Photographing People in Public

[M V]

I am going through my 'People' folder and I see that a lot of these cropped images of people seem to be taken in public, with the person unknowing. Is this legal? Can you really take a picture of someone in public, cut it out, and then use it? Can that person sue you?

[Chris MacDonald]

It's a bit of a grey area, I think. Certainly it isn't illegal to go to a public place and photograph people; however I'm sure there is much ambiguity over whether or not you can use that person in an image without their permission.

 

This is UK specific, though I find it hard to believe that the US laws on the same thing would differ too greatly: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

[Corey Beaulieu]

I read a few site because I was curious myself and I can sum it as this: Take pictures all you want in public, but you cannot use them for commercial purposes, which is to say advertising. And my impression of the industry is that it is, among a great many other things, advertising. This would not be legal without written consent.

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/photography_law_rights.html

 

This site was the clearest.

[Scott Schroeder]

Unless those people signed consent forms. It's no different than reality shows that shoot in public locations. The non-blurred people have signed consent forms or have some form of consent, ie showing up to a place where filming is taking place. I would have to guess that if you got these people from a semi legit site that they have consent. I don't know, maybe not.

 

It's easier to shoot from behind so there is no face, then no one can come back to you.

[egmehl]

I've seen some references that that add the stipulation that someone is "recognizable" before they have a legitimate complaint if you are using their image. That's pretty fuzzy though, I think a picture of myself would have to be very obscured before I wouldn't recognize it as me.

 

edit: saw Scott's post before I got mine finished, I've seen conflicting advice on the photographing but not including a face, I think some people have won cases where they were able to claim they were still recognizable from behind, but that's part of what I mean by fuzzy - there's no definite line.

 

But you can always try and get the subject to sign a model release if you are shooting your own photos. asmp.org, Getty Images and probably others have templates. There are a couple of apps in the Apple app store that look really handy, but I haven't tried any.

Edited August 17, 2012 by egmehl

[heni30]

What are the odds that someone is going to recognize themselves in an architectural rendering??? Most figures are small and it's not like it's going to be displayed on the times square electronic billboard. And most people wouldn't care. And if someone did complain you can apologize and remove them.

[Frosty]

I've seen some references that that add the stipulation that someone is "recognizable" before they have a legitimate complaint if you are using their image.

 

This is true. There was a case recently where a woman was recognizable from behind due to a unique tattoo. I believe she won.

[Scott Schroeder]

What are the odds that someone is going to recognize themselves in an architectural rendering??? Most figures are small and it's not like it's going to be displayed on the times square electronic billboard. And most people wouldn't care. And if someone did complain you can apologize and remove them.

 

In my many years in this industry I have learned a few things. One of them is that you never know who is going to see your image and where they are going to see it. Life has also taught me that most people are sue happy so you'll get a complaint from their lawyer.

[xEndlessxUrbiax]

I was at a bar/restaurant once when they were filming a bit for TV show on HGTV here in the U.S. I believe it was House Hunters. They did not ask anyone in the place if it was ok to have them on film, including myself.

 

Just a little personal experience. Probably irrelevant but thought I would share anyway.

[M V]

As I look through my libraries of clip map people that I bought commercially, these people look like they were photographed while walking around. I find it hard to believe each one was asked to sign their rights away to their photo and they were ok with it. This is especially clear in my 'beach' collection where it looks like these people were shot with a telephoto lens and had no idea they were being photographed. I doubt that the company that sells these take any of the responsibility if someone saw their photo and sued you for using it in a rendering that ended up on a billboard or something like that.

[egmehl]

I bet you'd find people to be more open to signing a release than you might think. Especially if you spell out that it is for architectural type work and maybe bring with you an example picture to show them, "this might be you, back here in the background under a tree" or something like that, though I admit I haven't tried it myself (bring along your most charming friend to do the talking)

 

If they are really going to be featured prominently, especially on a billboard or magazine ad (i.e. an expensive space to rent), I'd explain to your client how important doing it right is and convince them to pay for a proper photo shoot with models. It would turn out far better than a stock image under generic lighting anyways.

[Nic H]

dont worry about it

unless its a key figure and in the foreground adverting something

i generally do something then first ask permission later

[Umesh Raut]

Just a side note may be, but in India its illegal to photograph females (in public places) without their consent. Full stop.

[M V]

I bet you'd find people to be more open to signing a release than you might think.

 

I am not 100% sure on this. How to convince a woman that the unflattering picture you took of her in her bikini will be sold on the internet for people to use in renderings. I would love to hear that sales pitch.

 

Examples here

[egmehl]

Well yeah, pick the worst possible example

 

I was thinking more along the lines of people (fully clothed) in a public park or tourist attraction or something.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Cyberstyle]

The specifics and laws on this topic will obviously vary country to country, but the way I see it working is quite simple.

There is nothing stopping you from photographing people in a public place and using their image for non-commercial purposes without consent.

