# Photography Law in the United States



## Gavjenks (Jun 7, 2013)

In every single thread I've seen discussing this, over half the people seem to have unfounded fears about breaking the law when they shouldn't be.  So here is a quick rundown for you (I am not a lawyer, but it's not really very complicated).

*Main rule: If, as a member of the regular public walking around in places where the regular public is allowed to walk, you can see something with your eyeballs, then you are allowed to photograph it, including seeing privately owned land where you are not invited, as long as you can see it from somewhere you are.* Unless it falls under one of the following exceptions:

*Exception 1)* If the subject of your photograph is a sensitive government site in terms of "national security." This would not include any privately owned buildings.  It also would not include any government buildings in plain sight of two dozen people on the sidewalk right next to you (like a courthouse).  It's more like isolated research facilities, Area 51, military bases, etc. If it's a government building, and you feel like there's a pretty good reason why you maybe wouldn't be wanted to take photos of it, ask.
*
Exception 2) *If the subject of your photo is a person who is in a situation where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. As in, a situation where a sane, normal, rational person would expect member of the public around them to not be able to see them or something they are doing OR has made some reasonable effort to isolate themselves.  Examples: entering a PIN number on an ATM, even if it is in public; huddling over something in a way so as to intentionally block sight from nearby people (like a prescription bottle); sitting in a bathroom stall or a urinal divider; being in your house with curtains drawn (but with a 1 inch crack in them); etc. *This does not include:* sitting on your porch, or in a restaurant where the public is invited freely to walk in. *This does not include:* Merely not WANTING somebody to photograph you, if you have not bothered to even try to isolate yourself from the eyes of the public.
*
Exception 3)* Places that you might technically have a line of sight to, but which you would never be able to actually usefully see without a highly telescopic lens, for example. You wouldn't be allowed to go up on top of a public parking garage and then use a 1000mm lens to photograph somebody tanning in their fenced in back yard 6 blocks away, if there's no other closer vantage point where somebody in the public could see them. (You CAN take photos of people from a parking garage 6 blocks away if somebody right next to them could see them normally, though)

*Exception 4???)* Possibly an airplane in flight, since there is no physical way for you to leave the premises in order to avoid trespassing, there is some vague precedent that you sort of have to do what the flight staff tell you, within reason. Gray area, but no reason to risk it, unless you like long, ambiguous, drawn out court cases.

*Exception 5)* if there is a clearly posted no photography sign, then its still not illegal per se to photograph and the business owner still cannot confiscate photos. However you may risk the possibility of trespassing charges being brought against you immediately after being caught. As in you may not have the option to avoid charges in this case merely by leaving if asked because effectively you WERE already asked and ignored it.  Note that you COULD photograph a "no photography" area if you are not actually on their property where the sign refers to. For example, if a restaurant has a sign up saying "no photography," but they have an outdoor eating area with no fence around it to block you, you could still stand on the public sidewalk outside and photograph diners.

Examples of things you might not think you can do, but can:
* Photographing children playing in a playground, even a private one if you do so from a public sidewalk and there's only a chain link fence or something in between.  This is sketchy and people will yell at you and you would be unwise, but it is legal.
* Photographing disaster scenes, car crashes, etc., including mangled bodies or whatnot, as long as you don't get in the way of emergency personnel doing their job, or cross any police lines that have been set up.  Ethical? Maybe maybe not.  But legal.
* Photographing police detaining people, etc., again as long as you don't hinder them.
* National parks


*What happens if somebody confronts you?*

1) A random member of the public: Nothing. You can hold the camera right in their face as they scream at you to stop, and as long as they are still standing there in full view of publicly accessible places, no law stops you from continuing to snap away.  Obnoxious and maybe unethical? Sure. Might get you punched in the face (or stabbed)?  Sure. But not illegal.

2) A business representative in a privately owned (but open to the general public) business: They cannot legally make you stop taking photographs.  They CAN legally make you leave their property. If they tell you to leave, you have to leave, or you can be charged with trespassing.  But even as you are walking out of the building after being kicked out, there's no law stopping you from holding down your shutter and continuing snapping photos, because the photography isn't illegal, only the potential trespassing if you don't walk out.  And you never ever have to give up your camera or memory card to a business representative.  If they take it anyway, you can press charges for theft.

