# Do I need permission to post pictures of people I have photographed on my website?



## PeaPod

I have been taking pictures for about 10 years. Mostly as a hobby but I am trip director for corporate meeting planners and I would sometimes get paid to take pictures of awards ceremonies at their dinner events. There were no contracts signed regarding the pictures. I would give them a CD of images and an invoice and they would give me a check. I have lots of photos from the past 10 years, some I got paid for taking some I didn't but I took them ALL. I have just started a business with a website for my meeting and photography services. In my sample gallery I have posted a bunch of pictures from the past 10 years. Some are of scenery and some are of people from meetings or awards I have done. My question is this: Do I need their permission to put their images on my website? I am not putting names with them, just pictures. I hope somebody can help me. First time here...it looks like some seriously useful info going around! Thanks! PeaPod.


----------



## ryan7783

My understanding is that as long as you photograph them in a public venue and you are NOT making money from the images, it is fine to post them without written permission.

I'm fuzzy on the details but that is what I've gathered thus far


----------



## PeaPod

Thank You! This is a good start. 
Some of the pictures I took pictures were on a golf course during a private golf tournament and I did get paid for taking pictures at the time. But I am not selling them on the website, they are just examples of my work. The awards pictures are in a ballroom during a dinner event for a private corporate function. Do you think that is still public?
Also I did a charity gig of couples pictures and I am using a service to help me sell those images. They are in a separate part of my website and they are password protected with the password going only to those that had their picture taken. (I'm sure that's ok but it's still the sample pictures I am worried about.) I have also started asking EVERY person I photograph if I can use their picture for my site but it could take a while to re-build my sample gallery.
Hey I am really new to this whole forum thing..(Very cool by the way) Question; Can I post my website here to show you guys what I am talking about? Is that ok?


----------



## im_trying11

yes, perfectly fine


----------



## PeaPod

Thanks again for helping me with this dilema! 
www.mypeapodproductions.com


----------



## visualpoetry

I always thought you did need permission and a model release would give you that. I could be wrong, that was just my assumption.


----------



## blash

if that's allowed, then when is it not allowed (only when the photos are for sale)? I thought you needed someone's permission in order to photograph them and thus had to be careful in public spaces i.e. parks.


----------



## Jeff Colburn

Generally, if the pictures are taken at a public place or event, you don't need a release. But you can't say anything bad about the subjects, like they're ugly, fat, etc. You also can't use the pictures to promote a product. And of course, any of them can sue you if they want.

Have Fun,
Jeff


----------



## skieur

blash said:


> if that's allowed, then when is it not allowed (only when the photos are for sale)? I thought you needed someone's permission in order to photograph them and thus had to be careful in public spaces i.e. parks.


 
Taking photos of people is allowed almost anywhere with the common sense exceptions of washrooms, change rooms, courts in session etc.
A model release is necessary if the photo is used to promote a product or for advertising purposes.  Otherwise, it can be used, sold, displayed, published for any editorial or artistic purpose.

There have also been some American cases where because a backyard was in public view, the owner could not have a reasonable expectation to privacy there, so a photo could be taken and used.  Judgements in this area have depended on the individual situation.  Someone outside the front of their house could probably also have their photo taken too, irrespective of being on private property.

skieur


----------



## LJA

I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I am perplexed.
I am a webmaster for a church site. Myself and other members often take pictures of events at church and sometimes post them on our website -- no names, no comments (other than VBS Day 1 or Annual Reunion Dinner).
We do not sell the pictures, but in a sense we are advertising the church.
Would common sense say that is a 'public' place and therefore okay to publish?

If the answer to the above is yes, here's a follow-up: What about children's pictures from events? Like Vacation Bible School, our Sunday Church theater, Trunk-Or-Trick? Do we have to get every parent's permission to post their child's picture on the website?

Oh, we are in USA, if that is a question.

Thank you all -- lot's of great stuff on this site!


----------



## Lyncca

LJA said:


> I am not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I am perplexed.
> I am a webmaster for a church site. Myself and other members often take pictures of events at church and sometimes post them on our website -- no names, no comments (other than VBS Day 1 or Annual Reunion Dinner).
> We do not sell the pictures, but in a sense we are advertising the church.
> Would common sense say that is a 'public' place and therefore okay to publish?
> 
> If the answer to the above is yes, here's a follow-up: What about children's pictures from events? Like Vacation Bible School, our Sunday Church theater, Trunk-Or-Trick? Do we have to get every parent's permission to post their child's picture on the website?
> 
> Oh, we are in USA, if that is a question.
> 
> Thank you all -- lot's of great stuff on this site!


