Re: Photography and the Law

In article <tY-dnTZYBqRSsb7VnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "Marcus Fox" <please-reply-via-newsgroup-th@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> I'm aware of that, but I said in the OP "Assume that photography is not
> expressly prohibited" which indicates that the owners have not commented
on
> photography. I'm referring to other patrons of the establishment having
a
> problem with it. If I'm taking photos of my subject, do I have to be
careful
> not to get them in shot? Or can I just snap away?
> 
> >
> > > What is the situation regarding "model releases"? I understand that
they
> > > are
> > > required for commercial photography, but aren't newspaper photos
> > > considered
> > > as such? I'm sure Fred West (and other infamous individuals) didn't
have
> > > to
> > > sign permission before the Sun could publish his "perp. walk".
> >
> > You can photograph anyone in a public place as long as their photo is
not
> > used for commercial purposes.  If you wish to use that persons image
for
> > commercial purposes (i.e. to promote or advertise) then a model
release
> form
> > is required.
> 
> Is "to sell newspapers" not a commercial purpose?

I can only speak of the USA, who's laws are based mostly on English 
Common Law. What you are talking about is the right to privacy and the 
right to control your identity. Also the difference between commercial 
and editorial photography.

Commercial photography is pretty self-evident -- its only purpose is to 
sell something. Editorial photography is more tricky -- think of 
Weegee's crime photos which get bundled into books and sold without 
releases (luckily most of his subjects were dead).

If you appear in public _in the USA_ you effectively relinquish your 
right to privacy. That means anyone can take your picture without 
penalty. If that image is sold or licensed for commercial purposes -- 
for use in anything except newspapers, news magazines, or news 
television -- it requires a signed model release.

Use of the same image in news media for editorial use -- that is, _not_ 
in an ad meant to sell the newspaper -- no model release is required. 
The one grey area is film or video documentary. Everyone interviewed or 
depicted in a documentary must have a (usually videotaped) model 
release. Several of Frederick Weissman's films are still banned in the 
states they were filmed because the powers that be didn't like them and 
retaliated by suing to prevent their public display, claiming the people 
depicted were not capable of giving permission to be filmed.

As to semi-public places, much depends on what kind of venue it is. 
Although photography is usually expressly forbidden at a Rolling Stones 
concert, many people bring cameras anyway and sell the resulting photos 
of the Stones (public figures) and members of the audience (not public 
figures). Corporate policy dictates that no photography at all is 
permitted in any Starbucks (this I know firsthand)

Museums generally forbid flash and tripods for the protection of their 
collection and the other museum-goers. Photos of people in this setting 
require releases for commercial use, not for editorial use.

Weddings are private events and those attending have the reasonable 
expectation that they will be photographed, and that the images will be 
used for limited commercial purposes (selling them to the bride and 
groom) but not to be published. The exception again is if a public 
figure is in attendance they have no expectation of privacy. As with all 
private and semi-private (restaurant, theatre) venues if a photographer 
is told not to take a certain person's picture he/she must abide by that 
request.

The final category is private use. You can take pictures of whomever you 
choose for purely private use, that is, you will incur no financial gain 
from the images and the images will not be disseminated without 
permission -- like on Flickr and Myspace.

I have no idea how this maps to British law. Many countries have much 
more restrictive laws on personal privacy than the USA. To sum up:

Commercial: photograph is used solely for the purpose of selling 
something -- requires model release

Editorial: photograph illustrates a news story or _is_ the news story -- 
no model release needed

Law Enforcement: Obviously traffic cameras, security cameras, and 
surveillance photography by authorized law enforcement personnel do not 
require any kind of releases

Public figure: has no expectation of privacy at all no matter the 
setting -- Former NY Governor Spitzer, Mick Jagger, Brittny Speares

Public setting: no one has an expectation of privacy but if an image is 
to be used for commercial purposes must have a signed model release

Semi-public setting: Museums, galleries, theatres, the venue can 
regulate any and all aspects of photography. Images of people require 
model releases for commercial use.

Private setting: Any rules may be laid down; people attending a wedding 
usually implicitly agree to be photographed for the limited commercial 
use of providing images to the bride and groom.

There are more Byzantine restrictions, on what can be photographed. In 
New York City it is illegal to photograph a bridge, or any aspect of the 
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner [personal experience]. In Greece 
(to my knowledge) it is illegal to photograph any airplane, civilian or 
military. In the old Soviet Union it was illegal to photograph members 
of the military or the militia (the police)

A polite photographer will always honor a request not to be 
photographed. People have many reasons not to want to be photographed 
and unless one is a budding papparazzo it is best to comply. Some 
reasons are: religious (Muslim, Orthodox Jews, Amish and Mennonite, 
Native American), personal, job-related (especially in NYC you may be 
photographing an undercover police officer [again, personal experience])

Hope this helps,

--krishnananda