Street photography and legal question

I was wondering if you take a photograph of a model (you have model release form) or a object, but in the back ground there are people in clear view, do you need to have a model release form on each one of those people if you intend to submit that photo to a contest or magazine for print?

Yes, if they are "recognizable".

When shooting models many use a very long lens. Creates a shallow Depth of Field.

HTH

MLKstudios wrote: Yes, if they are "recognizable".

When shooting models many use a very long lens. Creates a shallow Depth of Field.

HTH

Or you could blur their faces or back ground out in post processing.

Exactly! They could be any two Mexicans on the right, but the lady on the left (of the two Wieners) would be recognizable:

gawker.com/5811910/

I just photoshop dead presidents faces on any bystanders...

.. and I would bet no one recognizes them -- the presidents.

I'm not sure, I would need to look into it further, but I have a law background and it seems to me if it's on the street, then you wouldn't need one because (I can't remember the specific word), but basically they are out in the open - you can even take a picture of your neighbors house, and as long as you're on the street, it's fine, even if they are naked in the window, lol. If they are clearly trying to not be in the shot or if they or they express a desire not to be in the shot, then that might be different. Now I don't know what it would be if you are asking to publish in a magazine or something, but usually if it's on a public street, everyone is fair game.

Depends on its use. In a journalistic sense, you have more leeway. If you use the image to make money, or advertise, then a release is a "safe" way to go.

Happy-pixel wrote:

MLKstudios wrote: Yes, if they are "recognizable".

When shooting models many use a very long lens. Creates a shallow Depth of Field.

HTH

Or you could blur their faces or back ground out in post processing.

It would have to be the entire back ground so the photo doesn't loose it's appeal

jenniderd wrote: I'm not sure, I would need to look into it further, but I have a law background and it seems to me if it's on the street, then you wouldn't need one because (I can't remember the specific word), but basically they are out in the open - you can even take a picture of your neighbors house, and as long as you're on the street, it's fine, even if they are naked in the window, lol. If they are clearly trying to not be in the shot or if they or they express a desire not to be in the shot, then that might be different. Now I don't know what it would be if you are asking to publish in a magazine or something, but usually if it's on a public street, everyone is fair game.

Also have you ever watch America's Next Top Model?
They do alot of photoshoot out in public, I have seen many shots of the models where everyday people are in the background. I doubt ANTM goes around getting people to sign permission forms to have their permission to be in a photograph. Those model's portraits are in their portfolio, people who look at the model's portrait could care less about the innocent nobody in the background.

Yes I understand, those portraits is for portfolio only...not to sell. But even if you were planning on selling the subject in the photo, the people in the background are not the subjects....they are surroundings.

This is true Crystal. It is very unlikely the "background" will ever see the image, and wouldn't care if they did, so the chance of being sued over it is close to zero.

However, IF you get a once in a lifetime shot, and someone wants to publish it in an ad, your chance of tracking them down later to sign a release is also close to zero.

Best to avoid "recognizable" faces in the first place (exs. using a long lens or cropping in camera), and when doing comercial work, make sure the people used in the background are "paid" (with signed releases).

Matthew

While I certainly am not a lawyer, it seems to me that releases cannot be required as we constantly see background and foreground figures in photos and videos on the news every day - sometimes in the hundreds, and I bet people would love to sue those big $$ TV stations if that was possible. Also many places these days have CCTV in shops and in the street, so...

Again, those are video images used for the purpose of journalism. It's when you want to use an image commercially that a release is needed.

If you only use the image "artistically", then a release isn't needed either. It's when you use it to make $$ that it is "safer" to have releases for anyone you can recognize in the frame.

In short, if the image doesn't make much $$ for you, you probably won't have a problem. However, if it becomes a poster, a greeting card (or something similar) then any person you can recognize has a chance to sue you. You made $$ using their "likeness".

HTH

You don't need releases for people on a public street as they're 'in public' and have no reasonable right to privacy - if you photographed them in their yard it's different, but anyone can be photograpehd in a public place and those images can be used commercially unless the purpose of the image is to cast them in a poor light (i.e a street image with recognisable people, maybe one or more of them colour-popped and used for an ad for Viagra - thus implying the subject couldn't perform in the bedroom department...)...

So your example of a model on a street with recognisable people in the background would be fine - as the model is the subject of the image and the passers-by are incidental and in public view - we do it all the time.

arkady001 wrote: You don't need releases for people on a public street as they're 'in public' and have no reasonable right to privacy - if you photographed them in their yard it's different, but anyone can be photograpehd in a public place and those images can be used commercially unless the purpose of the image is to cast them in a poor light (i.e a street image with recognisable people, maybe one or more of them colour-popped and used for an ad for Viagra - thus implying the subject couldn't perform in the bedroom department...)...

So your example of a model on a street with recognisable people in the background would be fine - as the model is the subject of the image and the passers-by are incidental and in public view - we do it all the time.

Unless it is promoting a product (or dipicts the person in a poor light) you should be safe. Do you think the Paparazzi get JoLo's release before they sell her photo to the rags?