# The legality of celebrity photography **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 30, 2007, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579 "2007-10-30T15:17:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/1 "2007-10-30T15:17:56Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Szlater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/90ced4/32.png) [@Szlater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Szlater)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/2 "2007-10-30T15:33:32Z")
[QUOTE=Sitnam] 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? [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/3 "2007-10-30T15:41:26Z")
[QUOTE=Sitnam] 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. [/quote] What makes you think that? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/4 "2007-10-30T15:44:03Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/5 "2007-10-30T16:50:42Z")
[QUOTE=Sitnam] 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. [/QUOTE] Well Sitnam, are you going to come back and explain what legal theory you would pursue so we can try to answer your question? ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/6 "2007-10-30T17:07:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/7 "2007-10-30T17:21:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![postcards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8e8cbc/32.png) [@postcards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postcards)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/8 "2007-10-30T20:47:22Z")
[QUOTE=CookingWithGas] 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? [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jman/32/4416_2.png) [@Jman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jman)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/9 "2007-10-30T23:32:02Z")
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.’ ---
**Author:** ![Intelligently\_Designed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/intelligently_designed/32/20957_2.png) [@Intelligently\_Designed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intelligently_Designed)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/10 "2007-10-31T00:01:10Z")
Probably depends on where, but yes, they can get back to you. [It happened in Quebec](http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html), 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. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/11 "2007-10-31T00:08:40Z")
[QUOTE=Intelligently Designed] Probably depends on where, but yes, they can get back to you. [It happened in Quebec](http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html), 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. [/QUOTE] You Canadians are always jumping out from some bush an it is kind of scary… ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/12 "2007-10-31T14:08:55Z")
Semi-relevant Explainer: [http://www.slate.com/id/2176866/nav/fix/](http://www.slate.com/id/2176866/nav/fix/) A few threads that touch on these issues: > **[Paparazzi law?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=409062)** > > I can understand that the need for the media to be able to publish The Truth gives them a free pass to being intrusive and annoying. However, it also seems like there is a point where you could say that what is being reported has ceased to be news,... > **[Legal question about historical figures in TV/movies/video games](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=404490)** > > Can you use the name and likeness of someone like Albert Einstein or Douglas MacArthur without obtaining and paying for the rights? Does it depend on the person? Does it depend on the way they are used? > **[Legal to take out ads listing porn-store customers, to embarrass/drive away...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=354276)** > > Actor Stephen Baldwin is fighting a porn store near his house, by planning on taking photos of its patron’s license plates, getting their identities, and taking out a full-page newspaper ad every month listing their names. ... ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/13 "2007-11-01T00:16:43Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] 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. [/QUOTE] I guess this is really what I’m asking. ---
**Author:** ![Iggins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Iggins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggins)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/14 "2007-11-01T00:30:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/15 "2007-11-01T01:42:41Z")
[QUOTE=Iggins] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/16 "2007-11-01T15:33:56Z")
And here’s an even older thread, which discusses the Quebec case in more detail: [Been a photographer forever, but never explored the law](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=142657&highlight=quebec+supreme+court). And thre’s this old column by the **Perfect Master** : [Can you legally photograph people in public without their permission?](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_152.html). (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…) ---
**Author:** ![Iggins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Iggins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggins)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/17 "2007-11-01T16:01:13Z")
[QUOTE=CookingWithGas] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Stringer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Stringer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringer)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-legality-of-celebrity-photography/424579/18 "2007-11-01T16:52:47Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] 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. [/QUOTE] 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](http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3)