[thelist] photo usage/consent question

[Gregory Wostrel]

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