What are some things as photographers we have the right to do and cant get in trouble for. Also what shots are we allowed to take and sell as our own.

What about talking shots of people when they dont know your taking them. Like if you see a perfect shot of sombody leaning against a post or something?

Also how does one go about protecting their work when they sell it.

Thanks.

PhotoPermit.org (http://www.photopermit.org/) is a good resource. Amazon shows a couple of books that would probably be good to check out, like this one (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158428059X/103-0604863-3425463?v=glance&n=283155&%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) and this one (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581151977/103-0604863-3425463?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance).

Not being a lawyer, it's pretty tough to give anything other than basic guidelines about what you can and can't do. It's not just what the subject is, but where you were standing when you took it, what you want to do with the images, etc. Then there was a recent thread here about Indiana law stating that you can't publish an image of someone (may only apply to minors) getting injured during a sports event. Ugh...

There are very few things a photographer is flat-out not allowed to shoot, most dealing with national security, private property, or protected intellectual property (concerts or similar events).

For everything else, the key is usually usage, and this can be quite a gray area. So, while it might be legal to photograph say, a couple or an old woman on the street, you may not be able to publish a photo of them without their permission.

Or you may be able to publish the image if it's an editorial news or feature story, but not for an advertising campaign or stock photo business.

Or it might be perfectly legal to exhibit the image in a gallery show (and sell it as a work of art), but not to use it for a magazine cover later on.

Steve gives some good resources (although I couldn't get the photopermit site to open up), and makes an important point that you need to know laws particular to the state you're shooting in. Also the importance of getting a model and/or property release for any shooting that you feel may have future commercial or publishing potential.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Print out a copy and carry it with you.

Yeah, was gonna link to this, too. I've had a copy of this with me for years...

And it reiterates my original point: it's perfectly legal to photograph just about anything out in public (despite protests from puffed-up rent-a-cops and the like). It's publishing it or using the images commercially that bring up the legal issues...

Thanks for all the information. I am in the process of making a site for my business i hope to create and will start out as a portfolio site where you can buy my photographs.

I am in the process of making a site for my business i hope to create and will start out as a portfolio site where you can buy my photographs.

Remember too, that using photos in a portfolio, either a hard copy or on the web does not automatically constitute commercial use if the work is not being offered for sale.

IOW, you may not have model releases for all the photos of people on your web site (I sure don't), but you can still show those images as examples of your photography in an attempt to get work.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding...

Remember too, that using photos in a portfolio, either a hard copy or on the web does not automatically constitute commercial use if the work is not being offered for sale.

IOW, you may not have model releases for all the photos of people on your web site (I sure don't), but you can still show those images as examples of your photography in an attempt to get work.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding...


You've got a lot more experience than most of us in this business.

So if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me!

[QUOTE

Not being a lawyer, it's pretty tough to give anything other than basic guidelines about what you can and can't do. It's not just what the subject is, but where you were standing when you took it, what you want to do with the images, etc. Then there was a recent thread here about Indiana law stating that you can't publish an image of someone (may only apply to minors) getting injured during a sports event. Ugh...[/QUOTE]


Actually the Indiana deal is this:

Some schools/School Districts are now requiring students AND parents (for those students under 18) to sign an AUP, yes, an Acceptable Use Policy, which in short allows the persons image to be used on websites and so on. The AUP is exempt for the newspaper, but apparently not the papers website :confused:

Additionally, another piece of legislation that is apparently gaining ground does not allow photos of injured student athletes during or after the injury.....I don't get this one or exactly what areas of the state it's in...appears to be a county by county or school by school deal now. I'm still trying to get a real answer on it, but no one seems to know the real story.

My thinking is that some parent got upset when their kid was injured and a photographer got a shot of it and it was run either by a paper or on a website. I know the local paper will not run those shots, no matter what.

JS

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

A friend sent that to me a few days ago. Your mileage may vary a little depending on where you're at, but that article should pretty much hold true throughout the country.

