Is a signed release necessary in this case?

Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,551
Location
Chester, Virginia, USA
What if you take a picture of someone.. and you don't see their face or see any tell-tale signs that could recognize that person at all if you looked the picture? It could really be anyone in the same clothes.

Do you still need a signed release? Just curious.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
181
Location
Texas, USA
Going strictly by your description, the chances a signed release would be necessary even in the most restrictive scenario -- that being where you intended to use the image as part of an advertisement to sell a product -- are highly unlikely.

The chances that you'd need a signed release for using the image for any other purposes are astronomically unlikely.

This is all as per US law.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,551
Location
Chester, Virginia, USA
Once I process the pics, I will show you some examples.

Going strictly by your description, the chances a signed release would be necessary even in the most restrictive scenario -- that being where you intended to use the image as part of an advertisement to sell a product -- are highly unlikely.

The chances that you'd need a signed release for using the image for any other purposes are astronomically unlikely.

This is all as per US law.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,551
Location
Chester, Virginia, USA
Here are some example pics..

606697009_NNssm-M.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




606697016_3XFbN-M.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
273
Location
Reno, NV
No release would be needed unless they could be identified somehow and then only if you were going to sell the images. As I understand it anyway.
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
962
Hi.

Here in Germany, you'd need a release, when ever a person could be identified by somebody who knows this person.

So, it's not the face or the clothes alone, but also the context of the picture.

Quite silly, if you ask me ...

Regards

Mattes
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
4,483
Location
Riverside, California
If both of these were taken of people who were on private property I would be wary of using them for any commercial purposes with or without a model release!
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
14,472
Location
Toronto Canada
If the image was taken of the person on their own private property and you were using a zoom, they could claim reasonable expectation of privacy. If they were in a park or at a public place, ie playground, festival, etc., then they can't claim reasonable expectation of privacy. This is also the same reason why you can take any image in any public park... but NOT the washroom as there is an EOP there as well.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
870
Location
SoCal
If the image was taken of the person on their own private property and you were using a zoom, they could claim reasonable expectation of privacy. If they were in a park or at a public place, ie playground, festival, etc., then they can't claim reasonable expectation of privacy. This is also the same reason why you can take any image in any public park... but NOT the washroom as there is an EOP there as well.

Maybe if you were using a REALLY long zoom and were hiding in the bushes or looking over a wall, otherwise I doubt there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
4,483
Location
Riverside, California
Okay, as far as California law is concerned there are four areas to be concerned with (you may Google them): Appropriation, Intrusion, Disclosure of Private Facts, False Light. For example here is an explanation of Intrusion: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california/california-intrusion-law
Also, a model release does not release the photography in the case of commercial use. If after reading the above reference, you still feel comfortable, knock yourself out but don't plead ignorance if the parties come after you!
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
870
Location
SoCal
Okay, as far as California law is concerned there are four areas to be concerned with (you may Google them): Appropriation, Intrusion, Disclosure of Private Facts, False Light. For example here is an explanation of Intrusion: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california/california-intrusion-law
Also, a model release does not release the photography in the case of commercial use. If after reading the above reference, you still feel comfortable, knock yourself out but don't plead ignorance if the parties come after you!

I don't see any problem.

It talks about things that I mentioned, or similar, such as trespassing, which should be obvious.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,551
Location
Chester, Virginia, USA
They were all taken at a botanical garden. Not their own property. All on a public area, where other people (general public) were at as well.


If the image was taken of the person on their own private property and you were using a zoom, they could claim reasonable expectation of privacy. If they were in a park or at a public place, ie playground, festival, etc., then they can't claim reasonable expectation of privacy. This is also the same reason why you can take any image in any public park... but NOT the washroom as there is an EOP there as well.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
14,472
Location
Toronto Canada
One thing to always remember: how much do you have to pay the lawyer to get it EVENTUALLY in front of a judge so he can rule that "naw, you're OK on that one". Always behave with your wallet in mind. Don't do anything that would lead someone to want to sue you. Legals fees are in the $25-50K range by the time it lands in front of the judge. (Been der, got the T-shirt, but on a different matter) Err on the side of caution and avoid the legal fees.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
181
Location
Texas, USA
Williadw,

The most widely referenced document on Photographers' Rights in the U.S. is entitled "The Photographer's Right" by Krages...

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

It would be helpful in answering some of the questions raised here.

Again, going strictly from your descriptions of the images you've mentioned here, the odds you have anything to be concerned about are astronomically low. It may be worth considering the forum you're asking this question in as to the answers you're likely to receive on this topic. The Nikon Cafe is an excellent source of technical information. You should be aware, however, that there is a higher-than-usual number of regulars here - some of which are moderators - which tend to take a somewhat adversarial stance toward Street/Candid Photography which is the broad heading your question falls under. You may find a more realistic assessment of the legal aspects of the type of pictures you're describing here and their uses by doing a Google search on "Street Photography" and browsing the forums dedicated to it.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom