Question about public photos and signed releases

[OPC Patrick]

A co-worker and myself were discussing some of my photos and question came up about taking pictures of people in public areas AKA the lake. He asked if I got a release from the girls jumping off the bridge. (I would insert them here but they may be questionable ...)
I said no, I just asked if they would mind and they said no problem. His take was that they would have to sign a release if I was ever to sale the photos. Not that I see that happening any time, but it made me wonder about those pictures you see of old weathered Indian women or anyone for that matter. So my question, if the picture was taken in public do you need a release to sale the photograph?

Link if you care to see... may be considered NSFW (not safe for work)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11911050@N08/

[Atfulldraw]

Here's my understanding (please note this is not legal advice )

As long as you don't publish it for commercial use, if the photo is taken in public where there is no expectation of privacy, you're good.

However, remember that any nut can file suit for anything, so tread carefully.

I would probably be really careful if there was a question of whether or not those certain gals were of the age of consent,
but I've seen racier images in a Sears catalog.

I read this and saved it for some reason.....now you get to read it.......

I'm aware of the publication, laws and when model are necessary in the United States (it's what I do for a living) and in most cases they are not constricting if the subject was in public when the picture was taken. The First Amendment makes it quite clear that images captured in a public space and reproduced in the furtherance of the public's right/need to know or in support of free speech... the image in America (regardless of where it was taken) is publishable.

However if it purposely misstates the situation the publication may be exposed re. a liable suit. There are no situations that I know of where an image may be published in the furtherance of a commercial/marketing/advertising/promotional support without a formal/written model release.

If you are in public and your picture is taken, it may be published in context without your consent... your presence in public is a de facto release. Out of context... the publisher better have a release (There are exceptions carved into this reservation usually having to do with political speech, hence satirical use of a picture of a public personage will probably be permitted under a wide range of circumstances).

If you plan to use a recognizable image as an artistic statement, it best not be out of context (with the political reservations above) even if privately circulated... the act of circulation may expose the artist to a claim of liable or some similar action. But the posting of images here... in the context in which they were taken in public places will expose you to virtually no liability... rather they will further your freedom of speech and expression.

The verbal permission of a subject, as far as I know, in no way changes a situation... With or without verbal permission (even with witnesses) the limits to circulation or publication apply. Written model releases (or in some cases recorded releases) as a consequence are quite detailed with respect to the virtually unlimited uses to which an image may be put. I am unaware of a situation where verbal permission has held up in court against a charge of liable or the commercial exploitation of an individual's image.

So, in a public situation, the law generally allows you to take any picture but restricts the uses to which you may put it. The image above retains this child's context and is in no way made available for commercial purposes.

So the issue I'm raising is not one of legality but ethics. The Old Order Amish are an example of a group who are deeply offended when photographed. I live in Lancaster Pennsylvania. i do not take pictures of the Amish people (artifacts are something else). Are there circumstances however where I would be tempted? Hmmmmm......

There are things that are legal which are ill advised at least - quite wrong at best - take adultery for example. I don't think that picturing people in public places without their permission rises to anywhere near that level. However, a verbal permission will probably resolve the ethical concerns if not the legal. But at what artistic cost? Remember, verbal permission is always connected to the subject erecting a mask which changes the entire nature of the person, and the sense of place
TByrne, Lancaster, PA (found on POTN)

[SMUMan02]

I'd be more concerned about the fact that they don't look like they are 18 to me. My guess is a consent form would do you no good -- if they aren't 18 they can't give consent.

[OPC Patrick]

Cool... That clears it up a bunch. I wasn't looking to sale any pictures and didn't really consider the pictures all that racy, more redneck than racy, The reason I asked if they minded their pictures being taken was so I didn't appear to be an old pervert, it helped that my wife was with me. Other than that I choose to post the two that didn't show their faces straight on. Nor did I publish what lake /town.. But I can say that I didn't think of them as being too young to give consent which could have been the case.

[Atfulldraw]

Even selling the photos doesn't automatically make it "commercial"

Most photos you see in magazines (not the product ads) are "editorial" and no release is generally needed

[OPC Patrick]

If I am summing it up correctly.... I can take a picture of Britney Spears getting out of a car and sale that pic to a tabloid for millions. Just can't sale it to Hanes to make an underwear ad.

[Burnadell]

If I am summing it up correctly.... I can take a picture of Britney Spears getting out of a car and sale that pic to a tabloid for millions. Just can't sale it to Hanes to make an underwear ad.

No you can't, because........................................... ........................................she don't wear any!!!