2.5) Places like libraries function like businesses. I.e., if you are invited in, you can take photos by default, but a librarian could still ask you to leave, etc. just as if it were a restaurant, and you have to do so (even though it's a publicly owned building).

3) A police officer: If they tell you to stop photographing, you have to do so.  You do not, however, have to give up your camera or your memory card, OR show them any of your images (that is a search), unless they have a warrant/court order.  Do not physically resist them if they decide to do so anyway, of course (press charges after the fact instead), but you do not have to voluntarily give up any of these things, and if they merely ask you to, you can refuse (do so politely: "I do not consent to a search, sir").

if anybody other than a police officer tries to detain you, you can just start walking away calmly.  If they physically detain you, that is assault.




Concluding disclaimers:

*1) All of the above is simply when you can TAKE pictures.*  What you can DO with them is much much more complicated in terms of publishing and especially selling in various situations. Do not assume by default that just because you can take a picture, that you can either publish it or sell it.

*2) Even if it is legal to take a photo, it may not be ethical.*

*3) Even if it is legal to stand up for your rights, it may not always be wise. *Just because a person cannot legally detain you or stop you from photographing, doesn't mean they CARE.  You can still end up with a broken jaw and a broken camera if you piss the wrong person off, even in the middle of a nice neighborhood in broad daylight. Sure you can press charges against them later, but that won't make your jaw less broken, and may not pay for your camera.  And if you go angering people (especially ones who may be unstable/drunk/without anything to lose) with your photography on the worst side of Detroit, or in an empty alleyway almost anywhere, or while playing in an underground poker game, then you could well be taking your life in your hands. Just because you are legally in the right, and just because somebody stabbing you is wrong and breaking the law, doesn't mean you can't get stabbed.... and you don't want to get stabbed.  It's bad for you.

The law is not a replacement for basic common sense.

*4) Again, I'm not a lawyer.  These guys are though, and this book is great: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights & Liabilities of): Bert P. Krages Esq.: 9781608954759: Amazon.com: Books* Even then, though, people cannot dispense custom-tailored legal advice through a book.  If you want to be absolutely sure of your rights for a given situation, consult with a lawyer for your particular situation.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 7, 2013)

Don't know about the long distance tele shots. The scandal rags use them all the time unless something has changed.


----------



## Designer (Jun 7, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Don't know about the long distance tele shots. The scandal rags use them all the time unless something has changed.



I was under the impression that the paparazzi shots were primarily in public places.  On the street, beach, restaurant, etc.  

The long lens in that case is just "politeness" on the part of the photographer; not getting into the face of the quarry.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 7, 2013)

Paparazzi operate in gray or black areas a lot, more than you should if you have morals and are not being handed giant wads of cash 

Also they often sneak around simply to get candid shots and not scare the celebrity off. Not nec. always to invade privacy.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 7, 2013)

We have rights as citizens, as employees, as business owners, etc. but I don't think there are necessarily specific photographers' rights any more than there are rights specific to artists or other professions. The book cited on Amazon is by the same person whose photographers' rights I've seen re-posted many places online; at most it seems to be a compilation of rights that could apply to photographers - but it seems to address being able to take pictures - how you use them makes a difference and there are differences between editorial, retail and commercial use. 

We've always been able to go many places and take pictures, particularly public places, but policies of private properties including restaurants can vary -  and it would be for your personal use. Photos being used for other than personal use (once you post them on message boards and social media sites that seems to be making them public) is probably what has prompted many of the restrictions. 

Stores seem to be considered private property and some in my area have signs posted about their policy regarding camera usage (usually that it is prohibited). In sports, teams and arenas determine policies about what camersa/lenses (and not photography related - coolers, bottles, umbrellas, etc. etc.) fans can bring in and the policies are enforced - their policies are made public on their websites, in media guides or other team publications. The purpose is generally to protect their product, name, logo, etc. Restaurants are starting to set policies about taking pictures as in some places it is getting disruptive to the point that other patrons are complaining. 

I think the best thing as a photographer is to get informed - there's information available on websites like that of ASMP and other professional photographers organizations.


