Are breaking news media photographers exempt from model release forms?

I've been watching in horror what has happened in Colorado and looking at photos of victims and families online. Some of the photos posted on Yahoo, MSN and other news sites have me wondering. When a photographer takes a photo of a victim in tears (as example) of a tragedy like this, are they able to use that photo legally or are they getting that person to sign release? I can't imagine they are getting people to sign these.

How does that work?

Covering a news event would be considered editorial use (journalism); the photographers would be working for a newspaper, magazine, etc. I think the photos belong to the publication, it may depend on the terms of the contracts with their photographers. No, they wouldn't be getting photo releases under these circumstances, but then the usage wouldn't be for commercial or retail use.

Here are some guidelines - asmp.org/tutorials/licensing-guide.html .

Which bring up a good point about paparazzi, now how does that work with them?

Paparazzi get around the so-called "right to privacy" by shooting celebrities. There's a body of case law establishing that celebrities and public figures have far less expectation of privacy. They're fair game.

hghlndr6 wrote: Paparazzi get around the so-called "right to privacy" by shooting celebrities. There's a body of case law establishing that celebrities and public figures have far less expectation of privacy. They're fair game.

Generally when celebrities are photographed it is in public. There is no right to privacy in public spaces, aside from places generally accepted to be places where privacy is expected (bathrooms, change rooms, etc). So there is nothing illegal about it

The only potential legal issues i can see are stalking and harassment charges... not so much privacy issues.

Okay ... maybe it's the Canada/USA thing. And it's not unusual for common, or common sense, definitions to differ from a legal definition. "Privacy" is one of those.

What we're really talking about here is "appropriation." Appropriation of ones name or photograph for commercial purposes without one's consent is considered to be an invasion of privacy under the common laws of certain states and has also found its way into certain US Supreme Court decisions concerning "privacy."

So yeah, it's a privacy issue, at least as far as the courts are concerned. And a non-celebrity, non-public person does indeed enjoy protection against such an invasion (appropriation) in a public place. That's the reason we get signed releases.

hghlndr6 wrote: Okay ... here's the Canada/USA thing again.

What we're really talking about here is "appropriation." Appropriation of ones name or photograph for commercial purposes without one's consent is considered to be an invasion of privacy under the common laws of certain states and has also found its way into certain US Supreme Court decisions concerning "privacy."

So yeah, it's a privacy issue, at least as far as the courts are concerned. And a non-celebrity, non-public person does indeed enjoy protection against such an invasion (appropriation) in a public place. That's the whole reason we get signed releases.

we're not talking about commercial purposes however. these images are used in "journalism"/publications/editorials. These people are deemed newsworthy. Same goes if you are joe-nobody who happened to be kissing in the middle of a riot. model releases are not needed. If they use the image to promote their perfume then its a liable/defamation issue

And from all the research i can gather, using ones name and likeness is a liable/defamation issue. Not a privacy one.

Eg... From the Stanford Uni Website

fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_.../chapter12/12-a.html

However, it is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited. Such photos can be used freely for informational purposes, provided that the use does not defame or hold the individual up to a false light.

So... its generally not a privacy issue. and its not a Canadian thing.

The photo release is for usage, whether it's editorial, commercial, or retail. I don't think that covers how or where pictures are taken.

I believe the reasonable expectation of privacy in a publc place relates as mentioned to restrooms, locker rooms, etc. as well as to personal body space.

I guess it's up to the photographer in a situation like this if photos covering a news event are taken in a respectful way or not. Usually photographers at a crime scene would be taking photos for editorial use; if someone happened to be there with access to the incident and wanted to use their photos for retail or commercial use they'd need to first get photo releases.

asmp.org/articles/business-and-legal-faq.html

icepics wrote: The photo release is for usage, whether it's editorial, commercial, or retail. I don't think that covers how or where pictures are taken.

I believe the reasonable expectation of privacy in a publc place relates as mentioned to restrooms, locker rooms, etc. as well as to personal body space.

I guess it's up to the photographer in a situation like this if photos covering a news event are taken in a respectful way or not. Usually photographers at a crime scene would be taking photos for editorial use; if someone happened to be there with access to the incident and wanted to use their photos for retail or commercial use they'd need to first get photo releases.

asmp.org/articles/business-and-legal-faq.html

Exactly!
Expectation of privacy is only for private places, that are not viewable from a public area, is a more accurate definition. For anyone shooting in public they can do so without restriction, so long as they are not using the photos for commercial purposes, if you want to use them for that then you have to retain a signed release. If you sell your images to a paper or publication you do not. Now to more define public and private, public places are those that are commons areas that are government/people owned, private places are those which are held by individuals, or corporate entities. So if you are in somebodies parking lot you can be restricted as well as any sidewalk that is on their direct property. Stores and malls are private property with limited public access for the purpose of doing business. This is where many people get into trouble when taking photos and thinking somebody is violating their rights, and they are wrong to think so. But shooting on city streets and sidewalks is fair game even if you are photographing into a private area that is viewable from it. This is where the other side gets it wrong. You have zero expectation of privacy when in public, people need to get over this personal space crap when they are out and about in public.

Well this was interesting to read

geoffellis wrote:

hghlndr6 wrote: Okay ... here's the Canada/USA thing again.

What we're really talking about here is "appropriation." Appropriation of ones name or photograph for commercial purposes without one's consent is considered to be an invasion of privacy under the common laws of certain states and has also found its way into certain US Supreme Court decisions concerning "privacy."

So yeah, it's a privacy issue, at least as far as the courts are concerned. And a non-celebrity, non-public person does indeed enjoy protection against such an invasion (appropriation) in a public place. That's the whole reason we get signed releases.

we're not talking about commercial purposes however. these images are used in "journalism"/publications/editorials. These people are deemed newsworthy. Same goes if you are joe-nobody who happened to be kissing in the middle of a riot. model releases are not needed. If they use the image to promote their perfume then its a liable/defamation issue

And from all the research i can gather, using ones name and likeness is a liable/defamation issue. Not a privacy one.

Eg... From the Stanford Uni Website

fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_.../chapter12/12-a.html

However, it is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited. Such photos can be used freely for informational purposes, provided that the use does not defame or hold the individual up to a false light.

So... its generally not a privacy issue. and its not a Canadian thing.

I don't disagree with anything in that Stanford link ... as far as it goes. It's a superficial treatment of a complicated subject.

My source was/is Mass Communication Law, Cases and Comment, 3rd edition; Gillmor & Barron; pp 311-359. (Yeah, I know it's an old edition). Can't provide a link; it's a big, heavy book.

geoffellis wrote:

hghlndr6 wrote: Paparazzi get around the so-called "right to privacy" by shooting celebrities. There's a body of case law establishing that celebrities and public figures have far less expectation of privacy. They're fair game.

Generally when celebrities are photographed it is in public. There is no right to privacy in public spaces, aside from places generally accepted to be places where privacy is expected (bathrooms, change rooms, etc). So there is nothing illegal about it

The only potential legal issues i can see are stalking and harassment charges... not so much privacy issues.

icepics wrote: The photo release is for usage, whether it's editorial, commercial, or retail. I don't think that covers how or where pictures are taken.

I believe the reasonable expectation of privacy in a publc place relates as mentioned to restrooms, locker rooms, etc. as well as to personal body space.

I guess it's up to the photographer in a situation like this if photos covering a news event are taken in a respectful way or not. Usually photographers at a crime scene would be taking photos for editorial use; if someone happened to be there with access to the incident and wanted to use their photos for retail or commercial use they'd need to first get photo releases.

asmp.org/articles/business-and-legal-faq.html