What are the Laws on posting photos of people

Hi folks,
I'm a noob to this forum but already enjoying looking at everyone's work and reading the posts. I've learned so much already. There's some really great stuff out here. I'm also anxious to get started posting some pictures of my own.

I was wondering about the laws here in the US regarding posting pictures I've taken of other people. For example... Let's say I venture down to Fells Point or the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, MD one day and snap off a bunch of shots of people just doing their thing. You know... like sitting in the park, looking in shops, walking, or whatever. Or, I go to a Raven's or Orioles game and snap off some shots of folks in the stands cheering.

Am I allowed to post those pictures or do I need to get permission from the people in the shots? Many years ago (15+), I worked as a photog for ABC and then FOX so I think I was covered under some kind of photojournalism type of clause or law but I'm wondering about what has changed since then and also not working for any type of news org.

Thanks for any guidance on this.

yes, you are allowed to post the pictures. If not, parts of this forum wouldn't be here.

You only need permission when you are selling photos for commercial use. You can even sell them as art without a release, just can't sell them for advertising use.

jhuckelberry wrote in post #10074477
yes, you are allowed to post the pictures. If not, parts of this forum wouldn't be here.

You only need permission when you are selling photos for commercial use. You can even sell them as art without a release, just can't sell them for advertising use.

Thank you so much for your response. I've also been reading the thread, "When in public and you see a person of interest...do you snap away or ask?" which has answered a lot of my questions. Again, thanks for your input.

jhuckelberry wrote in post #10074477
You only need permission when you are selling photos for commercial use. You can even sell them as art without a release, just can't sell them for advertising use.

Which makes sense, because I doubt anyone of us would like to be the poster child for a billboard citing the exploding quantity of whatever flavor of the month STD and for the populace to consider being tested.

Josepi wrote in post #10085563
Which makes sense, because I doubt anyone of us would like to be the poster child for a billboard citing the exploding quantity of whatever flavor of the month STD and for the populace to consider being tested.

so true so true. would definitely hurt your dating life. Talking up that girl at the bar, she looks to the right and sees a poster "Yes, I have gonorrhea" with your bright, smiling face. May be the end of that conversation.

jhuckelberry wrote in post #10074477
yes, you are allowed to post the pictures. If not, parts of this forum wouldn't be here.

You only need permission when you are selling photos for commercial use. You can even sell them as art without a release, just can't sell them for advertising use.

Just a caveat: Where US state legislatures and courts have specifically defined it, "commercial use" refers to promoting a product or service other than the particular image in question. Selling that particular image is not "commercial use."

However, if you are offering your services as a photographer, then putting the photographs on your website as examples of what you can do for a prospective client is also "commercial use."

But if your website is purely a gallery and does not solicit future work, then it's "sale of art," which is permitted by the First Amendment (the courts have ruled that prohibiting an artist from earning a living through selling his art--including advertising the sale of that art--is an inhibition of his ability to create his art).

But, a further caveat: The First Amendment does not protect you from legal liability if you harm the subject by submitting her to "undue public humiliation and ridicule." In fact, it doesn't even protect the news media. The textbook example is a photograph taken by a news photographer of a woman at a carnival ride just as a gust of wind blew her dress over her waist. The newspaper published it as "Carnival Fun." The woman--a quiet suburban mother of two--sued for "undue public humiliation and ridicule" and won.

What is "undue public humiliation and ridicule?" The court will determine that based on the "reasonable man" concept. A shot of a man simply watching a baseball game would not be considered "undue public humiliation and ridicule," even if he was supposed to be at work, had called in sick, and his boss later saw the picture. The picture is simply of a man watching a baseball game.

RDKirk wrote in post #10126933
Just a caveat: Where US state legislatures and courts have specifically defined it, "commercial use" refers to promoting a product or service other than the particular image in question. Selling that particular image is not "commercial use."

However, if you are offering your services as a photographer, then putting the photographs on your website as examples of what you can do for a prospective client is also "commercial use."

But if your website is purely a gallery and does not solicit future work, then it's "sale of art," which is permitted by the First Amendment (the courts have ruled that prohibiting an artist from earning a living through selling his art--including advertising the sale of that art--is an inhibition of his ability to create his art).

But, a further caveat: The First Amendment does not protect you from legal liability if you harm the subject by submitting her to "undue public humiliation and ridicule." In fact, it doesn't even protect the news media. The textbook example is a photograph taken by a news photographer of a woman at a carnival ride just as a gust of wind blew her dress over her waist. The newspaper published it as "Carnival Fun." The woman--a quiet suburban mother of two--sued for "undue public humiliation and ridicule" and won.

What is "undue public humiliation and ridicule?" The court will determine that based on the "reasonable man" concept. A shot of a man simply watching a baseball game would not be considered "undue public humiliation and ridicule," even if he was supposed to be at work, had called in sick, and his boss later saw the picture. The picture is simply of a man watching a baseball game.

Thanks for taking the time to spell all that out for me. I really appreciate it because I've been wondering about it. BTW... Are you a lawyer?

Thanks again!

So if I understand this correctly...you cannot use photos of people without a release on your websight portfolio if your website is for commercial photography, is that correct?

Chris S.

Stormtracker wrote in post #10145972
So if I understand this correctly...you cannot use photos of people without a release on your websight portfolio if your website is for commercial photography, is that correct?

Chris S.

As I understand it, that would be correct as it constitutes an "endorsement" of your work.