# Selling Photos with people



## acparsons (Apr 2, 2014)

Hello All,

   I have a photo of a person that I took on the street. Actually, the photo below. I did not get his permission. What are the regulations on selling the photo?


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 2, 2014)

In the United States, I don't believe you'd be able to do it.

But you're in Korea,,,


----------



## bribrius (Apr 2, 2014)

well that sucks. the odds of keeping everyone out of your frame in a country full of millions of people just isn't always realistic. suppose you could yell "bomb" to get them all to run but that could cause other implications. You have a great photo, someone walks through just the corner of the frame. so what do you do about that?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 2, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> In the United States, I don't believe you'd be able to do it.
> 
> But you're in Korea,,,


Don't be so sure.


----------



## lambertpix (Apr 2, 2014)

Most of the commercial or stock sites I've seen require releases for anyone who's "recognizable", and I think this guy would probably count in that respect.  Nice shot, though.


----------



## Newtricks (Apr 2, 2014)

My advice is look up and read about where a model release is needed in your location, at least in the U.S. problems with selling photos without a release arise when the photo is being used for trade or advertising according to the ASMP, sale of photos of people in public place used for news, artistic or educational proposes do not require a release (well that how I understand what I've read).


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 2, 2014)

People in the US sell photos all the time of people in public without releases, in book or gallery contexts as artwork in their own right. You can generally get away with it, but it is still a little bit gray/iffy, and of course there's no point in risking it if you can possibly get a model release. Also for sure you'd want to contact a lawyer if shots without model releases were a recurring thing in your business and/or if selling for a lot of money.

Absolutely no clue about Korea.


----------



## KmH (Apr 2, 2014)

Here in the USA it depends on how the photo is used.

In _*Nussenzweig v. diCorcia*_ the usage was an editorial use based on the legal definitions of commercial use and editorial use.
In other words selling photos for non-commercial usage usually does not require permission (a model release).
If a person in a photo is well known them personality rights might apply. Personality rights

Here in the US, model release/property/personality rights laws are state law and as such vary somewhat from state to state.

As you've discovered from at least 1 post in the thread, an online photography forum can be a poor place to seek legal advice.
Consult with an attorney familiar with publication law where you are.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 2, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> In the United States, I don't believe you'd be able to do it.
> 
> But you're in Korea,,,



How do you think Elliot Erwitt, Joel Meyerowitz, Garry Winnogrand, Bruce Gilden go on, it is ok as long as it is not for advertising


----------



## bribrius (Apr 2, 2014)

okay. so we wouldn't need to worry about this........


----------



## Newtricks (Apr 2, 2014)

Why are paparazzi so hated... because they can sell any image taken in a public place of whomever, for editorial, media or artistic use without a release or paying royalties.


----------



## Newtricks (Apr 2, 2014)

I worked in the motion picture industry for nearly 30 years, and have taken photos of the "Stars" on the streets in and around Hollywood for nearly as long. At the end of the day... if they're out in public when the shot is taken, it's fair game.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 2, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > In the United States, I don't believe you'd be able to do it.
> ...



I don't know who any of those people are, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

But whether or not something is used for advertising is not the barometer for which we determine the need for a release...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 2, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> I worked in the motion picture industry for nearly 30 years, and have taken photos of the "Stars" on the streets in and around Hollywood for nearly as long. At the end of the day... if they're out in public when the shot is taken, it's fair game.



You're correct, but to a point.

Yes, you can take their picture.

What you do with that photo, though, is an entirely different matter.

Yes, there are instances in which the photo can be sold. But you're painting with a really wide brush...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 2, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> Why are paparazzi so hated... because they can sell any image taken in a public place of whomever, for editorial, media or artistic use without a release or paying royalties.



That's not why they're hated. They're hated because they're professional stalkers...


----------



## Newtricks (Apr 2, 2014)

You're correct, but to a point.

Yes, you can take their picture.

What you do with that photo, though, is an entirely different matter...[/QUOTE]

Exactly correct, so long as I am selling it as an editorial, educational or work of art and not as a promotion for this or this that or whatever etc... I am with my rights.


----------



## Newtricks (Apr 2, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Newtricks said:
> 
> 
> > Why are paparazzi so hated... because they can sell any image taken in a public place of whomever, for editorial, media or artistic use without a release or paying royalties.
> ...



I stand corrected.


----------



## Newtricks (Apr 2, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Yes, you can take their picture.
> 
> What you do with that photo, though, is an entirely different matter.
> 
> Yes, there are instances in which the photo can be sold. But you're painting with a really wide brush...



You are right, there are limits as how the images can be used.


----------



## Newtricks (Apr 2, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> That's not why they're hated. They're hated because they're professional stalkers...



Well there is that too...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 2, 2014)

this could be one of things where until someone notices, someone complains, a letter shows up with a threat from a lawyer, and you get a court date. you really don't have to worry about it.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 2, 2014)

If someone is out in public on public property, they have no  "expectation of privacy," and can be photographed by anyone, and such a  photograph can be used without their permission for news, editorial,  artistic, and other uses. The picture can *not* be used for "commercial"  purposes, such as to promote a product or company. These kinds of photos  can legally be sold for non-commercial purposes without the consent of  the people in the photo.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 2, 2014)

and I would crop this a bit.
Since the face is almost lost, make it a bit tighter on the right so that the tightness is assumed to be on purpose.

Quite a nice shot, I think.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 2, 2014)

You could look at sites like ASMP's although I don't know if that would cover usage in your country. Their site also mentions retail use; I'm not sure if that refers to putting photos on T shirts, mugs etc. to sell, or if it includes other usage for profit (to make money) such as selling the image online. 

ASMP has a 'pocket' release meant to be carried by a photographer to use while out shooting, and have releases available as an app. If you don't get a release signed at the time that may limit your potential usage. You could use it for editorial purposes (newspaper) without a release but probably not for retail or commercial. If you sell a print the purpose would be for someone to display in their home; other retail use I think could mean you're making money from someone's likeness in your photos. If you get the subject's permission then you'd more likely be covered. 

I think that the difference with some of the well known photographers mentioned in another post was that their photos were at the time probably sold as prints, published in a museum/gallery's catalogue that would have accompanied an exhibit, or published in a magazine. The photos sold would have been for an individual buyer's personal use. Now museums have those often displayed online as part of their collection, and after a certain amount of time the photos could be in the public domain. 

I'd consider reading Terms & Conditions on websites to know if posting on a site gives that site usage (and/or allows third party usage). I'd consider getting releases signed to avoid potential problems later.


----------



## wyogirl (Apr 4, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> In the United States, I don't believe you'd be able to do it.
> 
> But you're in Korea,,,



Not entirely true.  In the US you couldn't sell this for commercial use, like to a stock photography site.
You CAN sell it as art.

Edit:  I guess I should have read all the replies.... lots of people beat me to it.


----------



## webestang64 (Apr 5, 2014)

A little info here......     When Photographers Need a Photo Release or Use of Likeness


----------