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 7, 2013)

Another part of the issue, is that while it's often legal to take the photos...it's what we do with them, that may cause trouble.  And again, I think that most people are overly worried, when they don't need to be.  

Most photos we take (and publish in some way) would fall under editorial or 'fair use'...and AFAIK, you don't need any sort of model release or property release etc.  
Then there is commercial use...where you (or the actual publisher) would want/need a release for people in the photo.  The tricky part, is deciding what determines the difference.  A big case, a few years back, was against a photographer who photographed a man (Orthodox Jewish, not that it matters)on the steet in NYC.  The photographer created an art print and sold/displayed many copies of the print.  I believe that the photographer won the case, and it was determined that (she) didn't need a model release, even though she was making money and publishing the photo.
I think there is a distinction between publishing/printing...and mass production.  So you could print the photo and do whatever with it...but you couldn't say, print 10,000 post cards to sell.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 7, 2013)

I just recently added exception #5 above which speaks to much of what you were saying in your post about posted policies. Breaking a store policy is not illegal, but you may be instantly liable for trespassing if you premeditatively subverted a posted policy in order to gain entrance. Like sneaking a lens into a concert that clearly disallows them.


----------



## KmH (Jun 7, 2013)

Know Your Rights: Photographers | American Civil Liberties Union
Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Photography, the Law and Photographers Rights - Bob Atkins Photography

Photo Attorney


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 7, 2013)

Here is a chart that may help with various locals.

Commons:Country specific consent requirements - Wikimedia Commons


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 8, 2013)

Commonshotographs of identifiable people - Wikimedia Commons

Another tidbit


----------



## skieur (Jun 19, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> Another part of the issue, is that while it's often legal to take the photos...it's what we do with them, that may cause trouble. And again, I think that most people are overly worried, when they don't need to be.
> 
> Most photos we take (and publish in some way) would fall under editorial or 'fair use'...and AFAIK, you don't need any sort of model release or property release etc.
> Then there is commercial use...where you (or the actual publisher) would want/need a release for people in the photo. The tricky part, is deciding what determines the difference. A big case, a few years back, was against a photographer who photographed a man (Orthodox Jewish, not that it matters)on the steet in NYC. The photographer created an art print and sold/displayed many copies of the print. I believe that the photographer won the case, and it was determined that (she) didn't need a model release, even though she was making money and publishing the photo.
> I think there is a distinction between publishing/printing...and mass production. So you could print the photo and do whatever with it...but you couldn't say, print 10,000 post cards to sell.



The broad term: advertising makes the difference.  One photo is editorial use and permitted without a necessary release.  Multi-photos as postcards constitute an advertising use in the broad sense and require a release.


----------



## skieur (Jun 19, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Commonshotographs of identifiable people - Wikimedia Commons
> 
> Another tidbit




That is however a guideline and a personal spin from the Commons rather than any legal interpretation.


----------



## skieur (Jun 19, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Here is a chart that may help with various locals.
> 
> Commons:Country specific consent requirements - Wikimedia Commons



Not legally accurate and with a built in bias against photography in a public place.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jun 25, 2013)

How about if a TV/Business sets aside part of their property for fans. You got people standing around watching the production and taking pictures and no one saying anything about it. The only side states Filming beyond this point referring to the fenced off secured area. Is it legal to post pictures you obtained from this visiting/fan area even through the use of a telephoto lens?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> *What happens if somebody confronts you?*
> 
> 3) A police officer: If they tell you to stop photographing, you have to do so.



Incorrect.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 25, 2013)

I always do what cops tell me to do. Cops in this country, you may have noticed, carry guns. My rule is actually more general than that, when a person with a gun asks me to do something, I do it. This seems to substantially reduce the frequency with which I get shot.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 25, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > *What happens if somebody confronts you?*
> ...


Edit: actually no, this was correct as originally written.  Second guessed myself.

I don't know if it's true federally, but it's at least usually a lawful order for a police officer to order you to freeze / stop moving for purposes such as ensuring maximum officer safety, which could thus include taking pictures in *some *circumstances.