This was written by an attorney. While the laws vary from state to state, it's an excellent guide. I highly recommend printing it and carrying a copy with you. I've got a copy in my camera bag.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Actually the Indiana deal is this:

Some schools/School Districts are now requiring students AND parents (for those students under 18) to sign an AUP, yes, an Acceptable Use Policy, which in short allows the persons image to be used on websites and so on. The AUP is exempt for the newspaper, but apparently not the papers website :confused:

Additionally, another piece of legislation that is apparently gaining ground does not allow photos of injured student athletes during or after the injury.....I don't get this one or exactly what areas of the state it's in...appears to be a county by county or school by school deal now. I'm still trying to get a real answer on it, but no one seems to know the real story.

My thinking is that some parent got upset when their kid was injured and a photographer got a shot of it and it was run either by a paper or on a website. I know the local paper will not run those shots, no matter what.

JS

Despite what the school districts say, the law is that a school is a public place and a student's photo can be taken in the course of any kind of education or school related activity. School sporting events are even more public and legally open to photographers and television or video shooting. I have even videotaped student concerts for television stations without any permission forms.

For that matter you can even legally take photos on private property. The only recourse for the owner is to indicate that you are trespassing and force you to leave. Despite any posted restrictions it is also legal to take photos and use them for whatever purpose of places that are open to the general public and of any work of art on permanent display.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco,

Not if the school system has an AUP, if that student or their parent did not sign the AUP the photo CANNOT be used...period. If I, the paper or the school tried to use the photo we'ed be sued and 99% chance we'ed lose.

JS

Ronnoco,

Not if the school system has an AUP, if that student or their parent did not sign the AUP the photo CANNOT be used...period. If I, the paper or the school tried to use the photo we'ed be sued and 99% chance we'ed lose.

JS

An AUP is just a school system policy: an indication of the wishes of the
board. You cannot get sued for violating a school system policy. Now, I have shot thousands of photos and hours of video and television footage and had work displayed, published, presented, in all kinds of formats from newspapers to national television. Neither I, nor schools, departments, or the other organizations that I did the work for, were ever even threatened with any kind of legal action whatsoever.

Ronnoco

An AUP is just a school system policy: an indication of the wishes of the
board. You cannot get sued for violating a school system policy. Now, I have shot thousands of photos and hours of video and television footage and had work displayed, published, presented, in all kinds of formats from newspapers to national television. Neither I, nor schools, departments, or the other organizations that I did the work for, were ever even threatened with any kind of legal action whatsoever.

Ronnoco

I don't know what AUP you have dealt with but the ones that we have here will get you sued. It is NOT the school board who enforces it, it is the student/parents. I have known photographers sued over the AUP in force at one school district here, it is very strict, if the student/parent(s) have not signed the AUP you are not allowed to publish the photo in ANY FORM. The school isn't even allowed to use it.
I have only had one issue with it, but got a waiver signed by both the student and their parents in order to get a photo in the paper. It doesn't matter where on school property the photo was taken, even at a basketball game.

One photog was sued over a photo where a basketball player who hadn't signed the AUP wound up in a newspaper.....the kid and her parents got $10,000 in an out of court settlement. He neer paid, but he hasn't worked since either. Another paid $2500 for a photo that had a student in a crowd and you could barely tell who it was.
And ther was the photog who photographed the injured player, that one has been in and out of court for two years now....parents asking for $100,000 because they did not sign the AUP to allow photos of their kid.
Be careful as an AUP will get you in trouble, just because you have been lucky so far doesn't mean it won't come back to bite you. I won't take the chance, and I get an updated list three times a year from that school on who hasn't signed the AUP, fortunately it is a very small list.

JS

[QUOTE=JSPhoto]I don't know what AUP you have dealt with but the ones that we have here will get you sued. It is NOT the school board who enforces it, it is the student/parents.

I am lost here. How can students/parents enforce anything that is not legally required? Photos can be taken of individuals in public places since there can be no expectation of privacy(the legal term) and certainly any newspaper shot taken at a sports or other public event can be used without permission. I have worked with news photographers as well at events with students. No one sought any sort of written permission from anyone.

