1. Forum
  2. General Discussion | Introductions | Off Topic Forum
  3. Photography General Discussion
  4. Permissions with photos of Santa

Permissions with photos of Santa


4 years 5 months ago #664498 by Patrick G
This question was originally thought about with recent costumes worn during Halloween.  But I'll shift the direction of this towards upcoming sightings of Santa.  Should you photograph one, are these sort of photos bound by the same release documents in order to use them?  Or do these fall into some fair use spot?  
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664538 by garyrhook
Santa has nothing to do with it. The rules don't change.

Not sure what you mean by "sighting" but if you refer to photography of subjects in public, then the aforementioned restrictions apply.
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664549 by Randy Shaw

garyrhook wrote: Santa has nothing to do with it. The rules don't change.

Not sure what you mean by "sighting" but if you refer to photography of subjects in public, then the aforementioned restrictions apply.



I'm going to go on a limb and guess "sighting" refers to how elusive 'Santa' is. 

Can't help you with your question Patrick.  I was curious about this answer as well.  I'm actually surprised, I would have guessed because 'Santa' is unrecognizable, that there might have been some different rules to this on the permissions side of things.  
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664600 by effron
People have been photographing Santa for a long time, its all about what you intend to do with the photos.....
Why so serious?
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664678 by Patrick G
Yes I get that, but wanted to find out if those images could be used in print or sold as stock 
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664682 by garyrhook

Patrick G wrote: Yes I get that, but wanted to find out if those images could be used in print or sold as stock 


And that's what we're trying to explain. The rules don't change just because it's Santa (or someone dressed up in a costume). You need to stop trying to carve out a special exception, because there isn't one.

Commercial purposes require a model release. Art does not.
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664697 by Patrick G

garyrhook wrote:

Patrick G wrote: Yes I get that, but wanted to find out if those images could be used in print or sold as stock 


And that's what we're trying to explain. The rules don't change just because it's Santa (or someone dressed up in a costume). You need to stop trying to carve out a special exception, because there isn't one.

Commercial purposes require a model release. Art does not.


Thank you.  I wasn't trying to be difficult or to carve out anything.  I was just trying to better understand this.  
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664724 by icepics
Agreed, it depends on usage. Editorial (newspaper) or personal use wouldn't require a release (but may be requested by a media outlet). For an art print, a release is not needed. As commercial (business, marketing, advertising) use, a release is necessary. For retail (mugs, T shirts) a release is needed. Stock?? if you're going to make a money from using someone's image, you probably better get a release signed.

Also makes a difference if the subject is recognizable. Even with a subject dressed in a costume, there could be identifying features like tatoos, etc. If the Santa isn't wearing a wig or maybe has a naturally white beard so the face isn't covered, the person might be recognizable.

Depends on where you see Santa. Could be at an event attended by the public but held at a private venue so it's up to the place or sponsoring organization if attendees can bring in cameras/long lenses or not. (I'm more familiar with sports where often only a camera with a short lens is allowed.)

Try pro photographers organizations like asmp.org or PPA for more info.
Sharon
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664731 by garyrhook

icepics wrote: Also makes a difference if the subject is recognizable. Even with a subject dressed in a costume, there could be identifying features like tatoos, etc. If the Santa isn't wearing a wig or maybe has a naturally white beard so the face isn't covered, the person might be recognizable.


No, the subject has to be identifiable. There's a difference. And even then a court might still get it wrong. But that still applies to commercial use, not art.

https://petapixel.com/2015/04/10/judge-fine-art-photographers-can-take-pictures-of-people-inside-their-homes-for-now/

I think the reasoning here is incorrect. The images were possible because of accessibility, not because they're being sold as "art". But they are not being used for commercial purposes, so it's fair game.
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664777 by effron

garyrhook wrote:  And even then a court might still get it wrong. 
.


That's the sad fact.....
Why so serious?
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664878 by Vahrenkamp
+1000%
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #664916 by Overread
Rent a Santa if you want to grow your holiday portfolio
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago - 4 years 5 months ago #665040 by icepics
"Definition of identifiable in English: Able to be recognized; distinguishable."
www.lexico.com/en/definition/identifiable

"Definition of recognizable in English: Able to be recognized or identified...".
Same source as cited above, substituting /recognizable for /identifiable.

