Can I sell street photos?

[_larky]

Without a model release for everyone in it? I'd say yes, of course, but talking to a legal expert today who will go unnamed because that's what they would prefer, they say no. Although we can make pictures of anything in any public space, we cannot profit by it.

So how do people get around this? I'm not interested because I want to sell, I doubt I'll ever be that good. But it is interesting. How did they publish Street Photography Now for example?

Cheers.

 

[anu L ogy]

Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

Sorry in advance, I wasnt even thinking that this would only apply on this side of the pond. Sorry :E

 

[sper]

I'm pretty sure Garry Winogrand was not handing out model releases. If it's art it's kosher. But if it's art also chances are you won't be making any mony off it anyway. 😛

Snap away. Just don't bother anyone.

 

[ackers8888]

I recently saw a talk by UK photographer Tom Wood. You may know his book 'All Zones Off Peak'.

The boy in the red and white shirt saw himself (in the image below) in the Tate Art Gallery many years later. He has since grown up and obviously bears no resemblance to the kid in the picture. However, the guy got his lawyers involved and now Tom is not allowed to show or sell the picture. He did not share details about this, but I remain curious. I guess he could have fought it, but as Bukowski says "it is cheaper to plead guilty" 😉

 

[Bike Tourist]

After many years selling "conventional" stock images part time (transparencies sold through agencies) in my later years I've been supplementing my retirement with digital images sold through microstock agencies. Since they don't charge much (or compensate the photographer much, either) and since they sell worldwide, they are VERY conservative in their approach.

Lately, most of them not only label unreleased pictures as "editorial only" they go further and require a dateline and the reviewer must deem the picture "newsworthy". Well, as you know, much of the great photojournalism of the past and even today's good photo essays could not be termed exactly newsworthy. Anything smacking of human interest woulod not pass muster.

My only concern, aside from my annoyance, is that they will, by custom and usage, redefine editorial so that we no longer can photograph with the freedom we're used to — at least here in the US.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I recently saw a talk by UK photographer Tom Wood. You may know his book 'All Zones Off Peak'.

The boy in the red and white shirt saw himself (in the image below) in the Tate Art Gallery many years later. He has since grown up and obviously bears no resemblance to the kid in the picture. However, the guy got his lawyers involved and now Tom is not allowed to show or sell the picture. He did not share details about this, but I remain curious. I guess he could have fought it, but as Bukowski says "it is cheaper to plead guilty" 😉

...and I think that's pretty much where we're 'at' at the moment. Whilst the law doesn't actually state we cannot take this kind of picture it is left open to judgement on a case by case basis. In the UK a court has upheld that the right of privacy of a child might be infringed by the taking and publishing of their photograph even when photographed with their parents. Many people will not care or notice some will and its probably best to follow Tom Woods' example.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Who's buying?

That's a more relevant question, don't you think?

A very good question. I wonder if those that are interested in buying this kind of imagery for publication and advertising are far more likely to simply use models or fully released people to (re)create the aesthetic.

I can't remember the name of the photographer, a Brit whose work is often the subject of threads here ( Simon someone possibly?) looks like he shoots 'street' commercially, having viewed his site, though I wonder how many of those images are either shot with willing participants i.e. staff members of the organisation he's working for or models. I'm not actually suggesting he set's his shots up, simply that those shown in the images used commercially may have signed releases. It would seem sensible these days.

 

[tlitody]

According to the British media, anything which is in the public interest is OK and they get away with it all the time. So all you gotta do is say it's in the public interest and be prepared to argue your case. Well if it's documentary art and someone is prepared to pay for it, then it must by definition have been in the public interest for a member of the public to have bought it.
Now convincing a judge, who is a member of the establishment along with the media, that that is the case, is another matter. i.e. there are double standards at play and really depends on who you can convince.

 

[OurManInTangier]

... and really depends on who you can convince.

...and how much it will cost you to try😉

 

[tlitody]

...and how much it will cost you to try😉

You are perfectly entitled to present your own case but if you lose you may end up paying the other sides costs if their case was strong enough.

 

[_larky]

So, what we are all saying is, nobody has any clue how this works. 😀 I guess it's down to whoever has the best lawyers or the biggest balls.

 

[Luna]

Well, you got a legal expert's answer. What do you need from us?

