# Photo Consent



## TriggerLoft (Dec 31, 2016)

If a person has not given me consent to have them in any of my photos, is it okay for me to keep them in my photos if they are either blurred entirely or aren't showing their faces?


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 31, 2016)

In the United States, the "consent" rule typically applies only when using an image of someone for commercial purposes.  As in an advertisement. If the image is for your personal use and/or for the purpose of art or news/editorial, then you have free range. This rule only applies to an image captured in public places.  People in the U.S. do have a right to privacy once they remove themselves from public property.


----------



## zombiesniper (Dec 31, 2016)

The same basic rules apply here in Canada as well.
 As long as they have no reasonable expectation of privacy and you're not using it for commercial purposes you do not normally need a consent form.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 31, 2016)

I assume this refers to your post on the photoshoot at the homeless shelter?  If so, then it's a bit of a tricky one for a number of reasons.  It doesn't actually fit the Federal or any of the Provincial definitions (of which I am aware) of a location where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, BUT...  ensure that you verify whether or not NB has any special requirements.  The other issue is that while a soup kitchen doesn't meet the legal definition for a reasonable expectation of privacy, it likely does based on precedent; in other words:  A person may have been coming there every day/week/month and not been photographed, so they can assume there won't be a photographer there to day.  Will that hold up in court?  Almost certainly not, BUT...  it could be enough for the basis of an action.  

From a moral perspective, I think that simply advising each person who enters verbally as well as posting signs at the entrance indicating that they may be photographed would be sufficient.  If you do intend to use this for advertising than you will need releases.  OTOH, if this question simply refers to an image of a random person in a random location, ignore this and go with the what Gary & ZS said.


----------



## TriggerLoft (Dec 31, 2016)

The photos I'm taking are going on a Facebook page and it doesn't include any photos of the homeless people, only the servers and chefs. However, two of the servers have refused to have their photos taken and so I didn't take any photos directly of them. Although, they were in the background of some of my photos with their faces blurred, so would that be okay even without their agreement?


----------



## tirediron (Dec 31, 2016)

If they're not recognizable there is no issue.  It doesn't matter if they "know" that is them in the background because they were standing there, as long as they aren't recognizable*.

*John is not a lawyer, does not play one on television and definitely did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night; the preceding is a personal opinion formed based on experience and education.  For a definitive opinion, consult an IP lawyer in your area.


----------



## zombiesniper (Dec 31, 2016)

Agree with everything above. I'll also add that a workplace could have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This could include a kitchen if it is not directly viewable from the dining area. 
Now having said that it seems that you have gotten permission from the workers that you intend to show and have somehow made the others unrecognizable which is all you need to do.


----------



## dennybeall (Jan 2, 2017)

Unless it's a news story and they are in cuffs I'll change position to miss them or Photoshop them out completely in post.


----------

