are some times in history, when even if laws did exist, they were used infrequently as compared to other period in history like the contemporary period because the population was less educated and informed of the laws and of their rights than is the case today; the general public was less aware of the value of their image and identity in financial terms in part because one's image and identity did not have the currency that it does today where everyone is selling and trying to make money off their images and life stories. Moreover, U.S. society was less litigious in days of old than it is today. On the pragmatic side, many people do not take legal action today and in the past because they are unaware that their picture has been taken much less that it has be displayed publicly, published, or sold for profit as artwork or for that matter any commercial use. Moreover, even if they are aware of it, many who might be upset and given to take legal action do not have the practical resources of time and money to hire a lawyer and pursue the matter in the courts so they let it drop - either reluctantly accepting it as a you can't fight city hall type of situation or a it's just not worth fighting situation. Thus, much of the legitimate potential for legal actions in the past and in the present are muted and do not take place even though they technically could have; or they are settled out of court and you never hear about them. Often, a release may implicitly be obtained by the photographer promising and giving the subject a copy of the photograph that was taken of the subject in implicit return for the photographers right to use the image for unspecified legal uses and in ways that do not hold the subject up to defamation of character, slander, or ridicule. In such cases, the subject rarely presses a legal claim against photographer unless the subject was in some way mentally defective or an underage youth who could be said to not know what they were doing - but they potentially could press such a legal claim and under certain circumstance maybe even win. Thus, the potential is there for being sued even though it is not always actualized, which is what I was trying to convey. Initially, I made a flat absolute universalistic statement in response to a similar statement to the effect that For art you don't need a release as far as I am aware. I admit to being guilty of this although I had not intended to convey or dictate such a blunt absolutist meaning. Having made this longish preface, I will now take up the point of your post as to my credentials. I am sure my response will not satisfy you or anyone else for that matter; but rather than publishing a resume. I will leave it at I read a lot and have been following these issues for several years in the press and trade publications. I have spoke with lawyers about many of these issues on both an academic level as well as on a personal level with regard to some personal experiences that I have encountered related to the taking of photographs in public places and found that I often knew more about how the relevant laws apply to the arts than did the average lawyer who knew about privacy laws and the like but did not clearly know or understand how it is applied to the arts and artistic endeavors. There are legal specialists who have written on the subject and I have made an attempt to read their work when I can. Many of my illustrations are drawn from their works as well as from press and trade publications news items and stories; some are drawn from personal experiences. I have no formal law school credentials or training although I do have a Masters of Art and ABD in Political Science and Sociology; and I have worked as a lobbyist for a state courts system as well a Research and Evaluation Specialist in a urban Mayor's Office and a Civilian Investigator in a City Solicitor's Office. I have also taught at the university level in a Criminal Justice program. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street Laurie, Now you're (properly IMHO) backing off from your initial statement: You do in the U.S. if the person is recognizable and you do not want to get sued
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
John wrote: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is to photograph happy people enjoying themselves on the excursion. One photo shows a happy, smiling couple obviously enjoying the trip, and the company uses it in a *small* brochure. The couple's spouses, who were *not* on the trip, are less than thrilled. Divorce. Lawsuit. Greyhound settles out of court. Art Director is fired (I get his job). This was obviously not street photography, but the some of the rules apply. The people involved were in fact injured by the photograph (not to mention their own actions). The photographer and AD were inocent victims, but that's the Law for you. US courts *do* seem to be moving away from suits that do not involve actual injury, in some cases. They're also moving into areas that are far less explainable, but that's *another* story. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is to photograph happy people enjoying themselves on the excursion. One photo shows a happy, smiling couple obviously enjoying the trip, and the company uses it in a *small* brochure. The couple's spouses, who were *not* on the trip, are less than thrilled. Divorce. Lawsuit. Greyhound settles out of court. Art Director is fired (I get his job). Okay but that's not invasion of privacy in the sense of the French law or touted UK law (it won't happen). That's just non-released commercial usage. As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Art, You certainly do have a point. For me, though, it's certainly not as much profit as I'd like! Dave Arthur Entlich wrote: I've never quite understood why publishing an image in a newspaper is considered not for profit... does the name Randolph Hearst (and granddaughter Patti) and Conrad Black not ring any top income bracket bells? ;-)... Rosebud. (This is somewhat tongue in cheek, I do understand the concept of editorial images)
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
