Comments on: Photographer’s Legal Rights

By: Cedric

Cedric — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:32:01 +0000

I thought you might be interested in this article by Thomas Hawk.

By: Chris Klug

Chris Klug — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:13:00 +0000

All this is fine, but with your gift for gab, you strike up friendship with all the people on the street and avoid any problems in the first place, right?

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:42:01 +0000

@Mark: I don’t know. Those bears may come after you and want payment!

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:37:28 +0000

I am so glad I don’t need to worry about this very often.

By: Martin Doonan

Martin Doonan — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:35:19 +0000

It will remain unclear until there are definitive rulings on the nuances. There aren’t rulings because those worth pursuing (financially) will also be covering their collective backsides. That is both the joy and frustration of common law: there is freedom to act but it also means rulings are needed for every permutation, rather than them being enacted up front.

By: Cedric

Cedric — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:33:51 +0000

Thanks Paul this is all useful info. A quick bit of research in Australian laws indicates that the rules are similar here. What I’m thinking is that while the rules seem to be fairly clear there is enough grey to make it messy if someone wanted to play hardball. Like you say, trees are much easier

By: On Target Photo Training

On Target Photo Training — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:25:18 +0000

I enjoyed your article.

It was well written and informative. However, in your last paragraph you say that even if the release isn’t needed, the photographer can still be sued and spend a lot of money to win.

Agreed…the bad news is, even WITH a release there are people in this litigious world who will sue anyway – just hoping for a quick settlement to go away.

Dan

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:19:43 +0000

@Gary: There was a case, Almeida vs Amazon where a persons face was used on the cover, without her permission, but it was allowed, according the courts in Florida. I think that the issue here was that she was on the cover of the book, but that she wanted compensation from Amazon because they displayed the book in order to help sell it.

Property releases are, I think, ‘just in case’ or as ASMP says, future-proofing. There’s no law against taking photos of a public place, like a house, or using it, but … I don’t like this thought. It’s giving up rights out of fear, not because there is a legal reason to do it. The old proverbial slippery slope.

By: Gary Brown

Gary Brown — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:37:06 +0000

Some sources say you should have a model release for a book cover photo, since the cover is, in effect, trying to sell the book. See, e.g., ASMP's Frequently asked questions about releases ("If you license the picture for use in a book, you should be OK without any releases as long as you don’t allow the publisher to put the photo on the cover of the book or use it in promotional materials") and their intro page about property and model releases (although it doesn't specifically mention book covers).