 
I'm pretty sure you are fine. You aren't advertising for the church unless you create a flier with their name on it, then put the kids pictures on it and put it out for advertisement for the church. Or, if one of those kids was drinking a Coke, and you sold it to Coca-Cola for them to promotoe Coke in a magazine.

Also, if the church allows the photography on private property, then you should also be ok there too. 

Of course, someone can sue whether they have a leg to stand on or not


----------



## LJA

Thanks for the reply.
Yes, sometimes I think that USA is latin for 'let everyone sue'.
Thanks again.


----------



## THORHAMMER

if your cant easily tell who is in the picture you are totally fine,but if you can clearly make out the face, i think technically your supposed to get a release  if your using it to promote your site commercially. 

now a paid event where they are just a background, or bystander is probably never going to get you in trouble, ever, but if you spotlight someone, make a full 800 pixels portrait on your site, they could ask you to take it down if they didnt like it. 

now if its art, then its different story all together. 

dont worry about it, if you ever get contacted, just deal them out free portrait session and get the release signed in return for the favor.


----------



## skieur

Lyncca is correct, although the Church being a public place, property ownership is not really relevant.

Advertising requires a model release but this is not advertising.  Doing photos of kids in Church doing church event/activities is considered "editorial use" which does not require a model release.  An out-of-context advertising use as Lynnca suggested as in using a shot to sell Coca Cola, certainly would require a model release.

skieur


----------



## tsaraleksi

The only thing you need a release for is advertising. An image can be used editorially (as in, to illustrate a story in a magazine, newspaper, or website), or as part of a portfolio or other similar display. You can also sell prints or whatever you like, as determined by a lawsuit a few years back.


----------



## PeaPod

Ok so first thank you to all who have contributed to this string. After reading all of your stuff and speaking to a few photographers I have encountered in the last month here is what I have come up with, and what I plan on doing...
My website has lots of pictures of people I have taken for free or gotten paid for over the last 10 years. I have actually, just by chance, talked to a few of them and they are thrilled to be on my site. As I circulate my site to the meeting planners I work for I will just be aware that I am most likely legally totally in the clear. However, if anybody says I don't want my picture on your site I will simply apologize and remove that picture from the site. Now the meeting planner says, You took that picture while working for us and we dont want our attendees face on your site, I will say since it doesnt mention your company name anywhere on the picture I think I am legally able to use it and I don't think they would mind. But if you feel the need to contact them feel free and if they want me to take their picture down I would be happy to do that. 
Now I guess I have one more question. One of the pictures actually is of backs of heads but clearly says Mitsubishi in it. I would think Mitsubishi would be thrilled but the meeting planner that hired me could just be persnickety. I will say that I still think I am legally ok and will just ask if we could contact the client directly and allow me to ask them permission. Honestly I just have one meeting planner that for some reason just likes to be difficult and they are who I am worried about. Im sure you all know people like that! (Sorry for the long post)
How does that sound??? Anybody?


----------



## dtornabene1

There are two issues you need to work with here.  First is the Model Release and second would be Property Release.  For the Model Release I would like to reference Photography People by Roderick Macmillan:

""In most countries, people may be photographed in public places and the images published without obtaining consent.  However, if the cooperation of the subjects was obtained, the photographs were shot in a private place, or the images are to be used commercially...it is only reasonable to seek permission before proceeding."

For Property Release I would like to reference The Basic Book Of Photography by Tom Grimm and Michele Grimm.

"Advertisers may also require PROPERTY RELEASES if a building or other identifiable property is prominent in the picture."

Look, if it is a private function get a release.  If you are in a park and snapping away _without_ the cooperation of the subject _and_ no private property is in place, you are fine.

The two books I referenced are good, but do not directly deal with legalities so I also recommend getting a book like Wedding And Portrait Photographers' Legal Handbook by Norman Phillips and Christopher S. Nudo, Esq.  This book is written for the laws of Illinois, however it is very detailed and provides great legal advice for only $30.

Hope this helps.

-Nick


----------



## bdavis

Short answer, if its taken out in public and using it for portfolio, photojournalism, etc you don't need a release.

As soon as you try to make money off of it by selling it, using it in advertising, etc then you do need a release.


----------



## christm

If children are in the photos then ASK.


----------



## bdavis

christm said:


> If children are in the photos then ASK.



In that case...yes, for the love of god, just ask. Don't get tied up in that mess! I've been there before when shooting a fair.


----------



## THORHAMMER

bdavis said:


> Short answer, if its taken out in public and using it for portfolio, photojournalism, etc you don't need a release.
> 
> As soon as you try to make money off of it by selling it, using it in advertising, etc then you do need a release.



