Legalities?

I was wondering what kind of legalities go along with photos taken in public places or of identifiable locations. Also I've heard people mention "intellectual property rights." What are they and how do they relate?

Thanks.

What country do you live in? Are you trying to sell photos?

S.Horton wrote in post #12051669
What country do you live in? Are you trying to sell photos?

USA and I'm currently not. I would just like to know what goes along with it. This question is more based out of curiosity.

IP means something intangible that you own. Copyright law protects that. Since you're using FLICKR, here's a read for you:

http://rising.blacksta​r.com …-enforced-on-the-web.html

As for people/places -- I only know a bit about that.

If you take a picture of Tom Cruise and put it on a mug, then sell that mug, you must pay Tom, because the mug is (presumably) being purchased because his picture is on it.

In some countries for certain landmarks, there are restrictions. Here's the one I am familiar with:
http://photo.net …a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0040xw

This looks like a decent start. Thank you.

ShaneKPhotography wrote in post #12051783
This looks like a decent start. Thank you.

If you're in the US, you might as well go directly to the source--it's an easy read:

http://www.copyright.g​ov/circs/circ1.pdf

RDKirk wrote in post #12057702
If you're in the US, you might as well go directly to the source--it's an easy read:

http://www.copyright.g​ov/circs/circ1.pdf

Much appreciated.

Sorry to hi-jack the thread, but what about for the UK? I've done a google search on legailities and there seems far too much of it - such as model release forms (even though they may be in a public place, etc).

Does anyone have a quick link to the UK legailities? No problem if not, it's not that pressing (right now).

ShaneKPhotography wrote in post #12051650
I was wondering what kind of legalities go along with photos taken in public places or of identifiable locations. Also I've heard people mention "intellectual property rights." What are they and how do they relate?

Thanks.

In addition to "intellectual property rights," which have to do with copyright, you also have to be concerned with personal privacy rights (and the corrolating "right to publicity") and trademark rights.

In the US, personal privacy rights are determined on a state-by-state basis, but there are some broad similarities. The least you need to know:

-- You must have permission (a "model release") from an individual that person's photograph for commercial use. This permission does not have to be a quid-pro-quo contract (requiring payment or "consideration"), just simple permission...unless you make the error of writing it as a contract. Writing your model release as a quid-pro-quo contract does not make it stronger--it actually makes it legally weaker. Some states do not require the permission to be written by law, but it's dumb to rely on oral permission in court.

-- A model release is required to use the photograph--not to take it. The user needs a copy, and it must cover his particular use of it. Photographers normally get the model release because the photographer is always onscene when the picture is taken, but it's the user's responsibility to have it and to make sure it covers his use.

-- You need permission for each photo session. One release does not cover every photograph you take of that person for all time.

-- Selling the photograph itself or displaying it as a work of art is not "commercial use." However, if you claim "work of art" without a model release, you'd better have a history as an artist to show the court. Using the photograph to solicit for any product or service (including a non-profit service) is "commercial use." Putting the photograph on the website that you use to solicit for your photo business is "commercial use." A few states explicitly allow you to use display photographs in your studio or in a hardcopy portfolio without permission.

-- You do not need permission to publish a newsworthy photograph of anyone as news. If, however, the newsworthiness of the photograph has passed its time publishing it may run into the problem of "undue publicity" in many states if the person is a non-celebrity.

-- You have no protection for publishing a photograph that exposes a non-celebrity to public ridicule or humilitation. Not even a model release will protect you, even "newsworthiness" might be a difficult argument.

-- So who is a "celebrity?" Short answer: If the person has a hired publicist, then the argument in court that he or she was seeking publicity is somewhat easier. If the non-celebrity is making a deliberate public spectacle, you can argue newsworthiness; if the non-celebrity was an accidental public spectacle, no.

-- Textbook case: An ordinary surburban wife and mother is walking down the street with her children in hand and a gust of wind blows her skirt above her waist....don't publish that photograph. Angelina Jolie is walking down the street with her children in hand and a gust of wind blows her skirt above her waist...you can safely publish that--she's a celebrity. An unknown woman "streaks" a local high school football game...you can probably publish that--she's making a deliberate public spectacle. But a year later, it might fall into "undue publicity."

-- State laws provide for "expectations of privacy" in certain places that allow persons to sue you if your photograph invades their "expectation of privacy." This includes within their homes (including through open windows). It includes their yards if they have any kind of privacy fence erected. In some states it even includes some public areas, such as restaurant booths, which people commonly expect privacy even in public.

-- Trademarks: Business "branding." If the business' trademark is registered, it is an infringement for another business to "trade" on that "mark." This means using the name and reputation built by one business to the benefit of another business. Textbook example: A photographer shooting an ad for a haut coture clothing line uses a Mercedes prominently as a prop to convey the image of "luxury." That is "trading" on the Mercedes brand for the benefit of the clothing line. If the trademark is purely incidental in the picture (a street scene that happens to have a Mercedes among a number of other cars in the background), then it's not an infringement.

-- Buildings are copyrighted, but the US copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of buildings from needing permission from the copyright holder. However, be careful of any registered trademarks on the building--and some buildings (the Chrysler Building, Disney's Fantasyland castle, the Empire State Building) are themselves registered trademarks.

-- Statues and other works of public art (even if they are government owned) fall under copyright laws, and you need permission to use them in commercial photographs if the copyright has not expired.

-- Every work of art produced in the US after 1978 is currently copyrighted to someone, unless that person has explicitly documented that it is released into public domain.

-- "Creative Commons" work is still copyrighted...it just has a broad use license applied and you have to abide by the license constraints.

A good reference: photoattorney.com