as an add-on to this, when you post media (in this case, photos) to online services, be sure to read the fine print on rights, some sites declare that once you upload them, they become the owners. In ALL cases, read the fine print for media ownership.
I've had similar treatment from security in a shopping centre/mall. These are "private property" according to the security and any management types. Just so happens they're open to the public and their entire purpose is to be accessed by the public. Sometimes, writing a letter or calling the management well in advance and outlining what you'd like to do and how it'll be used... can get you permission. If you have to agree to certain conditions then it may be better to find a different location.
Jared, great video. Thank you for making yourself available and being open and generous with your knowledge and experience. We're all very lucky when somebody decides to share and help others out. I've found your videos to be very helpful and this is a very important issue that (in my experience) a lot of working photographers don't fully understand. Thanks again!
Hey Mr Fro dude. Just discovered your channel recently and wanted to thank you for sharing with us all your knowledge. I'll be going through more of your vids over the weekends cause there's a lot I know I can learn from them. Anyway, thanks again Fro Bro.
Also, regardless of whether or not you sell the rights to your photos, you can always use them as part of your portfolio/to promote you business. You took it, it is part of you body of work. You might not be able to sell them if you sell the rights to the photos, but you are always allowed to let people know that you took those photos.
[cont] You will also have to be careful of any copyrighted design or artwork in the photos. In the case Jared is talking about, are there any copyrighted artwork or design elements in her photos that are copyrighted to the other party, or a third party? She could be restricted in how she uses the photos if there is. However, she should still be able to use the photos in a non-commercial manner if there is. But I will say, are the photos good enough to go to though this hassle over?
This is one of the reasons why a manager from a private entity could ask a photographer or other digital creator to stop recording/taking pictures in certain areas. Restaurant and hotel kitchens can be a bit tricky to get some "street photography" shots depending on the management and/or managers on duty. Kitchens generally don't have corporate logos, but TMs could just be their scapegoat for privacy as kitchens have some expectation of privacy. Never got these employees forced me to delete the pictures of them, but only asked me to stop.Other times the kitchen staff give me a look and I point my camera away as I intended to do candid street photography (i.e. documenting cities/towns). For anyone: The catch here is try to read the room of the group of people and listen to your intuition. Not an expert in reading the room, but a stoic mind increases accuracy. If you are anxious around certain areas or people with your camera/phone, there is a chance that it may not be the best time.
Even if it seems creepy or weird, you can photograph the kids in public too (in the US). If you are standing on public land you can photograph essentially anything and anyone (except some military property and some nuclear power plants, but the publicly visible areas of both are usually OK to shoot). The only time you really can't shoot someone is when they have a reasonable expectation for privacy (i.e. you can't go in a public bathroom and photograph them even if it is "public").
In the US, copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of the work. You own the copyright on that picture. Now, whether you can get the picture from the camera or not could be an issue, and how you prove that you actually took the picture is just your word against his. So you do own the copyright, but it doesn't seem like a smart thing to do unless you have a lot of access to the camera to get your pictures off before the other person claims they are his.
The mall is a public place on private property. As a private owner they can ask you not to take pics. It is not illegal to take pics since you have to be breaking a law in order to be doing something illegal. If a mall rep asks you to stop taking pics be polite, apologize, and tell them you didn't know that it was against their policy. They can't ask you to remove film or delete digital pictures and they can't detain you or take your personal property unless you are actually breaking a law.
Kudos Jared, I can't stress to my fellow photog friends and upcoming photog friends enough on how many rights they actually have as photographers regarding the images. Great video bud
In Singapore, according to Copyright Act, A: If you are a freelance, 1. If you are paid, Copyright goes to your client. 2. If you are unpaid, Copyright belongs to you. B: If you are from a registered company: The copyright goes to the Company, NOT the photographer who shoot it. and doesn't matter its paid or unpaid. All above subject to other agreements made as you mentioned in the video.