John Brownlow wrote: Okay but that's not invasion of privacy in the sense of the French law or touted UK law (it won't happen). That's just non-released commercial usage. As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. My response: In California, where I practice law, a state constitutional right of privacy was added by initiative about 25 years ago. What it really means in the context of street photography, I do not know. The area of privacy is constantly changing. All of these discussions are interesting as to what various people believe is the law in this area. It is complex, constantly changing and very fact specific. People in California in particular look at being slighted in some manner as an opportunity to win the lottery of litigation assuming that they can find a lawyer to prosecute a lawsuit on a contingency fee basis. I think that the law is evolving into the concept that you cannot publish a person's likeness without permission subject to some very narrow exceptions. I think that this is unfortunate. A recent case decided by the California Supreme Court found that the likenesses of the Three Stooges drawn by an artist and placed on T-Shirts sold a Venice Beach were misappropriations of the likenesses for commercial purposes. Other cases have found that broadcasts of non-celebrities engaged in personal traumas - car accidents, rescues from peril, criminal activities and the like - by reality TV shows were not protected by journalistic privileges but were violations of the right to privacy. Can plain old HCB street photography in jeopardy? This area of law is not my area of expertise - I am a corporate lawyer. I know enough to be wary. I do some street photography and do not get model releases. I have always wondered what a model release is anyway. If I were to draft one that truly covered my risks, the release would probably be several pages long. Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If so, what so they say? - Original Message - From: Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:37 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is to photograph happy people enjoying themselves on the excursion. One photo shows a happy, smiling couple obviously enjoying the trip, and the company uses it in a *small* brochure. The couple's spouses, who were *not* on the trip, are less than thrilled. Divorce. Lawsuit. Greyhound settles out of court. Art Director is fired (I get his job). Okay but that's not invasion of privacy in the sense of the French law or touted UK law (it won't happen). That's just non-released commercial usage. As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
At 05:34 AM 5/19/01, Arthur Entlich wrote: ... My secrets for street photography without getting killed ... Thanks for the encouragement. - Clive Moss http://clive.moss.net To fight Cancer go to http://www.ud.com download the software, and join my team by clicking on http://members.ud.com/services/teams/team.htm?id=49FB819B-965E-485C-892C-80B1160187BA
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/19/01 6:58 PM, Dave Buyens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My secrets for street photography without getting killed include some fast slight of hand on occasion (looking like you are photographing somewhere or something else). But more often its just a really big smile that disarms people and makes me appear less sinister. Once I tell people I'm shooting for the paper, all suspicions fade away. Once people see that there is a reason you're taking their photo that is legitimate, they are delighted. I was shy at first, but after a few dozen positive results, now I don't think twice about snapping away. William Klein, shooting for his NEW YORK book told people he was working for the NY Post. He wasn't. A very dangerous thing to do as (a) you may get found out and (b) getting pictures of people under false pretences can get sticky further down the road. If I think I've gotten a really valuable image, I try for a model release. Most people are amazingly easy about this (in Canada, at least) if you offer them some copies of the images, especially if their kids are in them! In my case, the thought of having their picture in the paper doesn't hurt. Further, I don't need a model release for such publication. Now, if it were for art's sake or for profit--that'd be a different story. Then, go ahead and get the release. It's also then, that I'd expect a little more resistance, though most folks still won't mind. For art you don't need a release as far as I am aware. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
For art you don't need a release as far as I am aware. You do in the U.S. if the person is recognizable and you do not want to get sued for invasion of privacy. If the subject is recognizable and your artwork defames their reputation and /or character or implies something untrue or that they find objectionable, you could be open for slander and defamation legal actions as well in the U.S. and maybe in Canada. In the US, if you use the art with the subject's image in it for commercial reasons, for advertising, etc., you might also be open to other types of legal action. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 6:09 PM To: Filmscanners Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/19/01 6:58 PM, Dave Buyens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My secrets for street photography without getting killed include some fast slight of hand on occasion (looking like you are photographing somewhere or something else). But more often its just a really big smile that disarms people and makes me appear less sinister. Once I tell people I'm shooting for the paper, all suspicions fade away. Once people see that there is a reason you're taking their photo that is legitimate, they are delighted. I was shy at first, but after a few dozen positive results, now I don't think twice about snapping away. William Klein, shooting for his NEW YORK book told people he was working for the NY Post. He wasn't. A very dangerous thing to do as (a) you may get found out and (b) getting pictures of people under false pretences can get sticky further down the road. If I think I've gotten a really valuable image, I try for a model release. Most people are amazingly easy about this (in Canada, at least) if you offer them some copies of the images, especially if their kids are in them! In my case, the thought of having their picture in the paper doesn't hurt. Further, I don't need a model release for such publication. Now, if it were for art's sake or for profit--that'd be a different story. Then, go ahead and get the release. It's also then, that I'd expect a little more resistance, though most folks still won't mind. For art you don't need a release as far as I am aware. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/19/01 10:57 PM, Laurie Solomon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [re needing or not needing releases for 'art'] You do in the U.S. if the person is recognizable and you do not want to get sued for invasion of privacy. There is no right to privacy in a public place by definition. We are talking about street photography remember. Do you think Frank, Klein, Winogrand, Arbus et al got releases? I can tell you now they didn't. I don't know a single street photographer (and there are 500 on my list) who gets releases. Harvey Stein (CONEY ISLAND, TWINS) said publicly in a seminar last week that I attended that he has never got a release for a street photo. Commercial use is not generally understood to include books and print sales. Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. Under French and Quebecois law things are different, which is why I don't photograph in France and Quebec. If the subject is recognizable and your artwork defames their reputation and /or character or implies something untrue or that they find objectionable, you could be open for slander and defamation legal actions as well in the U.S. and maybe in Canada. Indeed, and a release won't help you with that. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
