I'm coming into this discussion late, but I think I have some arguments that might benefit.
I don't understand why you should blur faces for protection. Unless the face in the pictures is large and looking dead on, there is not much the perverts out there could do with it. As far as legalities go, according to the law in the United States, if photographs or video are taken in a public place and you are not using them for commercial profit, you do not run any legal risks of being sued successfully. I got the following off the internet: "The basic rules are: "Taking a picture in a public place is generally always legal. But if that place is part of a secured emergency area like a police crime scene line or fire or a riot, you may get arrested for being where you shouldn't whether you're taking pictures or not. And not all street cops know the law, so you may wind up getting arrested anyway (it happens to news photographers who ARE acting legally about once a month in the US). "If you are not using the picture to promote something (i.e. commercial use - advertisement, service, etc.) you can 'publish' a picture taken in a public place without permission (e.g. a release). Publishing includes the Web (my paper has a web site and runs some of the same pictures that run in the newspaper.) Certainly 'editorial' use - reporting on the state of the world - is generally protected. And editorial use can be extended to cover street photography (a la HCB, Winograd, Erwitt, et al) even if the 'event' being reported about is just a gesture or expression or moment. "Caveats: If, in publishing the picture, you imply something about the person (as in a headline or caption) that is possibly defamatory or even just untrue, you may be liable for libel, but a model release may not help in that case anyway. The New York Times (or their Sunday magazine) got sued for running an anonymous but recognizable telephoto street shot of a black man in executive clothing with a story about token blacks on Wall Street, and lost. Because the implication was that THIS man was a token black on Wall Street. "Also, the cover of a publication (and by extension, possibly the splash page of a web site) has been considered commercial use in some cases because it 'promotes' the magazine on news stands - in effect it's an advertisement for what's inside the magazine. It is also possible that a 'portfolio' web site for a photographer intended to bring in business may count as 'commercial' usage, since it is 'advertising' for the photographer. In theory even putting a picture in your print portfolio could be considered 'advertising' for your services if you show it to potential clients - if some court decides to rule that showing it constitutes 'publication'. "Also, there is still some question about 'fine art' usage, if, for example, you are selling prints of the picture for profit. Is that 'commercial' use? My paper sells reprints of pictures to the public (those that have already run in the newspaper) as do other papers/ publications, and I've never heard of such use requiring releases beyond what was required to publish the picture in the first place. "Final blanket caveat: the law is always being tweaked by rulings on new cases, new definitions, new technology (eg, the Web). So what is generally considered legal or illegal (or liable for civil action) may not be next week. Even more finally, you can always be sued for almost any reason if someone wants to, even if the law eventually proves to be in your favor." (excerpt from: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002kze ) Also see: http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ip951121.html I hope this helps. Will Stewart -----Original Message----- From: Diane Schips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [wdvltalk] Re: Video WebCast Softening or blurring the faces of others in pictures put on the web would be a very good thing. It would be terrible if by some fluke the wrong person saw someone in one of your posted shots and someone got hurt as a result. Modern technology makes so much so easy we forget the additional risks. And that we need to be aware of additional responsibilities. Just because it's become so easy to put strangers in public view, so easy that we don't even think about it, doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about it. Also consider this. If someone has had a history such that they would have reason to not want to be seen in a public forum, then suggesting they should be afraid to go out in public for fear of having their picture wind up on a website would be nothing short of cruel. It's up to all of us to be responsible with how we handle our technology. ____ • The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM • ____ To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To set a personal password send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words: "set WDVLTALK pw=yourpassword" in the body of the email. To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub ________________ http://www.wdvl.com _______________________ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