When I first started getting into media, I got conflicting messages about what the law was.
So I picked up the Copyright Act, Media Law Handbook, Tresspass, Defammation and Libel laws and read them thoroughly. What I learned was that the level of paranoia about law suits led to procedures and policies that were not necessary and had no legal support in law. For that matter, some out-of-court settlements have more to do with the exhorbitant cost of legal proceedings rather than the so-called "legal basis" for the law suit either.

Photographers should also know that some angry parents, students, others, can open themselves up to law suits by what they say to a photographer. An accusation made in public by an angry subject or parent can turn into a perfect civil suit or counter-suit for the photographer. Harassment by an angry parent, student, etc. at an event of course constitutes assault in law too and then there is causing a disturbance. Calmly pointing this out can instantly cool down almost any potential situation, assuming a level of intelligence on the other side.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco,

Schools began the AUP deal to protect students privacy due to some sick people. School property is public property BUT it is also the school boards job to protect it's students and what may be legal on other public property is not on school property for school districts that have AUP's. The AUP is designed to protect students, and it is strictly enforced here. If you break the AUP you can and will be sued. We are in the process of working with the schools lawyers to get the paper "out of it" and allowing us to shoot whatever we need to without worrying about the AUP.
Part of the problem began with a man who was at swim meets taking photos. He wasn't a parent, he wasn't a grandparent, and he isn't with the media, nor with the school district. Police came in and went over his photos, which as it turned out were inappropriate type shots. They deleted them and ordered him not to return to the school. Since then the school came up with the AUP to protect the kids. It allows for, amongst other things the arrest of anyone taking inappropriate photos. It also allows the parents/students to allow or not allow their photos to be used in the school paper, yearbook, website, or any other types of school or non-school publishing. In doing so it allows that if a student is photographed on school property and the photo is published in any form but they did not sign the AUP they can take legal action. If they signed they have no recourse.
AUP's have more pull than you realize, and they can end a photographers career. I suggest you get a copy of the AUP's in your area and take them to an attorney and see what they think. My brother in law has looked over several of them, and all have legal merits. The few that I have to deal with don't bother me. The list has around 12 names, most of which do not go to events I shoot, and if one pops up in a photo I just blur them out.

JS

JS Photo:

All very interesting, but you still have not dealt with the basic issue. What legislation requires adherence to the AUPs? If there are no such laws on the state or federal books giving authority to the AUPs, then they have no legal basis in law. What better defense could a photographer possibly have?

Ronnoco

Sorry to jump subject but it kinda pertains to it.

I was invited to an indoor motorcross event. Never went to one before. Took my NIkon (D70) to basically play around with settings. We were waiting for it to start and a girl who works there told me I cant use "professional cameras" without a photographers pass. Only signs up banning anything was "No Videocameras". Nothing about SLRs of any kind. But yet someone with a $900 point and shoot is fine? What do ya think about that?


BTW I fired off a letter to the director of ops for the sanctioning body and just got a "call me @ ***-***-****" Basically wanted just an apology and that they either allow people to use slr's or not allow ANY cameras.

Sorry to jump subject but it kinda pertains to it.

I was invited to an indoor motorcross event. Never went to one before. Took my NIkon (D70) to basically play around with settings. We were waiting for it to start and a girl who works there told me I cant use "professional cameras" without a photographers pass. Only signs up banning anything was "No Videocameras". Nothing about SLRs of any kind. But yet someone with a $900 point and shoot is fine? What do ya think about that?

BTW I fired off a letter to the director of ops for the sanctioning body and just got a "call me @ ***-***-****" Basically wanted just an apology and that they either allow people to use slr's or not allow ANY cameras.

From their view banning all cameras is unenforceable anyway because there are so many small cameras and even cellphone cameras around. Bottom line legally is that all they can do about it is throw you out for tresspassing, if they represent the legal owner of the arena. You still get to keep whatever photos you have taken and since they were taken at a public event, you can use them as you see fit.

