If someone walked up to me, and without a waiver, took my picture and ran off to sell it for publication in a magazine I could sue their ass. Why is it different for some people and when does that change happen?
IIRC Editorial content doesn’t require a waiver from the subject. If it were to be used to promote a product (i.e. commercially) then it would require a waiver.
So you couldn’t sue in your example.
What makes you think that?
Also, if it’s taken in a public place, then you’re fair game (as long as it isn’t for commercial purposes). Otherwise, no one would be able to take any pictures at public venues if any people were in them. If a newspaper or magazine takes your picture for news purposes (and any celebrity photo falls under that), they can run with it. Could you imagine trying to get releases from a crowd scene?
Well Sitnam, are you going to come back and explain what legal theory you would pursue so we can try to answer your question?
I don’t know what the legal theories are but every photog mag I’ve read recommends that you get a release from every identifiable person in a photograph before publishing it.
It may not be necessary when acting as a journalist, but suppose I was getting out of a car with my dog visible and someone took a picture of me and sold it for $1000 to be published on the cover of Dog Fancier. Wouldn’t I have some rights in that situation, even though I was in public?
A celebrity, however, by definition, is newsworthy just being out in public. If you got a picture of Britney Spears getting out of a car with her pussycat visible, then it’s news.
I seem to remember some distinction being made between public and private figures the news worthiness and the degree to which they thrust themselves into the public sphere.
If it were published on the cover, you may have a case, as I believe a release is required for a cover image, inasmuch that it is a newsstand advertisement for the magazine. (Sorry, no cite.)
If your picture were used to accompany an article, no release would be required, as the usage is considered editorial.
Basically, when you’re in public view (even when standing on your own property) you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If the photographer stands on your property to take the picture, you have to right to order them to stop.
As a photographer, I’m pretty well acquainted with general photography laws, though of course they vary by jurisdiction.
In general:
Photographs taken in public may be used for editorial or journalistic purposes without any release.
Photographs may be taken from public property of nearly anything, except certain places specifically prohibited by law (those places have grown since 9/11, and include federal buildings, some prisons, etc.). You may use any of these photographs for private, non-profit uses.
Photographs where people are identifiable in the photo may not be used for profit or to advertise any product without a written model release from each person.
The paparazzi get away with it because famous people in public is considered ‘news.’
Probably depends on where, but yes, they can get back to you. It happened in Quebec, where a young woman who was sitting in a public place and whose picture appeared in a magazine sued and won. A huge debate on freedom of expression/right to privacy ensued, especially in the journalistic community.
You Canadians are always jumping out from some bush an it is kind of scary…
Semi-relevant Explainer: http://www.slate.com/id/2176866/nav/fix/
A few threads that touch on these issues:
I guess this is really what I’m asking.
Why is a “celebrity in public” sighting considered news? It would seem that we could put a quick end to the paparatzzi by just changing that concept.
You and I don’t consider it news but millions of people who buy the Star and National Enquirer have nothing better to think about. :rolleyes: The press feeds the dogs.
And here’s an even older thread, which discusses the Quebec case in more detail: Been a photographer forever, but never explored the law.
And thre’s this old column by the Perfect Master: Can you legally photograph people in public without their permission?. (Note that his references to photographic equipment are a bit dated; don’t know if his comments on the law have also been superceded by fancy new laws…)
I understand that the great unwashed masses like to know when “LiLo” goes out to get a latte or an 8-ball, but the comments above seem to indicate that in a legal sense, a celebrity in public is fair game, even if they are just shopping at Trader Joes.
That’s what I think needs to be addressed by our legal system.
I believe this distinction applies to libel laws in the US. I’m not a lawyer but I found this link: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3