And although in the absence of any special events or circumstances it PROBABLY wouldn't normally be a "lawful order" to say to stop photographing on, for instance, the sidewalk, it can be very ambiguous whether various orders are lawful or not, since they can make claims about being threatened by your gear, or they may have legitimate external reasons to be emptying the street that you don't know about, or who knows what. For all you know there's a sniper on a roof that has a vendetta against people whose photos are being taken, and they're eliminating potential targets by telling you to stop.

And in some states, it very well may be illegal to just not follow a direct order, period (unless theyre telling you to stab a guy or something.  But ceasing an action like photography is clearly not itself committing another additional crime or anything).

There's also common law considerations, even if nothing exists in a statute in your state regarding this. For example, if your photography is obviously disturbing the peace via loud arguments, etc., a police officer may well be within his right to force you to stop.

_It's all very gray, and state dependent, etc. etc. which overall makes  it a terrible idea at best to not follow such an order, and at worst it  could hold up in court as illegal not to, depending on what the  situation actually was._




Edit: Nor is this exactly a very pressing "civil rights" issue that we all need to be standing up for, in my opinion.  Police officers can already just detain you entirely, legally, if they feel it necessary, so it's not a big deal for them to be able to tell you to do things that constitute, essentially, just partial detentions, like stopping photography, because this doesn't lead to any runaway power scenarios since they already have more power than that.

When it comes to SEARCHES, it's a different story (your memory card), and I do suggest strenuously standing up for your rights in that regard, by clearly and politely saying "I do not consent to a search" and then simply not complying, if asked to see photos (but don't physically resist if they go for them anyway).


----------



## Buckster (Jun 25, 2013)

You Have Every Right to Photograph That Cop | American Civil Liberties Union

Know Your Rights: Photographers | American Civil Liberties Union

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page


----------



## Tailgunner (Jun 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I always do what cops tell me to do. Cops in this country, you may have noticed, carry guns. My rule is actually more general than that, when a person with a gun asks me to do something, I do it. This seems to substantially reduce the frequency with which I get shot.



:roll:


----------



## KmH (Jun 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...


Where does this information come from?


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 25, 2013)

I love threads like this...


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 25, 2013)

lol...

Well, while it's not illegal to take photos of someone screaming in your face.. punched could be the least of your worries. You could also be stabbed/shot/beaten by multiple attackers etc..

Use some common sense.

Can a police officer tell you to stop photographing ... technically no.

But I CAN have you put the camera down.. anything in your hands can be potentially dangerous and so in effect, I stopped you. 

There ARE a lot of things photographers shouldn't worry about, legally... and there are a LOT they should be aware of in terms of responsibility, courtesy and personal safety.

Some good points were hit on... but hopefully it doesn't encourage people to do what was called "obnoxious", when in reality the word should be "dangerous" or "stupid".


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 25, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Can a police officer tell you to stop photographing ... technically no.



Thanks.  I've learned before not to argue with this guy even when I know I'm correct.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 25, 2013)

The law is complex.. it varies by region and there aren't really any laws set in stone regarding photography. There are however, civil liberties which apply to any person whether they have a camera or not.

Also, harrasment is something that can be dealt with. If you're in someones face and they are telling you to back off and you don't do it.. they can call us. And then we will tell you not to harass people... at which point you have been given a lawful order by a police officer and failure to comply can and probably will result in your arrest.

Our job is to keep the peace ... if you're upsetting that balance, we can intervene and no amount of " I have the right to shoot in public " will get you any sympathy from a judge who can see that .. 

A) You were engaged in harassment 

And

B) You disobeyed instructions from a police officer

So this set in stone "these are my rights" attitude needs a closer examination...

If you're practicing common sense and common courtesy and you're not looking for trouble, it won't be an issue for you.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 26, 2013)

> Where does this information come from?


My post was basically "The law is a huge tangled mess in this regard, so you should play it safe." Basically I sat there and researched that particular sub point for an hour, and found different answers for almost every single state being discussed, and all kinds of crazy situational factors that mattered.

I can't give a more specific citation for the LACK of a centralized, straightforward statute.  There just doesn't seem to exist anything simple that addresses this, and in at least some cases, it is definitely legal to make you stop (one or two mentioned by shooterJ here). So it's a bad idea to guess.

