do you have to get photo releases of people if taken in public?

Answer 1

If you're in the United States, the only time you need a model release is if the person's likeness will be used for commercial purposes. Commercial purposes is usually defined as advertising.

If the photograph is for personal use(portfolio), gallery prints, even if they're to be sold, or editorial(newspaper or magazine) purposes, no model release is necessary.

As I said, though, this only is true of the United States. If you're in some other location, it's always best to consult the local laws.

And, the standard disclaimer applies here. The law is a complex and many varied thing, and the internet is a very poor place to get legal advice. I am not a lawyer, nor do I have any intention of ever being one.

Answer 2

Thats a tricky question that always ends up in courts.

Technically no, "a person does not have the expectatin of privacy if they are either in, or can be viewed from a public area". However, I know of other photographers who have spent thousands in attorney fees and court costs defending this, and it only takes one judge to change it, so its ALWAYS advised to have a model release if you are planning on using the photograph for comercial purposes.

Why take a chance on the photo costing you more than you would ever make from it.

Answer 3

You don't need one. There is no implied 'privacy' in public, by law your photographs belong to you and not the person photographed. Public shots of people is what I would consider fair game. They may not like it, and you may get a few dirty looks but if you're there to capture candid shots of people, you have little choice. When you start using those shots for advertisement is where you could run into a bit of trouble, as was seen recently with the Virgin Mobile Australia ads. Some girl had her picture taken by someone she knew, and he'd placed it on Flickr with a CC license, which allowed for commercial use with credit. So, Virgin used it. She sued. To her, the shot was taken with her consent, but not used in advertisement with her consent. Sure, she feels wronged, but by law Virgin Mobile is not libel. That's probably why they like to grap shots off flickr. It means they don't have to pay for it, all the have to do is provide a credit to the original owner (not the girl). She's mad, but she can't do anything. Keep that in mind and make sure, if you plan to make your shots public, that you apply the correct copyright.

Answer 4

The May 2007 issue of Shutterbug Magazine had an article titled "Privacy Rights & Copyrights: What Photographers Need To Know". You can read it at shutterbug.com.

Answer 5

that's a tough thank you to bypass. because of the fact that copyright replace into meant to guard the writer from unauthorized use and is at once assigned to the writer on the time of creation and is surpassed directly to their heirs for 70 greater years, my wager is all you're able to do is furnish them under a "NO cost" contract because of the fact that legally, in addition they belong to people previous your loss of existence. Why you will possibly desire to do the style of element is an entire distinctive concern. Are they actually so undesirable that they are extremely properly worth no longer something? for a whole rationalization, you will could desire to seek for suggestion from a copyright lawyer

Answer 6

Yes if you intend to use the images comercially
this link tells about usage rights etc.
http://www.indexopen.com/content/help/modelpropertyrelease.asp

Answer 7

This is a link to Edwin's article. Do not choose me as Best Answer, please, as I am only adding a footnote to his answer.

http://www.shutterbug.net/techniques/pro_techniques/0507privacy/index.html Be sure to note that there is a second page to the article.

Answer 8

Yes, it facial features are showing.