Selling Prints when subject doesn't want them sold

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #17158116
Example: I'm at a wedding and the photographer takes an awesome photo of my grandmother. If I don't want to communicate with grandma, who commissioned the photographer, I have the option of going directly to that photographer for a print.

Ok.

I would say that since this was (likely) a private event on (likely) private property and that the photographer was given permission to shoot from the person hiring him (and the person that paid them) that the photographer does not have cart blanche to run around selling prints. Different from "street photography" art prints.

For example, a boudoir session. Would you imagine the photographer can go sell prints of that to your neighbor?

seanlockephotography wrote in post #17158181
Ok.

I would say that since this was (likely) a private event on (likely) private property and that the photographer was given permission to shoot from the person hiring him (and the person that paid them) that the photographer does not have cart blanche to run around selling prints. Different from "street photography" art prints.

For example, a boudoir session. Would you imagine the photographer can go sell prints of that to your neighbor?

While this makes sense, there are no laws that give subjects control over the public sale of prints if there is no contract, no written agreement that the photos were taken as a "work for hire", or the photos are not defamatory or used in advertising. Its obviously a terrible business practice to sell boudoir prints, but generally not illegal.

A person or business can make rules about conduct on their private property including prohibiting photos, or call the police for trespassing or other crimes-but it does not give them rights to your photos. Some states have laws that restrict taken photos when there is an expectation of privacy, or prohibit secret or lewd photos, but not all.

seanlockephotography wrote in post #17158181
I would say that since this was (likely) a private event on (likely) private property and that the photographer was given permission to shoot from the person hiring him (and the person that paid them) that the photographer does not have cart blanche to run around selling prints.

Nope. Legally the photographer owns the copyright regardless of if it is public or private land and can sell prints to anyone they want. Obviously that is a really good way to generate really bad word of mouth and kill your business stone dead so people don't do it.

Legally yes they can. As above a very good way to kill your business so not something you are likely to do.

Big deal. Sure he might be able to sell them but for that to happen you need a buyer. If someone sat for a portrait session, you have consented to having your photo taken by a photographer, who now owns the rights to those images. What could they be worth to anyone else? Stock doesn't pay that well!

interesting, thanks. A sticky with this (and more on copyright etc) written by somebody that really knows (lawyer etc) would be a good idea.

When I received counsel, here is the rule she gave me.

If the image is being purchased because of who is in the image, and is not being used in journalism, then the subject needs to have consented in some way.

The example she gave is if you sell a mug with Tom Cruise on it, that's going to need a contract, because that mug was purchased presumably because his image is on it, not because it is a mug. In that example, it doesn't matter if it is a mug, a calendar, a print...

Otherwise, the copyright holder, by definition the photographer unless that copyright or parts of it were surrendered in a contract, can do as they like.

In the USA.

So, yeah, the guy can probably do whatever he wants. And as a practical matter who would pay the money to stop him even if he really couldn't?

It baffles me why a photographer would want to just tick off people in the first place, though. It is a small world.

Interesting read on the Expectation of Privacy from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS):

Part 1: https://www.fletc.gov …on-of-privacy-part-1.html

Part 2: https://www.fletc.gov …tation-of-privacy-ii.html

Basically, it says that you can stand on the street and photograph into someone's house. If they want an expectation of privacy (or don't want their picture taken), they should have the windows covered. What you can't do is use a long range zoom lens to photograph what someone is writing - things that you wouldn't be able to see 'normally'.

I dunno, but i'd probably avoid the prospect of it because it sounds like way too much trouble..and who would buy them, really?

Karl Johnston wrote in post #17159852
I dunno, but i'd probably avoid the prospect of it because it sounds like way too much trouble..and who would buy them, really?

People who are into voyeurism

But, I'm with you... it's more trouble than I think it would be worth. Not something that I'd even entertain trying or wanting to do. No thanks.

S.Horton wrote in post #17159344
When I received counsel, here is the rule she gave me.

If the image is being purchased because of who is in the image, and is not being used in journalism, then the subject needs to have consented in some way.

The example she gave is if you sell a mug with Tom Cruise on it, that's going to need a contract, because that mug was purchased presumably because his image is on it, not because it is a mug. In that example, it doesn't matter if it is a mug, a calendar, a print...

Otherwise, the copyright holder, by definition the photographer unless that copyright or parts of it were surrendered in a contract, can do as they like.

In the USA.

So, yeah, the guy can probably do whatever he wants. And as a practical matter who would pay the money to stop him even if he really couldn't?

It baffles me why a photographer would want to just tick off people in the first place, though. It is a small world.

Even the example you gave could be legal in some states. Although what is unclear is if it would be the state you sold the mug, or the state you took the photograph that would matter more (guessing the selling). Only a few states have "right of publicity" laws. California specifically prohibits the action you describe, but others don't.