We've talked about releases before, I know

[Robb]

...but now I'm kind of getting serious about a picture book here. :)

Does anyone know off the top of their head what the deal is? Do I need to get subject releases for people that are in the photographs? All of them were shot in a public place, and none of them are controversial or anything. In newspapers, I know you don't, because (as we used to say) "Well, shame on them for being in public." :D

[Samurai_Writer]

1. same thing goes for any public photography, I believe

If someone is in public, you don't need a release. I really don't think all those National Geographic photographers got signed releases from all the indigenous people they shot all over the world, do you?

[Ms. Toad]

4. Well...

For the most part, those indigenous people didn't live in the US where there is a property right of publicity/persona, which allow each person to control when and how their persona is used for commercial purposes. Commercial is VERY broadly defined - it generally includes use by non-profits and can also include activities that generate intangible personal benefit - like the admiration of all of your peers in this forum when you display your talents here. Persona includes image, voice, name and other identifiable personal characteristics.

Location of the property doesn't change the ownership of the property. It's not a perfect analogy - but just like your camera is still your property when you take it into public to snap my smilin' mug - my smilin' mug is also still my property.

(The "public" rule of thumb that is often cited in this forum has to do with journalism - in public places the competing constitutional concerns related to journalism generally trump the personal property right of persona/publicity.)

The laws vary from state to state - some are very strongly and broadly protective of the photographee's rights (like your kids get the rights once you die), others grant more freedom to photographers (unless the photographee is a living citizen of the state - s/he got no rights). Most states have some law in the area - if you really need to know, check with an intellectual property lawyer with experience in right of persona/publicity in the state where you plan to take photographs.

I don't necessarily agree that it should be a property right - but I am sensitive to the concerns of folks who just don't want their image showing up in unexpected places for a variety of reasons. Just out of general respect for the folks I'm snapping, if I don't have express permission I don't display a recognizable image of a person in any public setting.

[regnaD kciN]

2. If it's for editorial use...

...and they were shot in a public place, you don't need releases. If the book is commercial in nature (i.e. if it were a promotional piece about a company, political organization, etc.), you would need releases.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. If I get any people pictures

worthy of being posted on my SmugMug site while I'm down on the Gulf Coast, I'm going to get releases just because my photos are for sale. I think it's better to be safe than sorry.

[Xithras]

5. General rule of thumb is whether they are the photos source of value

In other words: If you're walking through the woods one day and spot a pretty young woman sitting in a field of daisies, you will need a release if you plan on shooting a photo of her with the intention of republishing or selling it. Even though it's a public place. Why? Because she is the subject of the photo...it is her presence that gives it value. If you don't get a release from her and make a million bucks off the image, she's eventually gonna sue you and win two million back. You have unjustly profited from her likeness, and the courts generally frown on that sort of thing.

On the other hand, if I'm shooting a photo of the county fair and happen to capture 5, 15, or 50 fairgoers in the image, I don't need their releases. Why not? Because no one individual is giving the photo value. They are simply part of a crowd, and replacing any of them with another person wouldn't affect the composition of the shot. The subject in this case is the fair or the crowd, and not an individual person.

While it's technically true that you can shoot photo's of anyone in public legally, you'll have a heck of a time arguing that point in front of a jury while you're defending against the civil suit. Save yourself the hassle...if one or more people are the subjects of the photo, GET A RELEASE!

[wakeme2008]

6. IMHO good way of pointing that out....

thanks...

[photogirl12]

7. I think

You don't need a photo release if there are 3 or more unrelated people in the photo. I am a professional photographer and I remember hearing that somewhere, sometime in the past.