Shooting Street Scapes and People

[Rod Bishop]

Okay you TPF downtown shooters! I know it's okay to shoot people or anything (pretty much) in public places. However, if I may plan to use anything I shoot (people or things) and use it for my website or anything else (gallery maybe, book., whatever for public veiwing or sales). How do you handle model releases of say like street people, or some pedestrain standing there smoking a cigarette? Do you secure model releases from them and what do you pay them, if anything?

Thanks

Rod

[Paulo]

Hey Rod,
If I'm going out to shoot, knowing that I may likely use a person's image to promote my work: website, album, etc... I'll have them sign a release right then. But I believe, it depends on the how identifiable the image of the person you capture really is. For example, I believe you'd be ok without a release if a person smoking the cigarette happens to be wearing a cowboy hat or such and looking down with his face partially covered (not the best example but I've included one below).
As for releases, I find people are generally pretty cool about it especially if the photographer extends respect and ask before taking the shot. Now in street photography, you can't always do that or you miss the shot but definitely say something right after you're done. I don't offer payment but I will give them my email address if they'd like a copy of the image taken. If they say no, then I just move on. The release I carry around is pretty simple:

PHOTO RECORD/RELEASE
Photos used for _______ (ex: ? website, promotional distribution, etc...)

Name _________________ Phone __________________
Signature/release ______________________________

Photos used for _______ (ex: ? website, promotional distribution, etc...)
Name _________________ Phone __________________
Signature/release ______________________________

Photos used for _______ (ex: ? website, promotional distribution, etc...)
Name _________________ Phone __________________
Signature/release ______________________________

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Really on street shooting I do not believe that you need releases, do the papparazzi get releases signed?

[Paulo]

You're probably right, Paul. I do it though just to make myself feel more protected.

I'm only guessing but I always thought that since papparazzi's generally target public figures, actors/actresses, etc... it woud fall under a different category than someone you come across on the street. And even that's not a guarantee because didn't Jennifer Aniston win a lawsuit against a photographer and tabloid for publishing topless pictures of her without permission.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by DEMDeepEllumMusic

Really on street shooting I do not believe that you need releases, do the papparazzi get releases signed?

Depends a lot on what you plan to do with it. Roughly:

artistic & editorial usage - you don't need a release. So you could hang it in a gallery, or have it accompany an article in a magazine, without a release. Someone could still sue (it happens quite often) but generally a release isn't legally required.

Commercially you need a release - so you couldn't use it in a an ad for yourself or sell it to a stock agency to be used in an ad, without a release.

In either case, a release doesn't stop someone suing you, it just helps to show they agreed in the first place.

[thelegend1472]

I didn't think you needed a release no matter what you intend to use it for as long as you're both on public property. The catch would probably be if you shot someone walking out of a store or something, then they'd be on the stores property and probably have a case. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got. And since someone owns most of everything it begins to be tricky ie: the necessity for the release. Don't quote me on this though.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Originally Posted by thelegend1472

I didn't think you needed a release no matter what you intend to use it for as long as you're both on public property. The catch would probably be if you shot someone walking out of a store or something, then they'd be on the stores property and probably have a case. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got. And since someone owns most of everything it begins to be tricky ie: the necessity for the release. Don't quote me on this though.

You got it partly wrong, as long as you are on public property it doesn't matter where the subject of the shoot is, per se.

This is where the Papparazzi in a tree or on a ladder comes into play looking over a hedge to shoot someone in their backyard. Now there are some laws on the books of expecting privacy and peeping toms but that is where the courts decide.

That is how Jackie was shot nude on a beach back in the 70's a photographer was offshore of her private island in publid waters and shot pics of her in the buff.

Say you have your ears open at a big party in Hawaii and you hear that there is going to be a nude shoot of the last 24 playboy bunnies on a beach that you know the location of and you have access to a 2000mm lens set up and a rock steady boat technically what you shot from the ocean would be legal because you are not on private property though technically all beaches in Hawaii are public beaches (even the ones on military bases have to allow public access during certain hours-may be different post 9-11 though).

Now you can run into peeping tom laws if say the person was in their bathroom taking a shower and you shot pics through their uncovered window but otherwise it pretty much is legal if you are in the public right of way/public sidewalk/street/park.