I just wanted to clear that up, you can make all the money in the world on it without a release and keep all the money. As long as your in pursuit of art. When it's advertising for a product or trade(craft) then you must have the release 

Street photography as well as studio photography can be art, now if you want to sell images of a client that paid you for the shots then you better get the release, other then that shoot away, publish books, sell prints in galleries etc ..

Also, your portfolio is advertising your professional services so I would get the release to be on the safe side if it's people. And photojournalism doesn't work if you signed a no-compete clause with your news agency, all pictures you shoot while working are their property not yours. 

The part I don't know about yet is if your a real estate photographer and you also want to sell pictures of houses as art could you advertise on the same website without getting a property release? Tricky- but I'm guessing 2 websites would be enough to seperate it.


----------



## bdavis

See now I'm confused. I didnt think you could sell prints of it, artistic or not, without a release. Personally if there was a photo of me floating around that someone was selling without my permission I'd be a bit pissed, but that's just me. From what you're saying, I can't do anything about it? That doesn't sound right.

We need a lawyer's opinion! I know one, I'll ask him when I see him.


----------



## THORHAMMER

bdavis said:


> See now I'm confused. I didnt think you could sell prints of it, artistic or not, without a release. Personally if there was a photo of me floating around that someone was selling without my permission I'd be a bit pissed, but that's just me. From what you're saying, I can't do anything about it? That doesn't sound right.
> We need a lawyer's opinion! I know one, I'll ask him when I see him.




I don't know the scope of your website? Are you promoting your services as a portrait photographer? In that case they could pressure you to take their pictures down. If your just promoting your version of art street photography there's absolutely nothing that can be done. 

Google emo nussenzweig , he tried to sue Philip lorcia dicorcia over some street photographs they sold at gallery for 150,000.00 and were also published I'm a book.
Supreme court threw out the case


----------



## bdavis

I dont have a website yet, but do have a deviantART page up. I was going to try to sell photos from it and eventually make a site of my own to showcase my work. Everything will be from an art standpoint, not advertising or promotion. 

I also know of a site called Blurb where you can make your own professional quality photo books and have them printed. They make great coffee table books and others can even buy your books as well.

Those were my ideas, would any of this be a problem as long as it was for the sake of art?


----------



## THORHAMMER

As long as you didn't have a no compete clause , and didn't get paid by anyone in the photos you should be fine.

If you know a lawyer ask em to be sure.


----------



## bdavis

Thanks for the reply. I will.


----------



## Bokeh717

Hi there...

Looks of it this section of the forum is quite old, but I'll give it a go.

Photography is simply a hobby for me at this time.... there is always that possibility of one day having a business doing photography but in the mean time I only shoot for fun. Once in a while I do small events and take family portraits for friends etc. As always I don't ask for money, the trade off is that I get the experience and they get free pictures. The other catch is, a lot of my stuff end up on a photo sharing site called "flickr" simply for artistic purposes and getting other amateur and professional photographers to critique my work. No intentions of selling or publishing etc. Well, here is my BIG issue that I am currently facing....several months back I approached my boss at work and spoke to her about offering my photographic services for our yearly _office/awards dinner_ because the photographer who they normally use who is _their friend_ and _my friend_, fell ill....right there and then NO contract of any kind was signed or to get paid...I did it for completely free. After the awards dinner, the following day I gave all the images to my "employer" on CD and I kept most of it for myself and some of them landed up on my "flickr" page...my boss soon found out about this and was furious and sent me home, suspension....I may lose my job over this....can anyone help me, what are my rights?


----------



## KmH

You really should have started a new thread.

Getting paid or not paid has nothing to do with it.

Not having an agreement in writing is a mistake many amateur shooters make when they start taking photos for their employer (or anyone else for that matter) - gratis.

It sounds like your job description says nothing about doing photography for the company. If so, then shooting the awards dinner would not be considered 'work for hire', which means you have sole ownership of copyright to all the photos. No one attending the awards dinner could have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. You would only need properly executed model releases if you were putting the photos on Flickr to promote yourself as a photographer, however I am not all that familiar with Califiornia's statutes regarding 'right of publicity'.

You do not mention the venue for the awards dinner. Was it on company property, or elsewhere?

The bottom line is, your employer can likely fire you for any reason. Only a qualified attorney can advise you regargarding California employment law and the specifics of copyright and photo usage..


