Using photo's of the public

Can I do this without prior permission?

[limbo]

We regularly put on roadshows to encourage the public interest in our company and clients. They take place in public spaces in town centres across the UK. We photograph the events for promotional material and for use on our websites.

Is it OK to use these photo's without the consent of those photographed? Am I running the risk of a law suit? We are not selling anything, the photos are used for non profit promotion for local organisations and charities.

Thanks, Limbo.

[BigDave]

I can't answer for the UK, but in the US it is generally legal, but for some uses of small groups it is best to get permission.

Crowd shots or people specifically doing something to be the center of attention are also fair game.

In the courts here, it pretty much comes down to what was their reasonable expectation of privacy.

[billegal]

Some states refer to this as the right of publicity. The theory is that people should not have their likeness or identity used in a commercial manner without consent.

Like BigDave said, permission is best.

[Matt Probert]

In the UK, any photograph which identifiably shows a person requires that person to sign a model release declaration before the photo is published (made public).

So, if you're an amateur snapper and catch people in your photos, no problem. BUT if you want to publish those photos on a web site, you need to get prior permission from the people in the photo who can be identified - eg you can clearly see their face.

Matt

[geekay]

Matt, can you tell me if that applies also to persons now deceased?
Does that UK law apply to photos taken (but not published) before the law came into force?
If photo was taken in the 1970's, or 1950's, or even 1930's?
Does it matter if the person died before or after the law came?
The position of the person? If I once took a photo of an author, can I freely use it later if I publish a review of his book?

[dulwich]

This one's come up before. Working as a journalist in the UK I can assert that I've NEVER encountered anyone having to sign releases for such pictures. Think of the implications ... crowds at football matches, to-camera pieces on the 6 o clock news from shopping centres etc etc. I find it hard to envisage a situation where someone would a) take you to court b) get a result, for being captured in a group of people. But if you're talking about pics of an individual, why not just ask them if it's okay, even get them to sign to that effect when the pic's taken? Some will say no, some won't.

[dulwich]

can you tell me if that applies also to persons now deceased?

Not sure if Limbo gets a lot of dead people coming to those shows ;)

[geekay]

I see I have to make that clearer...:
persons *subsequently* deceased.

You took a fine photo of someone twenty years ago. Now that photo would fit perfectly on your web page where he is mentioned. But he died a few years ago so his permission cannot be obtained. The heirs'?

[limbo]

Excellent information. Thanks all who stickyed and responded.

I have done some further reading on model releases and photographing crowds. Dulwich, like you say there will be no problem in using large group shots or pictures of people where they are not easily identifiable. It's a bit ambiguous, what is a large group? 4 is large compared to 2. The biggest area of contention and definitely worth getting permission, even for crowd shots, is any image containing children.

Luckily all the images we have of children (anyone under 16 in UK) were snapped while a local school was attending and they had given permission not only for our use but also the local press photographer. And another stroke of luck, most of the photo's taken of individuals are of them back facing camera talking to our promotional staff.

Ta, Limbo

[BigDave]

Working as a journalist in the UK I can assert that I've NEVER encountered anyone having to sign releases for such pictures.

In the US, news coverage is quite specifically exempt from needing permission. Even if the pictures are of children, freedom of the press trumps any privacy rights where "news" is happening. But most news oranisations are full of parents, so they are careful about it anyway.

You also don't have to be a professional journalist to have that right protected. You do not need signed permission to use a picture from a picnic in your church newsletter.

But if you use that same picture in a brochure for your church, the equation changes completely. That is not only not news, it is commercial use, which is on a totally other end of the spectrum.

[cybertiiger]

I find it difficult to believe that crowd shots need to be signed/bought off from the individual people comprising the crowd before being used in a journalistic way.
Agree that photographs taken in public places cannot be used in product promotions without the prior agreement of the people in the photograph.
Copyright of photographs generally belongs to the person who owns the "negative" (probably the original digital take for digital photos), however the copyright of the image on the negative belongs to the individual/s on it (for non-journalistic purposes). Ownership of the image can be transferred to someone else through a payment -which can be as small or large as the owner of the image asks. That is you can end up owning the image copyright of a person for as little as a dollar - get it on paper and date it though.

[BigDave]

I find it difficult to believe that crowd shots need to be signed/bought off from the individual people comprising the crowd before being used in a journalistic way.

I think that everyone was pretty much in agreement that you do not need permission for general crowd shots or for news. So I'm not sure where this comment is coming from.

Agree that photographs taken in public places cannot be used in product promotions without the prior agreement of the people in the photograph.

Only if those people are readily identifiable and the subject of the picture.

If you are identifiable and part of a crowd standing behind a juggler, then you would not have much of a case. If the picture shows lthe juggler holding out his hat, and you are putting money in it, then you are part of the subject matter and the photographer should have you sign a release.

Copyright of photographs generally belongs to the person who owns the "negative"

Wrong. The copyright is completely separate from the personal property.

however the copyright of the image on the negative belongs to the individual/s on it (for non-journalistic purposes).

Wrong. The image on the negative is the only thing that is copyrighted.

You do not own a copyright on yourself.

Ownership of the image can be transferred to someone else through a payment -which can be as small or large as the owner of the image asks.

Nope. Not a payment. A specific conveyance of the copyright in writing.

That is you can end up owning the image copyright of a person for as little as a dollar - get it on paper and date it though.

The whole model release process has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with right to privacy and right-of-publicity, which in the US are generally covered by state laws.