Thanks Jared, that was good info to have in mind. I always had my doubts as to my rights as a photographer, but you made it clear here on this video. Thanks again, I am learning a lot from you and the fro site.
I was with my friends taking pictures in front of BJ's restaurant in California and I was stopped by security personnel told me I can't take pictures with their logo on it because it was copyright protected.
Because if you say it in a normal tone at a normal speed you run the words together and it sounds like frono's photo and it is confusing, so he makes a point of separating the words entirely and changing the intonation of each word so they are distinct. For marketing and branding purposes it helps to do strange little things that make people remember you too.
This also applies to the following, If you use somebody else's camera your still considered the artist and therefore the copyright belongs to you. If you shoot on the street for editorial purposes such as news etc and not for commercial purposes you do not need a model release. I'm a press photographer and I have to deal with this issue on a daily bases.
That is highly determined by the "owner" of the landmark. For instance, the Eiffel Tower has no daytime restrictions, but in Chicago you can't take pictures of landmarks without a permit. You need to specifically check the rules for each landmark. It can take a lot of research and calling around to know for sure. On the other hand, people take pictures of landmarks and make money off them all the time and they get away with it even when they shouldn't, so it depends on your personal ethics too.
That is a grey area because the mag could claim the pics are editorial in nature, not advertising, thus they can publish them (if you do the research, artistic expression and fair editorial use are generally held up in court). However, again, they have the right to ask you for the release regardless of your actual rights to the photo since they are the publisher and they make their own guidelines based on their own legal interpretation. Either way, the magazine will let you know the specifics.
Hey Jared, great reminder to keep our rights in mind. I have a question about rights when shooting a show. I've taken some shots of bands playing that have been used in online concert and album reviews uncredited (just taken from facebook). They're watermarked, but not with my website or anything, should I send an email to the author of the article or the publication and request credit? I'm stoked to see my work there so I don't necessarily want them taken down.
depends on your location, the Canadian copyright act Section 13(2) says that the person who commission you to take photos (client or photographer that hires you) holds the copyrights unless you made it clear in a contract. If you want to read more, google "capic what you sell". Very interresting site I learned a lot, I also printed model releases to carry "just in case"
One thing here, I think needs clarification... Just because someone paid you to shoot them does NOT surrender your rights as a photographer to use the images yourself. You can still use them in your port, on your web site, etc, for self promotion, UNLESS you signed a contract with the client giving them EXCLUSIVE rights to the images. You do need a model release expressly giving you the right to sell the images or have them used for promotion of a product or service OTHER than your own photography, which this photographer seems to have gotten from the models directly. This videographer she was dealing with is totally full of crap though.
I’m a fine art photographer do I need a model release to sell the images. I paid the model for the shoot and no model release was signed. And each time the work gets published to promote my work she goes to Harris the organization saying they own no rights to publish them.
In public, you have no expectation of privacy and you may photograph whomever and whatever you would like -period. You have all rights to the photo for personal use and prints, but if you wish to use the photo for commercial applications (advertising) you need a written release. This is the case in the U.S., but this varies greatly by country.
Great video! Carolyn E. Wright is the USA authority on photographers rights. I wish I had visited her blog sooner, it would have saved me hours of legal research.
Another amazing video! I would have to agree. You created the shot. You took the time to angle it, focus it, make it what it is! Of course its YOUR picture! Great topic
It’s clear to us as photographers, but I’ve had clients that don’t see it so clearly. That’s why it’s so important to write it out in the clear. It helps to avoid future misunderstandings.
Hi, TheCrookedPenguin. I am a photojournalism major at Purchase College, so I'd like to hel answer your question. From what I have learned so far, you are allowed to take someone else's photograph without asking first as long as they are not a minor. It is usually a good idea to ask the person regardless, however, it is always good to take the photograph as you intended before going in and asking to make sure you do not interfere with the moment your capturing.