If you are a professional member of the Paparazzi, and have been given extensive training on exactly what you can get away with regarding local laws, and your salary depends on being as obnoxious as you can get away with, then maybe you can keep shooting when an officer tells you to stop and be confident in getting away with it / actually have a reason to.  But for the other 99.99% of people reading this, the ambiguoitites make it clearly not worth it.



> Well, while it's not illegal to take photos of someone screaming in your face.. punched could be the least of your worries. You could also be stabbed/shot/beaten by multiple attackers etc..


I will try to edit it to make it a little more cautionary


----------



## KmH (Jun 26, 2013)

There are several levels of law here in the US:
Local
County
State
Federal

So it's to be expected that there are variances, particularly when local, county, and state laws are involved.
By the same token, US law at any level, is not necessarily applicable in other countries.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 26, 2013)

KmH said:


> There are several levels of law here in the US:
> Local
> County
> State
> ...



Your rights to photography in the US derive primarily from the First Amendment.

This means that no state law can impose any additional restrictions on your photography (with some very limited exceptions such as limiting intra-state commerce on photography equipment or having varying rules about how to obtain a permit if you want to block off a street or something to do a shoot, etc.), due to the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:



> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



Emphasis mine. First amendment rights are privileges of federal citizenship, and thus are universally protected across states, making the fundamental "what can I photograph?" rules consistent everywhere in the country.



Not outside the country, but that's why the thread is entitled, "Photography Law in the United States"


----------



## skieur (Jul 6, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> The law is complex.. it varies by region and there aren't really any laws set in stone regarding photography. There are however, civil liberties which apply to any person whether they have a camera or not.
> 
> Also, harrasment is something that can be dealt with. If you're in someones face and they are telling you to back off and you don't do it.. they can call us. And then we will tell you not to harass people... at which point you have been given a lawful order by a police officer and failure to comply can and probably will result in your arrest.
> 
> ...



However, a police officer can also harass a photographer and be in the wrong, if the photographer is not disturbing anyone by his photography and is acting in accordance with his constitutional rights in the US.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 6, 2013)

skieur said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > The law is complex.. it varies by region and there aren't really any laws set in stone regarding photography. There are however, civil liberties which apply to any person whether they have a camera or not.
> ...



You are absolutely correct.. but again, contesting it with the officer on the street will get you nowhere.

Take it through proper legal channels and deal with it the right way.


----------



## skieur (Jul 6, 2013)

KmH said:


> There are several levels of law here in the US:
> Local
> County
> State
> ...



I am sure however that Local, County, and State Law cannot violate US Constitutional Rights.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 6, 2013)

skieur said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > Another part of the issue, is that while it's often legal to take the photos...it's what we do with them, that may cause trouble. And again, I think that most people are overly worried, when they don't need to be.
> ...



I have seen some people posting here that while a release is always preferred, it is not necessarily required in those situations - even for commercial use. Nike, as one example that has fairly deep pockets.  What does a release really mean to them?


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 6, 2013)

For example, and I'm not trying to "call him out", but I seem to remember KmH saying something to that effect at one point.  It's been a while, and I'm not sure that I could find the thread, but maybe he remembers.  I only mention KmH specifically, because as we all probably know - this is the stuff he's known for (in part, at least - on this forum), copyright laws and such...

I want to say that the post I'm remembering even also used Nike as an example.  I may be wrong about that part though.


So, my question is, you have a photo that you intend to use for commercial purposes, but you do not have a release.  What stops you from going ahead as planned?


----------



## KmH (Jul 6, 2013)

A lot of people confuse editorial use and commercial use. Selling photos as art is an editorial use, not a commercial use.
Images with people in them a photographer owns copyright to are worth more if the photographer has on file a valid release signed by the people in the images.
Also once sold, the photographer has no control over how an image gets used. The photographer may know that the image is being bought for a commercial use

Selling photos is generally an editorial use. It is a good idea to have a valid release on file if you're going to use an image in a way that meets the legal definition of 'commercial use'. 

But commercial users of photography do use un-released images all the time. They judge the risk of a lawsuit low enough it can be acceptable.
In other words, they figure the image will make them profits that are many more times the cost of going to court having been discovered using an unreleased image.


