Let’s say you’re walking down the street with a camera, the camera goes off and people you don’t know and never will know end up in the picture - is it illegal to, say, post the picture on the internet unbeknownst to that individual? I thought it was only illegal if a person was, say, taking nude photos of an individual unbeknownst to themselves.
IANAL, but I would think that as long as the picture isn’t used in a malicious way, there shouldn’t be a problem.
IANAL, but I believe it depends on how you publish it. Basically, I think there is a presumption that when people are out in public that their rights to privacy are limited. You could post it on a Web site to say," here’s a neat picture I took," without needing permission from the subject.
But on the other hand, if a person in the picture is recognizable and you say something libelous (“here’s a child molester I saw on the street”), you could probably be sued. Or if you used it to suggest that the person pictured endorses a product or service, you might be in trouble.
Also, if the person is a celebrity, he/she might be able to block you from using it for any purpose. I think there have been some cases that established that celebrities have the right to control over use of their likeness that an ordinary person doesn’t. But I’m working from vague memories here. I could be wrong. A real lawyer will probably be along shortly and give us the straight dope.
You mention taking the picture accidentally. I don’t think that would have any bearing on any of these cases. In other words, saying “It went off by mistake” wouldn’t offer protection from any of the possible hazards I’ve mentioned. The question is how you publish it, not how you got it (barring stealing it from someone else, of course).
Finally, I don’t think it is illegal per se to take naked pictures of people without their permission. I recall hearing about a landlord who used secret peephole to take videos of his attractive female tenants in their bathrooms and bedrooms, and couldn’t be prosecuted because there was no specific law against this.
The laws are changing on this a little bit (more on that in a second).
Generally, if the people who appear in the photo are in public where they have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” it is usually okay. On private property you usualy need a photo release.
However, there have been recent things cropping up in case law regarding privacy rights and control over one’s likeness with respect to product endorsement and editorial content.
A precedent setting icase n Quebec was when a woman who sued when a photojournalist snapped her picture as she sat on a curb downtown waiting around. If the photographer had made prints and sold it in a gallery – meh, no big deal. However, the photo ended up being used as editorial content on a news article about homeless youth (this woman was NOT a homeless teen) and as such she sued for the invasion of privacy and defamation.
Likewise a few stars have sued when they were photographed by paparazzi and the photos were subsequently used to endorse products (Hey! look Brad Pitt is wearing our watch, let’s use t in an advertisement!)
I’m afraid I’m not sure where things stand in which juristictions. Especially in North America where the lines between “journalism”, “entertainment” and “product placement” are getting so foggy.
BTW - due to the fact that so many people have been misusing camera phones to take clndestine shots in gym locker rooms at other childish stuf like that, there is legislation pending in the U.S. to crack down on “up-skirt photos and other forms of voyeurism”. That may have an impact on photojournalism type photography.
The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act is on its way to the House of Representatives.
Generally, if you take photos in a public place and use the photo for editorial purposes, you don’t need a model release. (Excepting wilfull misrepresentation of the situation, as in the Quebec case mentioned.) The only exception is minors. You need to secure permission from a legal guardian to publish photographs of minors, regardless of how you’re using the photographs.
Otherwise, non-editorial use (e.g., advertising) requires you to secure a model release regardless whether the photo was made in a public place or not.
:smack: Of course! Just remembred – this is why you can’t use “real people” in the background of movies when you’re just filming on the street. That’s why you bring in extras.
The law may have changed since I was in school, but you can use real people (like those shots of thousands of New Yorkers all walking the same direction), if they are given reasonable warning that they may appear on camera (signs saying such).
The reason they use extras is so no yahoos will muck up the shot. 
(this is the ‘hip’ film director smiley, right?)
I have a slight variation;
I needed a picture of the Berlin wall. What I ended up with was a piece of the wall, more of a slab, that just bigger than a doorway. The site I took it from mentioned that the photogopher took the picture of the slab resting in a public park, or similar area (outdoor museum ETC). IANAL as well, but is there anything wrong with my logic here;
1.Picture was of a more or less “public” item.
2.The structure (The entire wall, entact) no longer exisists.
3.The piece came to rest in a public area.
4. I could have come up right after the photogropher and taken the same shot.
Therefore, there was nothing wrong with taking the taken phto.
Copyright law varies by country but as far as US law is concerned your using that picture constitutes copyright infringement. You didn’t take the picture therefore you have no right to use it.
I think the issue here is expectation of privacy. Legally, I think knowing the person is irrelevant, being considerate might be another thing. People walking down a street have no expectation of privacy (duh, they’re in public). If you’re outside someone’s apartment taking pictures of her naked when she’s by herself, you could be in trouble.
IANAL but I do know an awful lot about copyright law, and in the US that does in fact constitute copyright infringement (caveat: assuming the age of the photo, given the age of existence of the Berlin wall). You might alternately try searching United States government archive photo sites, or possibly non-US government photo sites, some of which have scads of public domain images of items such as the Wall.