----------



## Bokeh717

KmH said:


> You really should have started a new thread.
> 
> Getting paid or not paid has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Not having an agreement in writing is a mistake many amateur shooters make when they start taking photos for their employer (or anyone else for that matter) - gratis.
> 
> *It sounds like your job description says nothing about doing photography for the company*. If so, then shooting the awards dinner would not be considered 'work for hire', which means you have sole ownership of copyright to all the photos. No one attending the awards dinner could have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. You would only need properly executed model releases if you were putting the photos on Flickr to promote yourself as a photographer, however I am not all that familiar with Califiornia's statutes regarding 'right of publicity'.
> 
> You do not mention the venue for the awards dinner. *Was it on company property, or elsewhere?*
> 
> The bottom line is, your employer can likely fire you for any reason. Only a qualified attorney can advise you regargarding California employment law and the specifics of copyright and photo usage..



Firstly, thank you for replying to my post....

NO, I was NOT hired as their photographer...I was hired to do clerical work. 

The awards dinner was organized through my employer held at a "private" golf club....

And sorry, I should mention I'm new to this forum....I should have started a new thread....


----------



## Lucy Lips

Thanks so much for the information 
I really appreciate you finding it and sharing


----------



## markbaiz

I did a photo-shoot for some friends for free in a public place and was wondering if I could possibly post them on my website. It would only be used for my portfolio and not for advertisement.


----------



## Buckster

markbaiz said:


> I did a photo-shoot for some friends for free in a public place and was wondering if I could possibly post them on my website. It would only be used for my portfolio and not for advertisement.


Unless you and your friends have a contract that says you cannot, then yes, you can post them.

When you shoot a photo, you instantly get the copyright for that photo, unless you have a contract with someone saying otherwise.  You can post, print and show your photos wherever and however you like.

To use them commercially, you would need your friends to sign a model release, which you should always get when you're setting up a shoot anyway, even with friends.


----------



## jwk123

a little different topic, i own a business and some of our clients took a photo of themselves wearing a shirt of ours. I would like to post it on a social media site, but do i need permission prior to posting it even though they sent it to us?


----------



## Patriot

Hahahaha its a zombie thread...5 years and still going strong lol


----------



## catzcandu

Someone else wrote to Yahoo Answers the following:
The person who takes a photograph owns the copyright to it (with a few  rare exceptions such as "work for hire") and can post it as he chooses.  Unless the photograph was illegally taken - which means taken without  the subjects consent in a place where the subject enjoyed a "reasonable  expectation of privacy" then the subject has no say in how the  photographer uses it.  

Examples...  
1) You are on the street when the picture is taken. You have no  "reasonable expectation of privacy", and you have no control at all over  the use of the photo. 
2) You are at a private party, drunk, as is the photographer. He takes a  picture of you doing something embarrassing in front of a bunch of your  friends. You have no "reasonable expectation of privacy", and you have  no control at all over the use of the photo. 
3) You are having sex with a boyfriend, and he grabs his cellphone to  take a picture of you 'in action'. You smile and give the camera a  'thumbs up' for the picture. You had a "reasonable expectation of  privacy", but you consented to the photo, and you have no control at all  over the use of the photo. 
4) You are having sex with a boyfriend, and he grabs his cellphone to  take a picture of you 'in action' while you are blindfolded, and don't  know. You had a "reasonable expectation of privacy", and you did not  consent to the photo, so he may not publish it without your consent.  

Note that as a separate issue, if the photographer "commercially  exploits your image" then you are entitled to be paid for it - but you  cannot prevent the use. {and I say, this is why a professional signs a release, as they are releasing the rights to the venue to make money from the image of you and you are signing off any monetary claim to any extension of financial benefit beyond your "model fee"}


----------



## robbins.photo

Actually I would be very, very careful with this one and get some professional legal advice.  In general you can use images without a modelling release if the person in the photo cannot be recognized by anyone, the photograph is not used for advertisement or is not being used for a commercial business purpose.

However there are some issues here, first it's pretty easy for most anyone to bring in someone who knows them and prove that they are recognizable, unless your talking about a silhouette of some sort.  Advertisement can be very broadly defined and commercial business purpose does not necessarily mean your selling the photograph, it also includes using it on a commercial website if it's being used to "enhance" the commercial business, in this case selling your professional photographic services.

So in this case, I'd advise you to lawyer up first and get a pro to look this over.


----------



## The_Traveler

ZOMBIE THREAD


----------



## KmH

Yep, there's a lot of ways beyond seeing a person's face that can make a person can be 'recognizable'.

A scar, a unique hair cut or hair style, custom made clothes, a tattoo, a mole, and other things can make someone 'recognizable'.


----------