----------



## flow (Jul 6, 2013)

#4 - Aircraft in flight is a problem? I've done it, I've seen other people do it ... or is it just not to interfere with flight crew doing their thing, and no pictures of anything 'sensitive'? (I imagine marshals would start getting antsy if they saw you getting up close and personal with the cockpit door lock for example.) But a snapshot of people (people you know, not running up and down the aisles shooting at strangers) should be fine, right? I'm not hauling out giant (weaponizable, probably, if you ask HS) lenses or setting up a tripod in front of the beverage cart or anything.
Caveat - I recognize we should have enough common decency to not fire off a flash in a darkened cabin on a night flight.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 7, 2013)

flow said:


> #4 - Aircraft in flight is a problem? I've done it, I've seen other people do it ... or is it just not to interfere with flight crew doing their thing, and no pictures of anything 'sensitive'? (I imagine marshals would start getting antsy if they saw you getting up close and personal with the cockpit door lock for example.) But a snapshot of people (people you know, not running up and down the aisles shooting at strangers) should be fine, right? I'm not hauling out giant (weaponizable, probably, if you ask HS) lenses or setting up a tripod in front of the beverage cart or anything.
> Caveat - I recognize we should have enough common decency to not fire off a flash in a darkened cabin on a night flight.



Some major airlines have policies against camera use at all.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 8, 2013)

If you don't have a release for either commercial use or retail use, and your photo is used by yourself or by a company to whom you sell it (especially if it may be online or in an ad) it could be that the subject might see it being used for your profit without their permission. It seems like it would be better to get a release signed if you expect you may want to use a photo in some way to make money. 

ASMP has had a pocket release available that's designed for a photographer to carry along, and I think now they have an app for it. I'd rather not be in a position of having to deal with a problem later that could have been avoided by getting a release up front.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 8, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> If you don't have a release for either commercial use or retail use, and your photo is used by yourself or by a company to whom you sell it (especially if it may be online or in an ad) it could be that the subject might see it being used for your profit without their permission. It seems like it would be better to get a release signed if you expect you may want to use a photo in some way to make money.
> 
> ASMP has had a pocket release available that's designed for a photographer to carry along, and I think now they have an app for it. I'd rather not be in a position of having to deal with a problem later that could have been avoided by getting a release up front.



Theoretically, you can legally profit from their image without their permission. NOT for advertisements, but if you're just selling an image of them as a fine art print, for example, and it's an image of them in public / visible from public, you don't need their permission to post it and sell it for profit, because it's editorial (assuming it does not paint them in a slanderous light, etc.)

In reality, this is probably pretty risky, because you don't want to be sued in the first place, even if you are "supposed" to win such a case, or indeed even if you DO win the case (still expensive and time consuming), so yes releases are always best practice.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 8, 2013)

Selling a print I think falls under retail use. Editorial would be a photo being published in a newspaper etc. Licensing Guide | American Society of Media Photographers 

If you don't have a release you could be potentially limiting your options in using the photo. The last paragraph on why this is taken seriously is interesting reading. 
Property and Model Releases | American Society of Media Photographers


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 9, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> Selling a print I think falls under retail use. Editorial would be a photo being published in a newspaper etc. Licensing Guide | American Society of Media Photographers
> 
> If you don't have a release you could be potentially limiting your options in using the photo. The last paragraph on why this is taken seriously is interesting reading.
> Property and Model Releases | American Society of Media Photographers



From your website:


> Thus, privacy issues typically arise when an image is used for purposes  of trade or advertising. That is, it&#8217;s not the picture, but how it is _used_  that determines the need for a release. For instance, an image that is  printed in a newspaper, *shown in an exhibition or reproduced in a book*  might well be immune from a privacy suit. But the commercial sale of  coffee mugs or t-shirts with the same image would probably not enjoy  such protection. An advertisement almost certainly would not be immune.


emphasis mine.

* Another link from a lawyer supporting the notion that "commercial" is pretty much limited to pure advertising purposes, not gallery art prints or books:
Photo Attorney: Commercial vs. Editorial Use of Photographs of People

* Some other sources seem to suggest that once it is commercial, it doesn't count. Although these all seem to be uncredentialed bloggers with no court cases cited, etc.