What sometimes works in these situations is to come in with an all-in-one superzoom EVF camera and dress and act like a rank amateur. Keep your camera out of sight until the event starts and keep an eye out for bothersome people looking for professional equipment.

Ronnoco

Hi,

So how can it be legal for a photographer to photograph minors at school functions such as football games and then turn around and sell those prints to anyone and everyone on the internet?
The subjects in the pictures aren't making any money, the photographer is raking it in.
These are not pictures used on the school web site of which parents have signed the agreement to allow photographs. These are shots taken at school functions, on school property, of minors and then being sold on the internet.

While parents sign to allow photos on school websites, they do not sign that an independant photographer can sell their child's pictures to the world from his internet site.

Thanks,
Janet

Hi,

So how can it be legal for a photographer to photograph minors at school functions such as football games and then turn around and sell those prints to anyone and everyone on the internet?
The subjects in the pictures aren't making any money, the photographer is raking it in.
These are not pictures used on the school web site of which parents have signed the agreement to allow photographs. These are shots taken at school functions, on school property, of minors and then being sold on the internet.

While parents sign to allow photos on school websites, they do not sign that an independant photographer can sell their child's pictures to the world from his internet site.

Thanks,
Janet

Hi Janet.

Generally, something along those lines requires at least one of a few things. In order to legally sell them on the Internet, you need permission from the school AND permission from the parent. Depending on the circumstances of the contest, you may also need permission from the sanctioning body (High School Athletic Agency).

Legally, you can shoot pictures at any public event. Under the current laws, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, so I can take your picture as long as I am not trespassing.

Very interesting reading on this subject. I shoot aerials, so this issue is something that doesn't affect my business, consequently I don't know much about it. I wonder if any of you might care to address proprietary rights while you're at it. I recently purchased a vault of aerial photography negatives that go back 40 years... probably over 30,000 exposures. I was under the assumption that whoever shot the film (owner of the camera) owns the proprietary rights, regardless of who contracted the work to be done. That unless the original contract specifically noted that the negatives were the property of the client, the proprietary rights of all future reproductions (published or otherwise) of the original negatives belong to the photographer... or in my case the person who purchased it from the photographer (he retired).
Off the original topic, but I would like to hear the thoughts from you other members of this forum. I'm new here... this is my first post.

Hi Janet.
Legally, you can shoot pictures at any public event. Under the current laws, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, so I can take your picture as long as I am not trespassing.

Wrong on that one, masdog! In both Canada and the U.S., as well as elsewhere, whether you are trespassing or not, does not relate in any way to taking pictures. You can take photos while trespassing and the only possible consequence is being thrown off the property. Trespassing is illegal but taking photos is NOT, even while trespassing.

Ronnoco

Very interesting reading on this subject. I shoot aerials, so this issue is something that doesn't affect my business, consequently I don't know much about it. I wonder if any of you might care to address proprietary rights while you're at it. I recently purchased a vault of aerial photography negatives that go back 40 years... probably over 30,000 exposures. I was under the assumption that whoever shot the film (owner of the camera) owns the proprietary rights, regardless of who contracted the work to be done. That unless the original contract specifically noted that the negatives were the property of the client, the proprietary rights of all future reproductions (published or otherwise) of the original negatives belong to the photographer... or in my case the person who purchased it from the photographer (he retired).
Off the original topic, but I would like to hear the thoughts from you other members of this forum. I'm new here... this is my first post.

The photographer is the first owner of copyright and the fact that you also purchased the negatives suggests that the photographer retained those rights.

A photographer would not likely hold onto negatives for photos that he had sold reproduction rights to.

Ronnoco

[QUOTE=masdog]Hi Janet.
Generally, something along those lines requires at least one of a few things. In order to legally sell them on the Internet, you need permission from the school AND permission from the parent. Depending on the circumstances of the contest, you may also need permission from the sanctioning body (High School Athletic Agency).QUOTE]

To be contrary, you definitely do not need permission from the school or the sanctioning body. A school event can certainly NOT be copyrighted by a school or an athletic association. Only a photo can be copyrighted and the first owner is the photographer.
You may need a release from the student if a minor, or the parent to use a shot but that depends on the nature of the use. Shots used in a journalistic way in local papers or publications promoting such events do not require permision. Advertising and other uses may require releases.

