ibcrewin
Ah looky looky
I put together a website to try to legitimize myself as a pro photographer. I've shot a few gigs of people kids and have made some decent side money from it.
Last halloween, my daughter had a halloween party with the local mom's meet up. I took a picture of someones kid and posted it on the mom's group website. I don't think I ever heard from the mom. Anyway, now that I'm building the website, I saw that picture and wanted to use it for the site. I'm not going to sell the picture, probably feature it as an example of my work. Can I use it? Or do I have to get permission from the parents?
Last halloween, my daughter had a halloween party with the local mom's meet up. I took a picture of someones kid and posted it on the mom's group website. I don't think I ever heard from the mom. Anyway, now that I'm building the website, I saw that picture and wanted to use it for the site. I'm not going to sell the picture, probably feature it as an example of my work. Can I use it? Or do I have to get permission from the parents?
feilb
Film noob
Why risk it, might as well ask the parents. Legally, for profit work including identifiable faces should have model releases. Because your website is promoting your services for profit, it probably wouldnt hurt. Its polite anyway.
ibcrewin
Ah looky looky
feilb said:
Yeah.. That's what I thought.. Problem is I think the family moved out of town earlier this year. I guess I'll have to find them, or just not use the picture. I know I would want to know who's using my kids mug!
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Yes, by all means get their permission. What feilb said makes sense. Also, as I'm sure you are aware, there's a great deal of sensitivity about kids' pictures being out on the internet -- so you should find out who the child is and speak with her parents as well. In fact, that's probably more important than the mom whose website it's on currently.
bmattock
Veteran
The Legal Handbook for Photographers
Asking for legal advice from non-lawyers is not really advisable. They won't indemnify you if you get bad advice, follow it, and get sued or arrested. For a few bucks, you can buy the book by a lawer who specializes in the field and have a much better answer.
Asking for legal advice from non-lawyers is not really advisable. They won't indemnify you if you get bad advice, follow it, and get sued or arrested. For a few bucks, you can buy the book by a lawer who specializes in the field and have a much better answer.
greyhoundman
Well-known
Get model releases, or don't use the photos.
Unless of course you are independently wealthy, and can fight such battles.
No one lawyer can possibly know the laws in every state.
Unless of course you are independently wealthy, and can fight such battles.
No one lawyer can possibly know the laws in every state.
Fotch
Man with a RF Camera
Any business use, you need a release, except news worthy reporting. JMHO.
pellothed1
Member
Copyright/privacy law is very complex in the U.S. While I do agree, that you never can be too cautious, it would be very difficult to lose this case if you got sued over it, to the extent that you would have to pay damages anyway. The first reasonable thing would be that you are asked to remove the photo, and if asked you should comply unless it was taken in a public space, then you'd have a big argument. Even if not, you could still argue reasonable expectation of privacy. You need to think about copyright/privacy laws in more than two dimensions, meaning one thing is lawful and the other is unlawful. There is a grey area, where you might be bending the rules without seeing any ramifications. I'm sure somebody is going to give me crap about this, but it is the truth. You need to consider a couple things: Did the parent know about and allow the photo in the first place? Did the parent know it was being published on the web, or being viewed publicly in some way? Lastly, is the photo so good that it really exemplifies your style to the extent of using it on your own site? You'll have to answer that.
Also, just because your running a business doesn't necessarily mean that you're not an artist as well, and while a portfolio is often considered advertising by photographers (even online), its possible it could be viewed by a judge/court as editorial, with more to back this up if the photo was in a public space of any kind where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously you weren't inside the home of the parent where some sort of privacy would be expected, sounds like it was at a party.
Here's some really good concise info on the subject:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
Dan Heller's "Chapter" is brief but it shows just how grey the area can be, you won't find more info without taking a course on it and several books.
Again, to back up my statements, I have a degree in Advertising, which required two years of Media Law, which is a less specific term for copyright/privacy/First Amendment law. If anyone has access to a course in Media Law at your local university I suggest you take it if you have any interest in doing photography. I promise it will be one of the hardest classes you've ever taken, assuming the professor is worth his salt.
I should also say, I use photos I take in my porfolio without model releases. The key term is "reasonable expectation of privacy," was it expected or not? I've sold thousands of prints online and never had a parent ask me to remove a photo of their child from either a password protected gallery or my publicly viewable portfolio section.
Also, just because your running a business doesn't necessarily mean that you're not an artist as well, and while a portfolio is often considered advertising by photographers (even online), its possible it could be viewed by a judge/court as editorial, with more to back this up if the photo was in a public space of any kind where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously you weren't inside the home of the parent where some sort of privacy would be expected, sounds like it was at a party.
Here's some really good concise info on the subject:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
Dan Heller's "Chapter" is brief but it shows just how grey the area can be, you won't find more info without taking a course on it and several books.
Again, to back up my statements, I have a degree in Advertising, which required two years of Media Law, which is a less specific term for copyright/privacy/First Amendment law. If anyone has access to a course in Media Law at your local university I suggest you take it if you have any interest in doing photography. I promise it will be one of the hardest classes you've ever taken, assuming the professor is worth his salt.