* I can't find any court precedent of a gallery print or similar lawsuit that actually ended in a ruling in favor of the unreleased model. Doesn't mean they don't exist, though.



*Conclusion:* It seems really murky/unclear, but actually leaning in favor of gallery use being okay.  This does not mean you should just recklessly sell stuff in a gallery with no consideration of the risks. Certainly, you should always opt for a model release whenever humanly possible.  However, you should also *not *just assume that any photo without a release if out-of-bounds for fine art sales.  If you have a fantastic photo that you think could sell for a large amount of money, and you don't have a model release for it, then it may very well be worth it for you to invest in a lawyer consultation about your specific intended usage and whether indeed there is any precedent for civil suits regarding that / what your risk is.  Instead of just assuming it won't work, and throwing away large profits.


----------



## grafxman (Jul 9, 2013)

skieur said:


> I am sure however that Local, County, and State Law cannot violate US Constitutional Rights.



:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen: This is one of the funniest things I ever read here! :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 11, 2013)

Yes commercial includes advertising; selling prints I think would be retail (making a profit from the sales). It could depend on where photos are being sold, there may not be a need for a release to sell a print at a craft fair or art show but beyond that could be where you'd need a release to be covered for further usage.

That photo attorney link is not completely current, it's seven years old and the most recent workshops are from three years ago (if you click on Get more info. - it connects to nothing; the link to a Sept. blog connects to nothing; only the info. on selling the book seems active). Professional photographers' organizations provide reliable information and guidelines and ASMP has resources I've used but there are other organizations as well like PPA. Anyone can write a blog, it doesn't mean they have any particular expertise. 

It might not be necessary to have a release for a photo displayed in an art show or a gallery, and selling it would be one copy of the photo - one print sold for someone's personal use. That would obviously be more limited than other potential usage. 

It would be an extreme situation to have one photograph potentially worth so much that a photographer could hire an attorney just for that; having a release would make it more realistic that a photographer could make real use of an image and prevent problems after the fact.


----------



## skieur (Jul 13, 2013)

grafxman said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure however that Local, County, and State Law cannot violate US Constitutional Rights.
> ...



Sorry, let me rephrase that.  Local, County and State Law is often produced by those ignorant of the American Constitution.  The Civil Liberties Association or a constitutional lawyer can get involved in conflicts with individual rights.


----------



## Poley (Sep 4, 2014)

Sorry to bump this year old thread. This was sure helpful to me. I only recently started taking photos in my hometown (usually hand held travel photographer) and 2 out of the 3 times this week, i run into these busybodies. I really wish people would mind their own business. I was thinking why didn't i fight for my rights to take pictures in public places.

Disclaimer #3 seems to be very good advice. My first confrontation was a few days ago. I was in the city park doing AEB/HDR shots, camera on tripod pointed at city hall which was a few hundred feet away in front on me (its huge, even with my 11mm) . Fast forward 3 min later. 500ft to the west of me is a woman with her children and a stroller, making her way in my direction. OK fine, I wait thinking she just wants to cross the park. Well she starts talking to me. I'm listening thinking she is begging for money like many people in the area. She starts going off about release forms, demanding to see my photos to make sure i'm not taking photos of her. I explained as nice as i could, pointing to city hall and that she came from nowhere near where my camera was pointing. Noting i say appeases her. I finally decide enough is enough and i start leaving, shes still screaming at me that she is going to sue if I post any photos of her online. Im pretty sure now that if i didn't leave some of the other unsavory characters would get involved, beat me up or god forbid stab me as mentioned above.

Odd part is i head to Boston which is 45 miles west of me and i don't run into any problems now when i'm thousands of miles away in more impoverished nations.


----------



## Stickymoose (Sep 7, 2014)

The only thing I ever have a problem with is people taking wreck scene pictures. I'm an A-EMT and I will take photos of some cars and scenes for reporting purposes, and teaching so I can show my students new technique. However I will never get a camera out until every patient is clear of the scene. That's someone's most vulnerable moment I can't justify exploiting that for a good shot.


----------

