Okay to use this picture?

Thanks for the feedback!

I don't put pictures of children on my website without their parent's permission. Nor do I photograph them without permission even though it's legal. Having said all that your photograph doesn't IMO make the child recognizable so I'd use it.

You must buy a ticket to enter so an MLB stadium is not a public place.

IMO, the child would be entirely recognizable to anyone who knows her.

Adding this to a portfolio that promotes your photography could be construed as commercial use.
Without a signed release from a parent or legal guardian, I wouldn't use it.

I agree with Jay.....you need a release for this one.

Why not just put out an Ad in craigslist or local newspaper for anyone recognizing the child, offer the parents 20 or 40$ if they let you use the photo, i bet they will, and you'll meet some potential new clients in the process. Or you can offer them a printed copy of the photo.

Without their consent i wouldn't want to use it, they may or may not mind but its a toss up, especially since they didn't know you were photographing at all.

Csae wrote in post #12890036
Why not just put out an Ad in craigslist or local newspaper for anyone recognizing the child, offer the parents 20 or 40$ if they let you use the photo, i bet they will, and you'll meet some potential new clients in the process. Or you can offer them a printed copy of the photo.

Without their consent i wouldn't want to use it, they may or may not mind but its a toss up, especially since they didn't know you were photographing at all.

So publish the photo so you can get consent to publish the photo?

It looks like it's best not to use it, if even to avoid what looks like certain controversy.

The stadium is NOT a public place, it is a privately owned place that the general public has to pay an admission fee in order to gain access. Therefore, the rules of taking photos in public places do not apply here. If this were at a public park, different story.

With that said, did you not notice this image while at the park? If you did, why not just give your information to them and show them the photo. Tell them why you took it and ask if they want a copy. In the future you can save yourself from this with a little communication. At the very least, they say something like 'I would rather you not take pictures of us, would you delete those photos.' At that point, I would just delete them. The odds are, if you get a good shot, the parents are going to want a copy as a keepsake. At least, that has been my experience. I find that if you state your introduce yourself and state your intentions, people respond very sportively to that.....unless they are in the witness relocation program.

RobertMang wrote in post #12889242
While at a MLB baseball game, I took this picture. Is it legal/ethical to display it in my portfolio? It was a public place, but the pictures features a young child.

Nope

gonzogolf wrote in post #12890040
So publish the photo so you can get consent to publish the photo?

Publishing the photo for commercial purposes would be anything that advertises your business or a product, or leads to direct profits for someone, putting a photo out on craigslist to try and reach a person is not commercial or publishing.

Hell, if you really wanna beat off to the legal side he could even claim artistic use, Its clearly not a snapshot, the problem would also lie with the private stadium at that point though.

I dare you to try to find me one case of someone sued over a photo trying to locate someone.

Hi, i'm looking for the parents of this little girl : If you know them, please have them call me at xxxx-xxxx-xxx. If you start mentionning your photography or business, then i suppose one could argue its advertisement, but the above line does not.


"Yes were trying to sue X photographer for using our daughter's likeness in a photograph."
"Oh, what was he using it for?"
"To try and contact us."
"Wait so he wasn't selling anything or promoting anything?"

Csae wrote in post #12892429
Publishing the photo for commercial purposes would be anything that advertises your business or a product, or leads to direct profits for someone, putting a photo out on craigslist to try and reach a person is not commercial or publishing.

Hell, if you really wanna beat off to the legal side he could even claim artistic use, Its clearly not a snapshot, the problem would also lie with the private stadium at that point though.

I dare you to try to find me one case of someone sued over a photo trying to locate someone.

Hi, i'm looking for the parents of this little girl : If you know them, please have them call me at xxxx-xxxx-xxx. If you start mentionning your photography or business, then i suppose one could argue its advertisement, but the above line does not.


"Yes were trying to sue X photographer for using our daughter's likeness in a photograph."
"Oh, what was he using it for?"
"To try and contact us."
"Wait so he wasn't selling anything or promoting anything?"

But if the parents are sensitive to the image being published, they are unlikely to be cooperative after you've already spread the image all over the internet. I'm not talking about lawsuits I'm talking about cooperation. If you want to talk about the likelihood of being sued the OP could probably use the image without permission because the chances of him being found out, and successfully sued because he used the image are also quite low.

gonzogolf wrote in post #12895702
But if the parents are sensitive to the image being published, they are unlikely to be cooperative after you've already spread the image all over the internet. I'm not talking about lawsuits I'm talking about cooperation. If you want to talk about the likelihood of being sued the OP could probably use the image without permission because the chances of him being found out, and successfully sued because he used the image are also quite low.

So the only risk is pissing off the parents, in other options he can just Not use the photo at all, or can use it and risk being sued and pissing them off far worst.

I'm not sure i get the point of your message, you're just citing the worst outcome to an option, which isn't nearly as bad as the other options on the table even at its worst.

If the photographer did an honest effort to reach the person involved and offer them something, it won't be a negative outcome for them, if they are particularly sensitive to photography then at least he tried and he won't lose anything. Maybe they are particular fans of photography and would rejoice to having a photo of their daughter? Maybe they won't particularly rejoice but won't mind a copy, maybe they'd just prefer 40$? Maybe they won't care and will let him do as he pleases, or maybe they love the photo so much they'll hire him for even more! Lots of outcomes possible here. The best outcome far outweighs the worst.

Your message just strikes me as being afraid of rejection, but its not even like a dangerous rejection where it can really affect the outcome of your profession...

haveing seen the image before it was removed i would say you could get away with useing it, that photo could be 1 in a million children you can see a face but nothing that stands out as an individual, if you stood this boy or girl in a lineup with 10 other fair skinned kids you couldent tell me which one it was,

The photo is already removed, however this thread shows why you don't listen to legal advice on a message board mostly filled with amateurs who don't run a business or have lawyers and other legal advisors to help make decisions, it's all dead wrong or misinforming!

Seriously folks having an image in your portfolio is commercial usage? Really, since when did this law pass that should be rocking the photography world? You're telling me all these top of the line photographers with portfolios on their page and/or printed are now breaking the law!?!?! WHAT THE *#(@!

What actually matters is the stadium rules because as mentioned that is not public property - even if the stadium was publicly funded and owned by the city for example, does not automatically make it a public place just like schools. Anyways the rules are usually the same for all MLB teams, not always but usually. Seeing you're from MD I assume it's the Orioles and that means you could use the image in your portfolio all you wanted legally. You can sell the image editorially and be fine legally. You can't obviously use it commercially but that's when you use it in an advertisement or product, not a portfolio and definitely not just making money off it alone. Making money does not make it commercial usage, never has and never will.

Advertisement is something that shows an endorsement of your business, not always clear on that but a stand alone image is not commercial - a stand alone with the words "Sally loves XYZ Photography" would be as you're saying she endorses you. Using the image on a business card or magazine advertisement is commercial, making a print or publishing along with an article is editorial.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #12898361
The photo is already removed, however this thread shows why you don't listen to legal advice on a message board mostly filled with amateurs who don't run a business or have lawyers and other legal advisors to help make decisions, it's all dead wrong or misinforming!

Seriously folks having an image in your portfolio is commercial usage? Really, since when did this law pass that should be rocking the photography world? You're telling me all these top of the line photographers with portfolios on their page and/or printed are now breaking the law!?!?! WHAT THE *#(@!

What actually matters is the stadium rules because as mentioned that is not public property - even if the stadium was publicly funded and owned by the city for example, does not automatically make it a public place just like schools. Anyways the rules are usually the same for all MLB teams, not always but usually. Seeing you're from MD I assume it's the Orioles and that means you could use the image in your portfolio all you wanted legally. You can sell the image editorially and be fine legally. You can't obviously use it commercially but that's when you use it in an advertisement or product, not a portfolio and definitely not just making money off it alone. Making money does not make it commercial usage, never has and never will.

Advertisement is something that shows an endorsement of your business, not always clear on that but a stand alone image is not commercial - a stand alone with the words "Sally loves XYZ Photography" would be as you're saying she endorses you. Using the image on a business card or magazine advertisement is commercial, making a print or publishing along with an article is editorial.

Let me try to answer this,

Yes, having an image displayed as part of a portfolio is in many places considered a commercial usage, by definition a portfolio is made to promote and showcase your work/business. I don't know how it goes in NY, but over here, theres a small legal minefield to navigate, a model release clears that nicely. I do vaguely remember being told once that in NY this is not the case, however i wouldn't just bank on it, i'd always have a release of some sort on my photos, even worse in Canada, if you are paid for a photo it is not your's without an agreement, meaning you don't even own the copyright if someone hired you for a photo.

All of those top of the lines photographers you mention, have model releases signed for their photos or some sort of legal contract. Anyone doing proper business would have some sort of contract, whether a typical model release or a custom one perhaps only allowing portfolio usage, etc. A verbal agreement can also be used, but if you're in business for any length of time, you'd likely prefer it in writing. Generally though, its not so much the photographer's that get sued, as much as the publications running the photos who quickly learn to demand a model release.

You are right that the stadium rules matter, however, having seen the photo i can tell you it was impossible to even tell what stadium this was shot in, so unless the OP mentions it in the photo, the stadium would have a hard time even finding out & proving it, it is however a risk, and it is up to the OP to decide whether it is worth taking or not.

The bigger risk is the parents, and thats what people were discussing.

Honestly, it was a great photo, i wouldn't just drop it unless you get alot of them of that caliber, its not worth investing alot of time or money, or taking a huge risk for it, but it was a very nice photo.

I would like to know your final decision and reasoning for it Robert, Generally editing posts like you did is rude in my book, removing the photo is one thing but people chimed in and instead of just making another post, you erased the story. Now people won't be able to read this thread if they are in a similar situation properly.