Cecil says (in Can you legally photograph people in public without permission) that you can legally, at least (not necessarily without getting a punch in the face) photograph people in public, and “You can even publish your pictures, subject to certain restrictions.”
There’s an important restriction in New York: Civil Rights Law § 50, titled “Right of Privacy,” states: “A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
So publish away in the general press, but if you’re using the photo in an ad, hire a model.
Yes, if you’re directly making money off someone’s image, voice, whatever, they are entitled to a cut. There’s a limit though. IIRC, a fan in the stadium whose cheers were used on “Sgt Pepper” sued, and the British court said no, it was too public.
howevr, you don’t have to blank out every face of a public photo in your coffee table book. I guess Google Street View falls somewhere in between…
Not necessarily true. Here is a fairly detailed guide about photography model releases. It explains that a person only gets to control use of their image/likeness when it implies some sort of “association” or “advocacy” with an idea or product. They also explain later (section 8.5) how whether you are making a profit has nothing to do with whether a release is required (and if it is one of those situations where a release is not required, then the person photographed is not entitled to anything).
Also check out section 6.4 “Compensation”. If you have a model release, then consideration has presumably already been given (and not necessarily money, you can promise to send them a copy of the photo as consideration for the contract). And even if you don’t have a model release, keep in mind section 7 “Risk/Reward Analysis”. It’s very expensive to sue someone, and unless the injured party perceives you as having deep pockets, the bottom line makes it just not worth it to sue.
As an example, check out section 8.5 in my link above where they talk about the Supreme Court case of Nussenzweig v. diCorcia. That case set a precedent for determining whether a photograph implies an association or advocacy, or if it is simply “art”. Then it outlines a separate ruling based on that precedent where a photographer took a shot of an Orthodox Jew in Times Square, without permission, and sold prints of it for $20,000-$30,000 a piece. Because they were considered art and not a product endorsement, the photographer won the case. At least, that’s what I take from their description - they don’t go into enough detail about the verdict but if anyone wants to look up the case information I’d be interested to see it. Right now I’m going to bed.
It should be noted that Igor70’s comments are directed to a specific section of the State of New York’s statutes. So comments about the UK or Sweden are not directly relevant to the point he/she was making.
As Cecil is in Chicago and the person who was asking was in Baltimore you could just as easily say Igor70’s comments aren’t directly relevant, as far as that goes.
