For a website based from a university organization, are releases required in order to post someone’s picture? Excerpt from an email:
"My permission was never given to have my likeness published in any
HSUQSA [the website in question is hsuqsa.org] publication. Please remove any and all photos and images
containing my likeness from all websites and publications pertaining
to the Henderson State University Queer/Straight Alliance immediately.
I will be checking daily to see if this has been done."
Obviously the nice thing to do is take them down, whatever. This guy has suddenly turned into an “I’m-going-to-ignore-that-you-exist monster” though, after helping found this organization a couple of years ago, and even holding an executive office. His pictures have been on this website for over a year, and so I’m confused now.
Legally, is it OK to leave them?
(Disclaimer: I’m not actually in charge of the website, and I think that we’re just going to blur his face out. We’d just like to know from a legal POV.)
Copyright laws don’t work worth a damn these days with all this newfangled stuff but I don’t think the issue depends on it being on the web versus some other thing. Of course you can publish people’s picture without getting their permission. What does he think photojournalists do? Freedom of speech and freedom of the press is pretty strong in this country. I would think the only potential issue would be using a picture that you don’t own the copyright to (if it was grabbed from another source for instance). Maybe if this person isn’t really gay, that could be a problem also. I would just leave the photos up and laugh at more and more desperate emails.
**I am not a lawyer. I just read some about these issues with interest.
IANAL but I’ve looked into this from time to time regarding amateur photography.
In general, you may publish a photo of a person without permission if it is reporting a bona fide news event. That’s where your photojournalism comes in.
However, the general advice given to photographers is to always obtain a signed release from anyone you take a photo of if they are identifiable in the photo. I should not, for example, take a picture of someone reading a newspaper in the park and then publish it in a magazine without their permission. However, I suppose if this were absolutely true then celebrities would be suing the paparazzi left and right for photos taken on private property with telephoto lenses.
As far as the more sticky legal details I would have to defer to a lawyer.
“Please cite the specific web page URL’s where your images are displayed, along with the specific image name. Said images will be removed within two weeks.”
Once the list has been received, remove the images. If an image is a group shot, blur out the face in question. You may want to insert a caption stating a reason why a face or two has been blurred. Keep all records of the request, including the request itself, a worksheet detailing the action and the response email.
If you are concerned, perhaps a discussion with the executives of the organization should be in order before the fact. If they rubber stamp the remove/blur policy, do it.
The release is for if you want to use the picture in connection with commercial enterprises (advertising, stock photo house, etc.).
If the purpose of the picture is truly editorial/journalistic, you sure can take a picture of someone reading a newspaper in a park and use it in a magazine. For example, if you took that picture, and it was used in the New York Times to illustrate a story about how that day’s unseasonably warm weather brought more people out to Central Park, that would be perfectly fine.
Do you really think that newspaper photographers get a signed release from everyone identifiable in their images?
As for what the OP should do, i think Duckster’s advice is pretty good. Just because you can tell him to take a hike (assuming you hold copyright to the picture) doesn’t mean that you should. If the guy wants no more to do with the organization, and if his picture on the website isn’t serving a particular purpose, why not just take it down?