 

[Neare]

Legal advice is still only another persons opinion. Anyhow, commercial use is one thing, but if you can write something off as art then the law has very little specific definition on that, you would be able to get away with most things. But it's always treated case by case, but you know it's very unlikely that you take a picture of someone and they enter into a gallery and see themselves by chance. If on the other hand your picture becomes famous and it is seen that way, the fame of the photo will give the photographer leverage in the case. Unless it has a derogatory effect of the subject in question, then you'd probably have to remove it by law (but only if asked. "what they don't know doesn't hurt them")

 

[jordanstarr]

When you enter the public sphere and perform an action in this space, you give up your right to privacy, whether it's recorded on film, digital or memory. People understand this to some degree when they leave the house and it's generally accepted. We live in a social world. The people who raise a stink are usually just annoyed that someone is making money off an image of them. They are few and far between. As far as I understand, everything in public is fair game. The private sphere is a whole other story, obviously.

I would just shoot as much as you want and put it up on walls, galleries, cafes, whatever. Just don't try to sell it for commercial use. However, if you're doing a body of work on a particular person and it's no big deal, it doesn't hurt to do a model release.

That being said, the need for model releases seems to be on the increase and I found that out when I entered a photography contest for a magazine. Although everyone was obviously willing to have their photo taken, releases were still necessary. I can't imagine what photography will look like if you need a model release for every identifiable person in a photograph. It will truly become a very boring art-form and most of the photographers time will be spent cataloging model releases and organizing, rather than shooting. What next, model releases for sketch artists?

 

[twopointeight]

Other factors may include how much of the frame is occupied by a single individual. A street scene with dozens or more people dilutes the reasonable expectation of privacy of any one individual. Also, the context makes a difference. If a person is seen in a favorable way versus a negative way. Place is also a factor. Shoot your heart out in the cities of developing countries, as the probablility of legal action is nil. But American cities, you may run into legal interpretations. Obviously these are matters of degree and interpretation. Dealing with releases while shooting on the street is almost impossible, I think. I like to cut loose in Asia once or twice a year.

 

[robert blu]

According to our law, in Italy, you cannot publish any photo anywhere (newspaper, shows or web) without permission of people in it if they can be identified. Of course to demonstrate you have the permission you need to have it written, signed etc. Unless it is a public event like a concert in a public place, but in this can you cannot extrapolate a picture, let say a face of someone attending at it.

 

[starless]

According to our law, in Italy, you cannot publish any photo anywhere (newspaper, shows or web) without permission of people in it if they can be identified. Of course to demonstrate you have the permission you need to have it written, signed etc. Unless it is a public event like a concert in a public place, but in this can you cannot extrapolate a picture, let say a face of someone attending at it.

So if the picture was taken in the street (which is by definition always a public place) you can publish it? Or do you need to had been attending an "event" in order to do so?

I have zero knowledge of law in Italy, but that sounds quite specific.

If it were true, I can't imagine newspapers and magazines running reportage or any kind of documentary photographs at all.

 

[starless]

From what I've heard France is one of the few countries where you theoretically might run into legal issues when publishing street photos without a model release.

But this hasn't stopped photographers from doing it, has it?

If you REALLY don't want to risk getting into legal troubles in your country, just publish the book in USA/UK or somewhere else, where the law is more favorable to photographers.

 

[HoodedOne]

As far as i know the rules in the Netherlands, are as follows:

In public space you're allowed to photograph whatever and whoever you like. And you are allowed to publish this photo without consent of the person(s) in the picture, as long as there's no commercial motive for taking the picture.
If later you become a "famous" street photographer, and can sell those images. You are allowed to do that. BUT... If somebody recognizes him-, herself, they can object to the selling. And you must get consent from this person or make some other kind of deal. Which is satisfactory for both parties.

ps. although you are allowed (as a amateur) to take pictures in public space, and even publish them without consent. that doesn't mean the people in the pictures aren't protected. They can never forbid you taking the picture. But, they can object against publishing the picture. But, that would also mean they'll have to prove that publishing the picture will be harmful (in any way) for them.

 

[robert blu]

@starless: I try to explain it better (difficult being english not my native language!). Let's say there is a concert on the main square of a city. You can take pictures of the "event" and publish it on a newspaper, for example. And you can publish pictures of people listening to the music. But you are not allowed to publish the portrait, let's think of a crop showing a face of a single person who is there.
You can publish pictures of people who are well known, singers, actors, politiciens or sport people because in the case it is called "right for chronicle/news".
This kind of law was made a few years ago when with cameras included in mob phones many snaps were posted in the net and happened that someone not going to work because supposed to be sick was seen on the beach, someone else suppose to work extra hours have been seen by the wife (maybe in the background of someone else photo) drinking an apero with a girl and similar cases.
Of course the net is still full of photo with people probably without any release and the risk to be caught is quite low. But in case it happens it can become a trouble. I hope I managed to explain, cheers
robert