The changing factor is when their image IS specificaly used for commercial purposes on any scale...you need signed permission from each person.

 

I highly doubt they would have grounds to sue (given an architectural render is not exactly going into major circulation) but you would be forced to remove them from the image and obviously remove any images being displayed to the public. To on-sell their image as stock for

the purpose of using in renders etc..... would most certainly get you sued.

[Dimitris Tolios]

Unless posted, photography in public spaces is legal - in most countries at least.

Including people in your frames is not punishable in anyway, as long as they are "included" in the picture and not specifically targeted to isolate the person using a tele lens. Even if you do so, there should be a direct commercial usage of this picture for anybody to have a strong case suing you.

 

I would bet that the bulk of cutout people "somewhere" in a rendering will be small enough so that they won't be very recognizable. For people used in the foreground, walking by etc, some motion blur applied in PP can guarantee that they won't be.

 

If you want something more, then the best idea would be dressing up some of you friends and taking your directed shots before buying them a drink. Some architectural offices organize their architectural photoshoots using employees and/or employee family members including a small compensation and ofc at least a typical single page release contract from the participators.

 

For more organized stuff and press releases/ads, utilizing professional models is not a bad idea.

[John Dollus]

If they are recognizable, you should get a release, motion blur them or stick a tree/car/velociraptor in front of their face.

If it comes from a commercial entourage library, then the ultimate liability rests with them though if they are located in a different country it may be very difficult/impossible to recoup any possible damages. It's entirely possible their eula is worded to remove their liability but that would likely be an admission of wrongdoing on their part and nullify any protection from the eula.

[ronll]

If they are recognizable, it's not that hard to photoshop them into unrecognizable. I do this a lot and it is easier than you might think. Just change a few key things like head shape, jawbone location, cheekbones, chin size etc. It's actually kind of fun. On these, I made them look a bit happier by moving the corners of their mouths up just a tiny amount.

 

Edited August 22, 2012 by ronll

[Tommy L]

I think both these gentlemen would be happieer with their new heads than their old ones.

[shybegleiter]

It's all nice and "west" here. As you can guess, it's all depends of the laws of your country. As far as I know (and Israel is law is based of British law as well as USA is), for mature people (over 18) it's totally OK to take their photo in public and without permission as they are in open public space.

If they claim rights over commercial rights, you may find yourself in a long and interesting struggle of paying them some of the money you earn because of them appearing in your work. But that's such a long shot...

[Scott Schroeder]

A nice entertainment lawyer friend of mine gave me this general advice:

 

When do you need to use a release form?

 

Laws covering the use of images of individuals frequently differ based on jurisdiction - from country to country and state to state. While there is no absolute rule of law you must follow, there is one absolute rule of thumb:

 

If you plan to use a person's image for commercial purposes, you need to get a signed video release form from that individual.

 

There are some exceptions to this rule. For example, if you shoot a crowd scene of people in a public area, you generally do not need a video release form from every person in the crowd. By being in a public area, we all give up our 'reasonable expectation of privacy.'

 

However, this does not mean you can go out and shoot images of identifiable people in public, and then sell those images for commercial use (e.g., in a clip art library). If you do, this could be considered an invasion of privacy (in some states), and you could be opening yourself up to an expensive lawsuit. If you plan to utilize images with identifiable people for public relations, marketing, or promotional purposes, always use a written consent form.

 

So instead of making single person cards, make group cards. This whole issue gets very gray around the area of we are not making money with this person's sole image per say, meaning that they are not the reason why the image will sell or why we got the project. However, we are making money off of an image with their likeness in it that we went out and specifically shot them as an individual for. An individual who was unaware of it the whole time. Is that commercial use? I don't know. Maybe? Yes? No? Our work is often used for marketing purposes but does that extend to that random person you used?

 

It's best to always cover your own tracks, and when you have any doubts, just blur the faces or shoot them from behind or in groups.

[Justin Hunt]

Shooting from behind may not be enough, many people as still recognizable from behind. Images can get around the world very quickly once they are posted to sites like Archdaily and other forums, even humble project images.

 

In practical terms though, a person would have to pretty savey to go though the process of suing you which probably would cost them more than they would get for any compensation.

 

I agree that if a person is a feature of the image then for sure get a signed release.

 

jhv

[Ernest Burden III]

Can we all get new heads? New heads are cool!

 

Yes, country by country, even state by state. California has a very nasty law about people owning their likeness, since that's what most people do for a living in California--look like themselves. Oh, and when you show them not looking like themselves, they sue you anyway. But most places it is accepted that you can photograph people in public. Also, anyone too known or noticeable or weird is unlikely to get a featured spot in an arc-vis. I have more issues with NY cops stopping me when I try to photograph buildings, but we've covered that one before.

[M V]

I sent an email to the owner of Got3D and asked him how he handles this topic. I have heard nothing back after a week.