Ronnoco

"They deleted them and ordered him not to return to the school. Since then the school came up with the AUP to protect the kids. It allows for, amongst other things the arrest of anyone taking inappropriate photos. "


and who gets to decide what is "inappropriate"?

so what you are saying is this AUP has been codified into law as it allows for arrest powers for violation from law enforcement. what would be the exact charge? what state are you in? i would like to look up the code.

you alluded to the fact that several entities were being sued. this would fall under civil litigation which can commence from anybody with a filing fee. what exactly was the "complaint" in these cases?

thanx for the clarification!

"They deleted them and ordered him not to return to the school. Since then the school came up with the AUP to protect the kids. It allows for, amongst other things the arrest of anyone taking inappropriate photos. "


and who gets to decide what is "inappropriate"?

so what you are saying is this AUP has been codified into law as it allows for arrest powers for violation from law enforcement. what would be the exact charge? what state are you in? i would like to look up the code.

you alluded to the fact that several entities were being sued. this would fall under civil litigation which can commence from anybody with a filing fee. what exactly was the "complaint" in these cases?

thanx for the clarification!

Terry makes some good points and a few things should not be forgotten.

Anyone can take photos pretty well anywhere with few exceptions. Violating the secrets act and sneaking a camera into Area 51 would probably not be recommended or anything of a similar nature. Shooting someone in a place where there is an expectation of privacy such as a washroom or change room would obviously also be illegal

It should also be pointed out that the law is not made by schools, school boards, athletic associations, corporations or owners of property. They may have created policies to deter and limit photography but that is all they are...policies. The only one with any power is the property owner or their representative and their only power is to tell you that you are trespassing and must leave the property. You still retain all rights to any photos you have taken, both physically and in terms of copyright while on the property whether with or without permission.

In terms of use, journalistic photography in a public place does not require any releases. A photo of people using park facilities used to promote the park would likely not require releases either. Candid photography is certainly permiited as well.

On the opposite side, using a photo of a child in a park to promote peanut butter who by chance has a nut allergy would get the photographer into deep problems. Linking a person in a candid photo to something unrelated to the picture might also constitute defammation and leave the photographer open to a law suit as well. Common sense would indicate that for most photos used for advertising, a release is necessary.

Ronnoco

Wrong on that one, masdog! In both Canada and the U.S., as well as elsewhere, whether you are trespassing or not, does not relate in any way to taking pictures. You can take photos while trespassing and the only possible consequence is being thrown off the property. Trespassing is illegal but taking photos is NOT, even while trespassing.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco,

No, your wrong, the question was specific and dealing with schools and MINORS. Schools that have AUP's require a parent/guardian signature, and even with a minor and no AUP you need parental permission to SELL the photos. On my high school website I also have to have have written permission for certain students even though I don't sell those photos because of the schools AUP.
As for tresspassing, your wrong there too, you may not photograph on private property without permission and the owner can force the destruction of negatives etc. You can however photograph from a public area/right of way though.
Even some public areas require permits or special permission to photograph such as the anywhere on the New York city subway. Local ordinances may prohibit photography in public areas whether it's public or private property.
JS

Wrong on that one, masdog! In both Canada and the U.S., as well as elsewhere, whether you are trespassing or not, does not relate in any way to taking pictures. You can take photos while trespassing and the only possible consequence is being thrown off the property. Trespassing is illegal but taking photos is NOT, even while trespassing.

Ronnoco

That depends on the laws and the people you're dealing with. You could easily end up in jail, your photos destroyed, or worse.

IANAL, but its reasonable to assume that if you're trespassing, you're not supposed to be taking photographs.

Hi Janet.
Generally, something along those lines requires at least one of a few things. In order to legally sell them on the Internet, you need permission from the school AND permission from the parent. Depending on the circumstances of the contest, you may also need permission from the sanctioning body (High School Athletic Agency).

To be contrary, you definitely do not need permission from the school or the sanctioning body. A school event can certainly NOT be copyrighted by a school or an athletic association. Only a photo can be copyrighted and the first owner is the photographer.
You may need a release from the student if a minor, or the parent to use a shot but that depends on the nature of the use. Shots used in a journalistic way in local papers or publications promoting such events do not require permision. Advertising and other uses may require releases.

Ronnoco, you're wrong. I will simply point you to the NCAA. Their bylaws state something to the effect that they retain all rights to the contests. They also limit what you can do with images. Other sports leagues have similar rules. Most sportscasts have disclaimers at the end saying the contest is owned by the league and the network transmitting it. Please check Chapter 12 (I beleive) of the NCAA DI, DII, and DIII bylaws if you don't believe me.

While you may own the copyright to the photography, you don't own the intellectual property that is captured in the photograph. Team names, logos, and the like is all copyrighted and trademarked, and selling images of it is a huge violation of the law, especially when you don't have permission to do so.

It is currently against NCAA rules to sell images from NCAA events to non-journalism groups without permission of the school you're shooting for. Doing so has resulted in a number of cease-and-desist letters, denied credentials, and its hinted that sale of the image may effect the eligibility of the athlete in question (there is currently a bylaw amendment in D1 that would remove this intonation).

Sportsshooter.com got into trouble last year with the NCAA because they felt that images displayed on the website were in violation of their rules. Even though the photographers weren't selling the image, the fact that they were "advertising" themselves with the images caused a potential problem that resulted in the "accepting freelance" designation being removed.

When I was doing my internship for my DIII college last year, I did a lot of research on this subject. I spent hours reading the DIII, as well as the DI, bylaws to find out what it would take to sell photos without hearing from a lawyer representing my college. To legally sell the images on a website, according to the bylaws, I needed written permission from the athletic director. I didn't get that, so I couldn't sell.

Please stop giving bad advice on this subject. The last thing you want is to tell someone its OK to sell images and have them end up losing their access or getting sued. When in doubt, get permission is always a good rule to go one.

In terms of use, journalistic photography in a public place does not require any releases. A photo of people using park facilities used to promote the park would likely not require releases either. Candid photography is certainly permiited as well.


Janet's question had nothing to do with journalistic photography, though. It had everything to do with sale of photographs to non-journalism end-users from an athletic event.

Ronnoco,

As for tresspassing, your wrong there too, you may not photograph on private property without permission and the owner can force the destruction of negatives etc. You can however photograph from a public area/right of way though.
Even some public areas require permits or special permission to photograph such as the anywhere on the New York city subway.
JS

Well, the Media Law Handbook produced by lawyers states that you are not prohibited from photographing, filming, recording whatever you see on private property, even while trespassing, unless it violates the secrets act or the privacy of an individual in an extreme manner. Now granted that is Canadian but they have a Seattle office. I don't pretend to understand the US legal system but I have seen nothing in federal law which suggests a drastic difference with Canadian legal concepts in the area of photojournalism.

Permits to photograph in public areas relate to interfering with pedestrian traffic with tripods, light stands etc. I have never been bothered because I have avoided interfering with pedestrians. I have even shot moving film in major hotels without being bothered by either security or police.

Ronnoco

Further to American photography and the "need" for permits in some public parks in California etc., the legal intent is to limit and control "high impact commercial photography". By high impact however, one lawyer has indicated film, television, large crews, generators, large light boxes, models, multiple light stands, wiring, sets, etc. and their interference with the normal operation of the park.

The only still photographer requiring such a permit would therefore be one with a six figure
assignment who can afford to hire a crew, a truck, and a considerable amount of auxiliary lighting, equipment, models, and crew etc.

I don't think there are many here who need to concern themselves with such permits or restrictions.

Ronnoco

Further to American photography and the "need" for permits in some public parks in California etc., the legal intent is to limit and control "high impact commercial photography". By high impact however, one lawyer has indicated film, television, large crews, generators, large light boxes, models, multiple light stands, wiring, sets, etc. and their interference with the normal operation of the park.

The only still photographer requiring such a permit would therefore be one with a six figure
assignment who can afford to hire a crew, a truck, and a considerable amount of auxiliary lighting, equipment, models, and crew etc.

I don't think there are many here who need to concern themselves with such permits or restrictions.

Ronnoco

Local laws vary widely. Don't just assume that you can shoot in public where-ever you would like. Its always good to double check to make sure you're not violating local ordinances (your legal handbook won't have local ordinance information for the thousands of municipalities in the US...and it should include a disclaimer saying to check for local rules).

Local laws vary widely. Don't just assume that you can shoot in public where-ever you would like. Its always good to double check to make sure you're not violating local ordinances (your legal handbook won't have local ordinance information for the thousands of municipalities in the US...and it should include a disclaimer saying to check for local rules).

Local ordinances and bylaws are on the books, often out-of-date, and are very limited in terms of any enforcement potential, particularly if they conflict with constitutional or other civil rights in state or federal law.

Everyone in the U.S. and Canada has the freedom to take photos in a public place as long as they are not interfering with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or any other normal activity that takes place there. As I said, permits are only required for "high impact commercial photography or film-making", which is understandable.

As to use, photojournalists do not require a release from any individual, neither do candid photographers. Most photography for advertising purposes requires releases from individuals in the photos but it depends on the nature of the shot and its use. A shot of a Québec street with a bunch of tourists used to promote the province for example probably would not require individual releases. A shot of one street artist with a tourist/model would.

Ronnoco

Local ordinances and bylaws are on the books, often out-of-date, and are very limited in terms of any enforcement potential, particularly if they conflict with constitutional or other civil rights in state or federal law.

Everyone in the U.S. and Canada has the freedom to take photos in a public place as long as they are not interfering with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or any other normal activity that takes place there. As I said, permits are only required for "high impact commercial photography or film-making", which is understandable.

As to use, photojournalists do not require a release from any individual, neither do candid photographers. Most photography for advertising purposes requires releases from individuals in the photos but it depends on the nature of the shot and its use. A shot of a Québec street with a bunch of tourists used to promote the province for example probably would not require individual releases. A shot of one street artist with a tourist/model would.

Ronnoco

what we have here is a difference of attitudes as opposed to a "right or wrong" situation.

ronnoco tends to think more like i do. "that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission"

john and masdog prefer to "err on the side of caution."

both sides have advantages and disadvantages.

"american wise at least, I AM INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"

if an entity wishes to persue any avenue of recourse open to him, for photos i have taken then he has that right but i refuse to live in fear of what "might happen".

everything i do is based on the fact that i am willing to live with the consequences. this is just my credo and not something i push on others and ask the same of them in return.


masdog said:

"Please stop giving bad advice on this subject. The last thing you want is to tell someone its OK to sell images and have them end up losing their access or getting sued. "


attorney's are the only ones allowed by law in either the u.s. or canada to give legal advice, an then it is still just THEIR INTERPRETATION, not a fact.

if one chooses to accept leagl advice off the internet or from any other random source it is the individual's responsibility. not mine, ronnoco's or anyone elses!

have a good day!:D

Local ordinances and bylaws are on the books, often out-of-date, and are very limited in terms of any enforcement potential, particularly if they conflict with constitutional or other civil rights in state or federal law.

<SNIP Garbage>

As to use, photojournalists do not require a release from any individual, neither do candid photographers. Most photography for advertising purposes requires releases from individuals in the photos but it depends on the nature of the shot and its use. A shot of a Québec street with a bunch of tourists used to promote the province for example probably would not require individual releases. A shot of one street artist with a tourist/model would.


Ronnoco, please stop. You're splitting hairs now. First, just because an ordinance might conflict with civil rights doesn't mean that it isn't still on the books - in order for a court to overturn it, it has to be challenged first. That means lawyers and money for a minor fine.

Two, the question that Janet asked has nothing to do with the situations you're posting. She was:
A) Referring to photographer who are NOT photojournalist
B) Taking pictures at an athletic event
C) Run by a high school
D) Who was interested in the selling these pictures.

Information on tourism or shooting in other public areas does not apply here as it deals with a specific instance.

In shooting athletics, you need the following -
1) Permission to photograph the event from non-spectator areas. At professional level events, spectators may not be allowed to bring in "professional-looking" cameras.
2) Written Permission from the host, school, organizing body, or league in order to sell those images to end-users other than journalists and certain licensed companies.

Terry,

There is a reason why John and I both err on the side of caution. We're both sports photographers. In our field, if you're found in a spot where you don't have permission to be, its likely that you won't be able to get that permission when you're caught.

Generally, you need permission from someone so we can do our job. Its not a matter of asking forgiveness if we don't.

Ronnoco, please stop. You're splitting hairs now. First, just because an ordinance might conflict with civil rights doesn't mean that it isn't still on the books - in order for a court to overturn it, it has to be challenged first. That means lawyers and money for a minor fine.

Two, the question that Janet asked has nothing to do with the situations you're posting. She was:
A) Referring to photographer who are NOT photojournalist
B) Taking pictures at an athletic event
C) Run by a high school
D) Who was interested in the selling these pictures.

Information on tourism or shooting in other public areas does not apply here as it deals with a specific instance.

In shooting athletics, you need the following -
1) Permission to photograph the event from non-spectator areas. At professional level events, spectators may not be allowed to bring in "professional-looking" cameras.
2) Written Permission from the host, school, organizing body, or league in order to sell those images to end-users other than journalists and certain licensed companies.


now who's spittin out legal advice????:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

as i said, anyone that gets legal advice from the internet has gotten legal advice worth exactly what they paid for it!:D :D :D

i wouldn't want reality get in the way of you "sports photojournalists":D :D :D

Ronnoco, please stop. You're splitting hairs now. First, just because an ordinance might conflict with civil rights doesn't mean that it isn't still on the books - in order for a court to overturn it, it has to be challenged first. That means lawyers and money for a minor fine..

Well, having watched local ordinances at work in my own municipality, here is what happens. A complaint is made. No response from authorities. It is made again. The local ordinance enforcement officer in 2 or 3 weeks may check out details and issue a warning. If the activity continues and the ordinance officer actually sees it, and there is a further complaint, a second warning may be issued a month or more down the road. It seldom gets past this stage because the ordinance officer is overworked and the person making the complaint gets tired from the constant repetition and phone calls necessary to get any action. Of course, the cost to prosecute a minor ordinance violation is another reason why it seldom happens in my area and I suspect many others.

Two, the question that Janet asked has nothing to do with the situations you're posting. She was:
A) Referring to photographer who are NOT photojournalist
B) Taking pictures at an athletic event
C) Run by a high school
D) Who was interested in the selling these pictures...


The laws relating to photojournalism and taking photos generally refer to all photography. The difference is that other photographers may be subject to personal releases for identifiable people in shots used for advertising purposes.

And yes what I posted has everything to do with Janet's question. If she took photos at a high school athletic event, then she owns the copyright to the photos. If she is selling the photos to the person in the shot, then she is not violating any laws. If she is selling them to some journalistic/sports publication then she is probably covered under photojournalism rights.

In shooting athletics, you need the following -
1) Permission to photograph the event from non-spectator areas. At professional level events, spectators may not be allowed to bring in "professional-looking" cameras.
2) Written Permission from the host, school, organizing body, or league in order to sell those images to end-users other than journalists and certain licensed companies.

I asked you this before and you failed to answer. What STATE or FEDERAL law, requires you to get written permission from the host, school, organizing body, in order to sell the images to end-users?

I don't think there is one, and that is the bottom line.

Ronnoco