Permission Needed for people in public?

I know this has been talked about many time, but for some reason I cannot search on my father's computer. A quick link to the answer or 1-2 line answer would be great... I have a sister who simply will not believe what I tell her.

Does one need permission to use a photo taken of a person who is in public... eg, walking down the street, in advertisement, sales, etc.

thanks,
daniel

Daniel it doesn't matter if it is in a public location or on private property, if you use someones image in a commercial way, i.e. advertising, you need a signed release giving you permission to use that image.

Even if that person gave you permission to take thier picture you can not use it commercially without a release.

I think you get into exceptions to that rule if the subject is a celebrity.

---Bob Gross---

If this is the case, who get's to justify who's a celebrity, and who's not?

Nope. Commercial use of anyone, celebrity or not, requires a release. You can Google several court cases where celebs and politicians sued successfully in such cases.

Several out of a bazillion isn't much.

The tabloid photographers never get releases from celebrities in public places.

---Bob Gross---

Though sometimes disputed, that use is for "news," not commercial purposes.

Tabloid photogs don't need a release, even a tabloid is considered editorial use, go figger.

For use in an ad, yes--you need a release.

But to sell as art, no release is needed.

"Fair Use" can be tricky. If used commercially you'd better get a release or you may be setting yourself up for litigation down the road. There is always that 1% chance someone will seek "damages".

Along similar lines I've recently had an organization copy a map from my website and use it in a memorial program without my permission..... didn't even mentioning my name, copyright, or website. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw it.

Hmm? Thanks for all the replies. It seems that everyone has a slightly different idea of what is legal & fair.

-daniel