A question about photographing people

[coldteablues]

I've looked around and haven't found anything discussing this. If I've missed a thread covering this question, I apologize. Here's my q.

Those of you who shoot people as subjects from time to time do you have a release form for them to sign? Is one really necessary? I've done some research and have read that as long as the photographer is taking photos in or at public places, then he/she doesn't need to worry about releases. However, if the photographer gets a shot of people in say their yard, then a release may be necessary.

Any thoughts or comments?

Thanks in advance.

Cher

[eastbluffs]

Curious question. I've heard about criteria saying that if they're not "entered themselves onto the public stage" that a certian distance has to be maintained. Surely it differs State to State. So; if someone's an actor, then he's fair game. But if he's just a normal joe laying around on the beach, then a close-up requires a release.

Had an interesting experience to relay regarding it -
Had 2 close-up shots of myself in a large paper. One holding a beautiful woman on a fake surfboard , the other making a really nice sand sculpture of same (during work hours when I called in sick).

Of course, the photos were really of the women but on both occassions, they asked for releases. No, I didn't get fired.

Interested to see the real answer.

[Morven]

If your photographs are for personal use, or for artistic purposes, or journalism and the like, then you don't need a release. If you are using them for commercial purposes not covered by the above, you do. In general in the US, this is the case.

[coldteablues]

If your photographs are for personal use, or for artistic purposes, or journalism and the like, then you don't need a release. If you are using them for commercial purposes not covered by the above, you do. In general in the US, this is the case.

Thanks. Since I am in the business of providing prints for sale, release forms (which I have) would be another thing to make sure I keep in my camera bag.

Cher

[Shooter]

Not necessarily (I think) the paparazzi and the photo journalists thrive on the concept that in a public place a photo is allowed sans permission, even to publish. This is why we see few photos of celebrities on balconies (even though they certainly own them) and many photos on the street.

[ReF]

If your photographs are for personal use, or for artistic purposes, or journalism and the like, then you don't need a release. If you are using them for commercial purposes not covered by the above, you do. In general in the US, this is the case.

what Morven said is right on the money. for personal use, no prob, but for commercial use, if you don't have a release you are fair game for lawsuits. what happens when your face appears in brochures and other advertisements for let's say tourism in california without your permission? you sue. it's what's been going on for quite some time. some celebs may get photographed thousands of times in one public appearance, so usually they don't sue unless the picture is used for negative publicity.

[American Nomad]

Wow, I can't believe this thread came up today.
Yesterday, while riding my bike through a public park, I came upon what I thought would be a perfect photo. There was a woman sitting on a stump, with large draping oak trees around her, reading something off of a pad. It almost looked like a sketch pad. She was dressed in a pastel, almost off white dress with a large brimmed matching hat. Her face was hidden as she tilted her head down to read and she was so absorbed in her reading that she did not notice me. I stopped and took several photos of the surrounding area and really wanted to take her picture. I did not, however want to intrude on her privacy and what must have been a feeling of security. I did, however approach her, only to find out she did not speak english. I conveyed to her that I would like to take her picture and she indicated that she would rather not be photographed. I think it was out of a feeling of shyness than anything else.

Now I am wondering if I should have taken her picture, she would never have known. Note that I have never sold a photo that I have taken. I think that this picture would have been sutiable for framing and probably would have it hanging somewhere in my own home.
Scenes like this don't come around very often.
What would you have done?

[Glenn Kennedy]

Quite a question.

I am a pure amateur, with no intention (or hope ...) of making any money out of this. I have never considered the issue of release forms. Being a bit reluctant to be seen taking pictures of people close-up, I tend to use a zoom lens (but only in public places - I am not a voyeur !!).

In most places I have been, most people, if they notice you aiming a camera in their direction are either happy or ignore you. This girl (on Charles bridge, Prague) may have been an exception... however, she may just have been fed up with the long delay while the camera (Powershot G2 at the time) ground away trying to focus on her. I have only experienced hostility in Morocco and in the former USSR when my intended subject has seen me.

What do other Europeans feel about this issue. There's a generally held view over here that on your side of the "Big Pond" you're all a bit more "PC" than we are.

i don't think this is an issue over here. Mind you, I'm not sure if I'd go around downtown Belfast on a Satuday night taking picture of people. There are limits...