[Rod Bishop]

THanks guys for the discussion. I don't know that any of my stuff like that might end up being sold or displayed in any of those formats, but I was just wondering. I realize you can be sued for anything, or at least have the case filed whether it goes anywhere or not. I guess my concern lies if you happen to catch that "Pulitzer", and want to do something with it. I think PPA's legal council would tell me I need the release, just to help in a possible suit that the subject had at least one time given consent.

What's a photog to do???????? @!&*#!!!!!!!

Rod

[LaurieE]

I was just watching a program this morning about photographing and video taping. The expert/cop on the program was explaining that there is no "Right to Privacy" on public property. In this case they were disucssing how during a sporting event the police took video of the audience and went through it. They were looking for sex offenders and found MANY. The sex offenders that were spotted there complained that it was illegal because it was an invasion of their privacy. The expert explained that there is no right to privacy on public property and even if the owner of the sporting arena had complained it wouldn't have mattered because the arena was used for public use.

Evidently there is some talk of revamping these laws because of the fact that technology is more advanced than it was 20 years ago when these laws were written.

Of course this makes me curious...What about the pervs who put hidden cameras in public restrooms in hopes of catching a glimpse of something they shouldn't. Isn't THAT illegal??

Laurie

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

The cop is partly wrong. If it is a PRIVATE facility the law is different vs a Public facility but then things get sticky as to what is private vs public.

Back the last couple of years they have had these high tech recognition systems at the Super Bowl looking at everyone that is entering the arena/stadium looking for suspected terrorists (or that is what the news has been putting out) and I believe that they captured a couple wanted felons in the past.

Heck right now employers can put cameras doing live feeds from the common areas of dressing rooms and restrooms (not the stalls/showers or areas where people are expected to be in states of undress) as long as there is no sound associated with the feeds, used to reduce theft from their places of business.

[kamari]

I've had this question forever but just never brought it up...seems like a fine time to toss it in: how does this release stuff apply to football players? A player with a helmet on is very unnoticeable from many angles (especially someone like a running back with his head down running thru the pile). The only way people really know who is who would often times be from the jersey number. Could I use some shots at a pee wee football game without consent? How much of a case would someone have when it's hard to recognize a person's face but you know its his/her jersey number?

[STP Images]

.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Originally Posted by kamari

I've had this question forever but just never brought it up...seems like a fine time to toss it in: how does this release stuff apply to football players? A player with a helmet on is very unnoticeable from many angles (especially someone like a running back with his head down running thru the pile). The only way people really know who is who would often times be from the jersey number. Could I use some shots at a pee wee football game without consent? How much of a case would someone have when it's hard to recognize a person's face but you know its his/her jersey number?

This is where it can get goofy, was the game in a public park/stadium (ie school district property)? If so you probably wouldn't need a release.

If this was on the property of a Private School or say at a private gated community park then you may need to get a release for the game from a team official for both teams since you were on PRIVATE property at the time. You may not need a release from each player but you probably would need one from each team and if you couldn't get it in advance then you may be out of luck.

Just like when I shot the Rattlesnake Roundup, part of it was on private land which had access through buying a ticket, I would not need to get releases from the people who I shot since they were in a public setting and were expecting a certain level of public activity to occur-ie getting their picture taken. Now if someone asked me to not shoot their pic or to erase there pic I would have but no one did.

Same will be true Saturday at the KKK ralley in Stephenville on the Courthouse Steps.

So it just depends, grey areas all over the place on this subject as far as I have read so a lot of it is common sense and a based of knowledge to work from.

If you do a search here you will find where we were discussing this private/public before and talked about a NY State Supreme court case that ruled in favor of a street photographer with a remote fired system who took a shot of a jewish gentleman that was later used in a gallery show and I believe a book.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Also don't assume all areas where the public is as being public areas, one place that comes specifically to mind are Indian Reservations which usually restrict photographic access to certain areas and it is impolite to shoot someones picture without first asking them.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by thelegend1472

I didn't think you needed a release no matter what you intend to use it for as long as you're both on public property. The catch would probably be if you shot someone walking out of a store or something, then they'd be on the stores property and probably have a case. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got. And since someone owns most of everything it begins to be tricky ie: the necessity for the release. Don't quote me on this though.

Rod, I would be careful about taking legal advice from anyone that doesn't want to be quoted.

There's too many "I don't think" "probablies", and "I could be wrongs" in there for my taste.

No offense, Bryan, but impressions don't count much in court. This issue is not as simple as that, and while my understanding differs, I'm not about to give you legal advice, as I'm not qualified to do so. Just be sure to get legal advice from a qualified source--not doing so is how people lose a lot of money.