The founder/editor of the Petapixel blog mostly seems to rewrite articles taken off other sites and the information doesn't seem to necesssarily be complete or accurate. In the original article from April 2015 in the Photo District News the last paragraph gives an explanation from the judge who concluded "...in these times of heightened threats to privacy posed by new and ever more invasive technologies, we call upon the Legislature to revisit this important issue." In the 4 1/2 years since it was written I don't know if any laws have changed to address this or not.

pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/04/arne-sven...y-invasion-case.html
Sharon
Photo Comments
,
4 years 5 months ago #665042 by garyrhook

icepics wrote: "Definition of identifiable in English: Able to be recognized; distinguishable."
www.lexico.com/en/definition/identifiable

"Definition of recognizable in English: Able to be recognized or identified...".
Same source as cited above, substituting /recognizable for /identifiable.


With all due respect, someone that knows you might be able to recognize you based on certain queues, but that doesn't mean you would necessarily be identifiable. While the dictionary might consider them synonymous, they aren't exactly the same thing.

Using the example of the NY photographer that took photos of folks within their apartments: the subjects could recognize themselves, but a stranger would certainly not be able to identify them. That's why i distinguish the use of the two words.
Photo Comments
,

  1. Forum
  2. General Discussion | Introductions | Off Topic Forum
  3. Photography General Discussion
  4. Permissions with photos of Santa

817.3K

241K

  • Facebook

    817,251 / Likes

  • Twitter

    241,000 / Followers

  • Google+

    1,620,816 / Followers

Show Me...

Visit 4wdtlak Forum
Saal

Latest Reviews

Canon EOS R100 Review

The Canon EOS R100 is an entry-level mirrorless camera introduced in 2023. But just because it’s an entry-level camera doesn’t mean it’s a bare-bones camera. Find out why in this review!

Apr 22, 2024
Nikon Zfc Review

Nikon’s retro-looking Nikon Zfc is anything but retro. Under its classic body is a host of features and amenities that make it a worthwhile compact mirrorless camera for 2024.

Apr 15, 2024
Canon EOS R50 Review

The Canon EOS R50 is one of the newest R-system cameras from Canon. Is it worth your money? Find out all the details you need to know in this comprehensive review.

Apr 10, 2024
Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II Review

The Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II is Sony’s flagship mirrorless zoom lens. As such, it’s loaded with features and has a top-shelf build quality that makes it a top pick!

Mar 27, 2024
More Articles
Get 600+ Pro photo lessons for $1

Forum Top Posters

Sponsored Imageimages2/50off.jpgSponsored Imageimages/stories/vendors/canon.png
Sponsored ImageSponsored Image

Latest Articles

Must-Have Insta360 Accessories

The Insta360 has one of the best lineups of action cams and 360-degree cameras. With these Insta360 accessories, you can elevate your photography and videography game!

Apr 24, 2024
5 Keys for More Impactful Photos of Landscapes

Creating impactful photos of landscapes depends on many factors, not the least of which is your talent behind the lens. This guide explores other elements required for the best product.

Apr 23, 2024
Canon EOS R100 Review

The Canon EOS R100 is an entry-level mirrorless camera introduced in 2023. But just because it’s an entry-level camera doesn’t mean it’s a bare-bones camera. Find out why in this review!

Apr 22, 2024
Expert Tips to Upgrade Your Camera Gear With Used Equipment

Are you ready to upgrade your camera? Before buying new, you might consider the value of purchasing used gear to save money.

Apr 18, 2024
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV vs Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

The Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV is a micro four thirds camera released in 2020. It’s an entry-level system along with the OM-D E-M5 Mark III. Use this guide to determine which one is best for you!

Apr 17, 2024
What is Blue Hour Photography?

Blue hour photography might not be as well known as golden hour photography, but it is every bit as good a time to create epic images of landscapes. Learn how in this quick tutorial!

Apr 17, 2024
Nikon Zfc Review

Nikon’s retro-looking Nikon Zfc is anything but retro. Under its classic body is a host of features and amenities that make it a worthwhile compact mirrorless camera for 2024.

Apr 15, 2024
5 Dog Photography Tips for Stunning Results

Moving from taking snapshots of your dog to creating beautiful images doesn’t have to be that difficult! Use the tips outlined in this dog photography guide, and you’ll get better results in no time.

Apr 15, 2024
More Articles