I should also say, I use photos I take in my porfolio without model releases. The key term is "reasonable expectation of privacy," was it expected or not? I've sold thousands of prints online and never had a parent ask me to remove a photo of their child from either a password protected gallery or my publicly viewable portfolio section.
Last edited:
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Time to grab your burqah! There are photographers lurking about!
Time to grab your burqah! There are photographers lurking about!
Time to grab your burqah! There are photographers lurking about!
pellothed1 I should also say said:
julianphotoart
No likey digital-phooey
There's common-sense advice, ethical advice, politeness advice and legal advice. I can dive right into all the advice except the legal type. One of the most important things one learns in law school is knowing when NOT to give advice.
No one should even think of giving actual legal advice to you about this particular question without knowing all the facts (facts are very important for this sort of thing) and asking what jurisdiction you happen to live in. If you are in the U.S., some part of what you worry about might be specific to your state, and other considerations might be federal.
So, what is your jurisdiction?
No one should even think of giving actual legal advice to you about this particular question without knowing all the facts (facts are very important for this sort of thing) and asking what jurisdiction you happen to live in. If you are in the U.S., some part of what you worry about might be specific to your state, and other considerations might be federal.
So, what is your jurisdiction?
willie_901
Veteran
I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.
In the USA I can use photos of people on my web site (or anywhere else) without a release if they are used for editorial or artistic purposes. If I am not offering a child's image for sale on coffee mugs,etc, or, if I am not using it to directly advertise my services, then I am not using it commercially. If the person(s) was on public property or "in public", then they have no (legal) expectation of privacy. So, I publish such photos on a my web site in virtual "art galleries". (Actually I could sell the child's image as artwork or publish it in an "art" book if I want to as I have the right to express yourself as an artist. This would be especially safe if I had anything in my past that establishes me as an artist.)
But, if my web page's title is: Professional Photography For Your Family", and the text says something like "Hire me to take photos of your children. Look at the photos below for examples of my work", then that is commercial use. I am specifically using the child's image to sell something (my services). This absolutely requires a release. If the photo is on a web page, business card or in a brochure is used to advertise my services, I better have a release.
People post millions of authentic photos of people, children and the property of others on Flickr. No one gets sued because they don't have a release.
Consider the following. Suppose I did post a child's image in a web page intended for art/editorial purposes. Let's assume the image is authentic and does not slander or insult the child/parents. Suppose the parents got angry and sued. Suppose I offer to settle by removing the image from my web site. Now, what damages could they expect to recover? The commercial value of an unknown child's image on a site of a photographer who just turned pro is very very low. How much financial gain have I realized from the image? (practically zero). How many views per week did this image my get ?(very few, and I do not charge to view the photo) Have I actually done anything to cause emotional suffering to the child/parents? (no, if I did not alter the photo or use it to intentionally cause harm) and thye child was "in public") What would a judge decide ? (just keep the photo off my site)
Finally, in my opinion, no one should engage in photography for profit without incorporating. A Limited-Liability Corporation (LLC) is a practical, affordable way to protect your personal assets. Corporate business insurance provides further protection (I have a 2 mil, and camera/lens loss policy for less than $25 per month.
In the USA I can use photos of people on my web site (or anywhere else) without a release if they are used for editorial or artistic purposes. If I am not offering a child's image for sale on coffee mugs,etc, or, if I am not using it to directly advertise my services, then I am not using it commercially. If the person(s) was on public property or "in public", then they have no (legal) expectation of privacy. So, I publish such photos on a my web site in virtual "art galleries". (Actually I could sell the child's image as artwork or publish it in an "art" book if I want to as I have the right to express yourself as an artist. This would be especially safe if I had anything in my past that establishes me as an artist.)
But, if my web page's title is: Professional Photography For Your Family", and the text says something like "Hire me to take photos of your children. Look at the photos below for examples of my work", then that is commercial use. I am specifically using the child's image to sell something (my services). This absolutely requires a release. If the photo is on a web page, business card or in a brochure is used to advertise my services, I better have a release.
People post millions of authentic photos of people, children and the property of others on Flickr. No one gets sued because they don't have a release.
Consider the following. Suppose I did post a child's image in a web page intended for art/editorial purposes. Let's assume the image is authentic and does not slander or insult the child/parents. Suppose the parents got angry and sued. Suppose I offer to settle by removing the image from my web site. Now, what damages could they expect to recover? The commercial value of an unknown child's image on a site of a photographer who just turned pro is very very low. How much financial gain have I realized from the image? (practically zero). How many views per week did this image my get ?(very few, and I do not charge to view the photo) Have I actually done anything to cause emotional suffering to the child/parents? (no, if I did not alter the photo or use it to intentionally cause harm) and thye child was "in public") What would a judge decide ? (just keep the photo off my site)
Finally, in my opinion, no one should engage in photography for profit without incorporating. A Limited-Liability Corporation (LLC) is a practical, affordable way to protect your personal assets. Corporate business insurance provides further protection (I have a 2 mil, and camera/lens loss policy for less than $25 per month.
Last edited: