Suing photographer

I wonder if the fact that the couple 'wanted to be seen publicly protecting their property' would influence the legality and the decision? They wanted people to see they had weapons for, er, self defense, so would that not indicate they were open to being viewed by the public showing their weapons? And thus making themselves newsworthy?

greyswan wrote in post #19346846
I wonder if the fact that the couple 'wanted to be seen publicly protecting their property' would influence the legality and the decision?

I doubt they did it for publicity, they had thugs threatening them and the woke police refused to assist them, claiming the thugs had a First Amendment right to protest there, which maybe true, but the First doesn't give thugs the right to trespass on private property and threaten people.

One question that I have not seen brought up. Does a news organization have the right to use ones image without the consent of the model for other commercial endeavors? In this case, the image was taken as a newsworthy image and published but they either sold to, or used themselves, the image without their consent.

To dive a bit deeper, what if I saw a photo shoot with a model in a public space. Can I walk up, take their picture and put it on a tee-shirt and sell it? It seems that is what happened here, no?

BTW, I do have images taken on the beach (public, not private) of a commercial shoot. I took them for fun, but can I put the image on a shirt and sell it.

gjl711 wrote in post #19346878
One question that I have not seen brought up. Does a news organization have the right to use ones image without the consent of the model for other commercial endeavors? In this case, the image was taken as a newsworthy image and published but they either sold to, or used themselves, the image without their consent.

To dive a bit deeper, what if I saw a photo shoot with a model in a public space. Can I walk up, take their picture and put it on a tee-shirt and sell it? It seems that is what happened here, no?

The courts have drawn a line between promotion for the business of editorial promotion and selling 3rd party items.

For instance, a news magazine publishes a newsworthy photograph...that's clearly a First Amendment right.

But the courts have also ruled that the news magazine can use that picture indefinitely to promote itself as a news magazine.

OTOH, the courts have also ruled that the news magazine cannot sell that photograph on tee-shirts as an adjunct product.

gjl711 wrote in post #19346879
BTW, I do have images taken on the beach (public, not private) of a commercial shoot. I took them for fun, but can I put the image on a shirt and sell it.

If that was a commercial shoot, you have model releases. What do the model release permit you to do? You by name, btw, not the client they were shot for.

RDKirk wrote in post #19346901
If that was a commercial shoot, you have model releases. What do the model release permit you to do? You by name, btw, not the client they were shot for.

It was a commercial shoot, but not mine. At that time I would be a reporter just documenting something I am seeing in a public space. I'm sure that the ad agency doing the shoot has release forms as the whole production was quite sizable.

gjl711 wrote in post #19346903
It was a commercial shoot, but not mine. At that time I would be a reporter just documenting something I am seeing in a public space. I'm sure that the ad agency doing the shoot has release forms as the whole production was quite sizable.

That describes this image where someone else was taking pictures of a model
POST 18438640

I shot from a slightly different angle and a greater distance. I wish I hadn't zoomed in so much and cut her "tail".

gjl711 wrote in post #19346903
It was a commercial shoot, but not mine. At that time I would be a reporter just documenting something I am seeing in a public space. I'm sure that the ad agency doing the shoot has release forms as the whole production was quite sizable.

The federally protected right to report the news trumps the state-protected right of privacy.

The state-protected right to privacy trumps the state-protected right to sell a product.

You're only selling a product, and the product you're selling is not news reporting.

Well I dont believe any of the privacy rules have changed with photography in the last 20 years......If someone is outside of their home and the are in public view....they have zero rights to privacy when it comes to being photographed. And that includes private communities with common areas and common streets....they are outside of the home....zero rights

They might be able to sue them for trespassing but the are SOL for photography laws on privacy

umphotography wrote in post #19348042
Well I dont believe any of the privacy rules have changed with photography in the last 20 years......If someone is outside of their home and the are in public view....they have zero rights to privacy when it comes to being photographed. And that includes private communities with common areas and common streets....they are outside of the home....zero rights

They might be able to sue them for trespassing but the are SOL for photography laws on privacy

That's true for news reporting, not for selling tee-shirts with their pictures on them.

RDKirk wrote in post #19348073
That's true for news reporting, not for selling tee-shirts with their pictures on them.

And this type of activity would fall under same category as models and celebrities who are pursued by paparazzi photographers in the public view.....there is no expectation of privacy if photographed outside of your home and you are in a public place

These attorneys have no shot at winning a lawsuit..frivolous lawsuits get dismissed quickly...they have to prove that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy for this situation. Running out your front door and pointing guns at people in your yard would only decrease an expectation of privacy.....in my opinion

umphotography wrote in post #19348107
And this type of activity would fall under same category as models and celebrities who are pursued by paparazzi photographers in the public view.....there is no expectation of privacy if photographed outside of your home and you are in a public place

These attorneys have no shot at winning a lawsuit..frivolous lawsuits get dismissed quickly...they have to prove that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy for this situation. Running out your front door and pointing guns at people in your yard would only decrease an expectation of privacy.....in my opinion

From the link:

That was the point of my comment. Paparazzi can't license the use of photographs of celebrities to sell other products beyond news reporting.

Regardless of their reasons, they did it publicly - to be seen threatening with guns in public - so I am wondering if that plays into the decision.

I shoot for a newspaper. When doing this I am shooting digital and have credentials hanging around my neck. The credentials are ALWAYS around my neck, even when they do not need to be. In this situation there are NO NEED for credentials, anyone can photograph you whether you like it or not. If I'm not on private property, I do not have to show any credentials. This is true even if you (the subject) are on private property.

There was a big stink made here locally last spring. A man was hanging around a playground taking pictures. Someone took his photo, posted it on Facebook, then started talking about how creepy he was. Within a few hours, people were talking about calling the police, they had him already convicted of being a pedophile and someone sent the photo to the local police. The man was with another local newspaper (not mine) and did not have credentials around his neck. Very deep into the Facebook post, the person who started it did eventually say that "after he takes the picture, he approaches the parent(s)." Why was this not mentioned immediately?!!?!!? The man's only crime was stupidity, credentials would have stopped this (hopefully). The police were called on me the very next day. I wanted to tryout my new A-1 so I had the wife drop me off at one end of main street. I instantly saw a young woman (17/18) hanging off her balcony with one hand and attempting a selfie with the other. I asked her if I could take her picture even though I DID NOT NEED TO ASK. She gets all scared and shy all of a sudden and said she didn't feel comfortable. I found this quite funny as we all know she has thousands of photos/videos on TikTok and such. I simply said "OK" and walked on down the road. 30 minutes later I was approached by a cop. First words out of his mouth "Hey, I know you're not doing anything wrong, but someone called in and said someone was asking people to take their pictures." I was pissed! "If you know I'm not doing anything wrong, then why are we having this conversation?" I pointed to a car and said, "That guy just stopped at the stop sign. Are you going to stop him and let him know that's he's 'not doing anything wrong?'" He was not happy with my attitude, but he knew I had a point.

Th