if this point was already made...please disregard.. as i understand it..you've taken some photos ..and some are of kids... and you did it on your on time... but you were at the location/camp of your employeer... forget the legal "rights" you may have to the photos... if the parents of one of the kids discovers that you've put a photo of their kid on the net..without their permission, they may come after the owner, either legally..or with an aluminum bat!!! he may just be trying to eliminate any issue/headache for himself!! good luck.. -----Original Message----- From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org [mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Gregory Wostrel Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:23 AM To: thelist at lists.evolt.org Subject: Re: [thelist] photo usage/consent question On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 02:08 AM, Bill McBain wondered in part: > He says that I am violating laws because I don't have a > release form for public consumption of these photos. > My question is: Is my personal website a public area? As a professional photographer this sort of issue in all its forms comes up regularly for me. Here, in my mind, are the basics: If you are using the images for financial gain, ie selling as stock, or placing them in a context where something will be implied about the person(s) depicted, ie selling them for an article on abuse of children at summer camps, then you have a problem. You would need a full release for anyone that is recognizable in the images. However, if you are using them personally, or in a manner where they would be considered "news worthy" (think a picture of a bunch of people doing something that appears in a newspaper - no problem since they were in public and the picture is a record that they were there, simple as that) you do not have a problem. About.com puts it fairly succinctly: ====================== When using pictures that contain clearly recognizable faces of people, a model release protects you against legal claims by the persons in the photo. In general, model releases are needed when using pictures of people for commercial purposes, such as in ads or brochures. Editorial use (news photos, for example) do not usually require model releases although in some cases it is common courtesy to obtain permission. ==================== Since the web can be considered a publishing media, and your personal site a publication, you have every right to do what you want with the images as long as it is not slanderous. Since they are also *your* pictures, you own the copyright to them and can largely dictate what is, or isn't, done with them. All this being said, you still have to live in the real world and telling everyone to lighten up and/or go pound sand may not be in your best interests. Even though you have the legal right to, politely, do just that. I agree with Mike, who wrote: > The main reason is supposably so kids cannot be traced by the dodgy. > In your > case I cannot see how anonymous pictures of kids is going to allow > anyone to > trace them back to their house as you no doubt do don include their > names or > addresses. > > In the old days (1980's) if we saw a picture of us on the tv or in the > paper > we were well chuffed. > > If parents are so stuffy that they wouldn’t want pictures of their kids > enjoying themselves on the net than that is sad. > The child safely debate is really flawed as it is proven that people > that > interfere with children are usually friends of the family anyway. and I *do* have children. HTH, Gregory Wostrel gwcreative http://www.gwcreative.com/ gw at gwcreative.com 401.286.9228 Communications and the Art of Simplicity -- * * Please support the community that supports you. * * http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !