Copyright/public-private question

[slappy sam]

If I took photos for my school newspaper at an event that was held on campus, can I post these photos online? I wouldn't need a model release for the people AFAIK because I am not selling/doing anything with the images other than displaying them. Also, I was given permission to take the photos by the school, so I am allowed to post them, correct? It is private property, but I'm given the rights to shoot there.

And no, I don't have a specific contract for this, the newspaper is student run.

[Stocky]

With no contract in place you own the photos and are free to post them as long is it is not in a commercial capacity. Since your site and blog don't appear to be selling anything other than artistic prints of the same images I think you are safe. If anyone asks you to take them down I would just to avoid a fight, but thats the only issue you should face.

[slappy sam]

Yeah, I don't think I would even sell those photos of the people I took for the newspaper unless the people requesting to purchase them were in the photos. Anyway, that is unlikely to happen anyway

I would definetly take them down if the people asked me to. Thanks for the help.

[S.Horton]

If the use is editorial, that is you're doing a bit of photojournalism, post away.

[slappy sam]

Originally Posted by hortonsl62

If the use is editorial, that is you're doing a bit of photojournalism, post away.

It is

Thanks fellas. I was pretty sure but not entirely, so its nice to have some confirmation on this issue. The photos are on my blog, linked in my signature in case you wish to check them out. It was kinda rough - low light with my xt and no flash meant I was shooting at iso 800 and f/1.4-1.8 most of the time. 1600 is a bit too noisy for me.

[DwightMcCann]

I would urge you to talk to your Risk Management department at school. I work at UCSB and they have their own policies. Further, there are a number of issues beyond "not selling anything" that may come into play, such as, was anyone in a situation in which they might reasonably have expected privacy of any sort? At your age you don't want to create "issues" where the payoff isn't worth the gain. At my age, that's about all I do!

[slappy sam]

Originally Posted by DwightMcCann

I would urge you to talk to your Risk Management department at school. I work at UCSB and they have their own policies. Further, there are a number of issues beyond "not selling anything" that may come into play, such as, was anyone in a situation in which they might reasonably have expected privacy of any sort? At your age you don't want to create "issues" where the payoff isn't worth the gain. At my age, that's about all I do!

There were 4 photographers there, 2 from the newspaper (including myself) and 2 from the photo club. The photo club was hired by the school to cover the event (probably for brochures etc.). The newspaper was there to cover the event for an article in the paper. I don't think privacy was really expected. It was also a formal event for student government stuff. But I will look into that.

[photoguy6405]

Originally Posted by Stocky

With no contract in place you own the photos and are free to post them as long is it is not in a commercial capacity. Since your site and blog don't appear to be selling anything other than artistic prints of the same images I think you are safe. If anyone asks you to take them down I would just to avoid a fight, but thats the only issue you should face.

What's the difference? Wouldn't selling be selling, and thus "commercial"?

[Stocky]

As I understand it commercial use means for advertising. I can't find the story right now, but there was a famous case in NY city where a jewish man got upset when his picture was taken, however the artist still sold prints for thousands of dollars and the photographer's rights were upheld in court.
The part I don't understand is how commercial usage relates to using images in your portfolio to promote yourself.

[amfoto1]

I ain't an attorney, but...

Your use sounds to be "editorial". When you put the photos on the Internet, you are merely publishing them, just as the newspaper did (or could have done). You had permission to photograph and were there in an official capacity. So, post away and simply consider removing them from your site if anyone complains. You don't need a model release in this situation.

In fact, as mentioned, you could use the photos in any "editorial" manner, such as selling prints of them to anyone, hanging them in a museum or art gallery, even publishing them in a book in some circumstances.

You cannot sell them or use them for any "commercial" purpose without a proper model release. Most buyers for commercial usage would know this and ask if a release is on file, up front. That's a sure tip off that they intend to use the images in advertising, posters, fliers, packaging, on coffee mugs, t-shirts or mouse pads, or some other "commercial" application.

In fact, the photo club photographers had better have model releases signed and on file from any recognizable individuals, if the school intends to use the photos in any sort of marketing brochure!

Cheers!

[Ledrak]

Originally Posted by Stocky

As I understand it commercial use means for advertising. I can't find the story right now, but there was a famous case in NY city where a jewish man got upset when his picture was taken, however the artist still sold prints for thousands of dollars and the photographer's rights were upheld in court.
The part I don't understand is how commercial usage relates to using images in your portfolio to promote yourself.

That guy in NY must have had a release or not been recognizable in the photo. Because as I understand it, commercial use includes sale and/or endorsement.

[Stocky]

JUST BECAUSE YOU SELL AN IMAGE DOESN'T MAKE IT COMMERCIAL USE. I know the termonology is confusing, but as I understand it commercial use means use in advertising. Please let me know if you interperate this court case differently, but I think that the case of deCorcia in the NY Supreme court shows the difference between the sale of art and commercial use. Your mileage may vary because this was taken in a public place in NY, however with this president I doubt you would have any issues of selling prints no matter who is in it. Please take a look at this and let me know if you understand it differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

[Ledrak]

You’re right. I obviously interpreted the situation wrong. After reading I understand why the court voted the way they did. What happened in that case wasn’t a violation of his privacy, nor was it commercial use of his name or likeness.