Jared I love what you present to the people man!!!! I met you back at the FStoppers party at Peter Hurley Studio!! Aside from being an amazing photographer you are a cool ass dude!!
It is legal for you to take photos of someone as long as you are not hiding it or if they are aware of it, it IS however illegal to make the photo public online or in prints without a written realease form.
If a parent of each girl cosigned a contract that states you are giving them something in exchange for money, then it is a valid contract and they owe you the money if you gave them the product. If you mutually chose to void the contract, they need to return all of the product to you. The digital pictures are part of the return, meaning they need to delete digital copies but you need a lawyer in your jurisdiction to verify. If you didn't void the contract, they owe you the money for the product.
That's an easy question to answer. Basically with street photography since you're in public you have 0 expectation of privacy. Without having an expectation of privacy legally you can be photographed or you can take photographs without asking permission. With that said far as I know the subjects have 0 legal rights to the images HOWEVER it is good form to ask first if possible and if a subject sees a photo and asks for it to be deleted it is good form to do so.
In Canada, federal copyright law has been changed. Now a photographer always owns their photos. You still need a release to sell the photos, but even after selling, the photographer retains copyright.
It's obvious that the photographer always has the publishing rights on a pictures unless the contract about those pictures says differently. However, the people you can recognize in your pictures also have rights and you need to have permission from them before you can publish those pictures. Even when shot in a public place. There are exceptions to this, of course, but in general, you need a release form from the people in your pictures. At least, that's the law in Belgium.
Fast and to the point. Thats how I appreciate videos. Fro do you happen to know where can we have access to the Photo release forms? Or we basically write them, print them, and use them? HUgs, Zoe
Jared is right - unless you have some verbal (harder to prove, but still valid, IIRC) or written agreement *prior* to the shoot, whoever pressed the shutter button owns the copyrights & licensing rights. IIRC there are slight differences in different countries, e.g. in Australia I believe if you are employed as part of your job to take photos, the employer owns the rights regardless of if you have signed a contract (as in the US & UK). You'll have to check in your own country. [cont...]
She gave you consent to shoot her because she knew you were taking model shots and she willingly entered into them. There is nothing she can really do about a public showing of the pictures, for instance if you put them in an art gallery or a photo book or your web galleries. The model release gives permission to use their likeness in advertising, so if you try to sell that photo to a magazine they likely won't print it without a release from the girl.
How about a smartphone app that shows the most relevant legal points depending on which country you are in? With auto-update of course. Digital model releases could also be built in.
Great tips thank you! my brag- won an online photo contest with a naturally amusing cat photo it was published into a large book. Amazingly this was all done online no negatives frills etc. Just agreed to conditions offering permission to use photo. Tried to make a wildlife calendar years ago was asked to surrender negatives permanently therefore ownership to photos.
I had a question about putting watermarks on your photos. I have been looking up information about the pros and cons. Best piece I have read is that "You don't get mad when you see an emblem on your car, infact you take pride in it" What are your thoughts on having a small discrete watermark on your photographs you give clients.
I had a shoot yesterday for Willis Tower (Formerly Sears Tower) and they paid extra money to have exclusive rights to those images. They are giving me credit on the website, but it was agreed that I am not to put it online anywhere. Get absolutely everything in writing, really.
Hello Jared,yesterday I went to a football stadium and tried to take a panorama of the stadium (inside the stadium). But I was stopped by the security guard and he told me I can't take the photo of the stadium with the dslr as it infringes the copyright. I don't understand it, I got my own camera and I own the photo I took, that's what I told him. But he said the is copyright to the professional photographer they hired. You understand what I meant? So, I can't take any photo next time?
I was a second shooter for 4 wedding this last spring. I was learning and being mentored at the same time. We had no writen agreement, no mention of whos property the photos belong to. I did ask if I could us any photo in the class I was taking at the time. One of the 4 I was paid $60.00 for being an assistance but I spent most of the time photographing. Some of the photos where taken on their camera but I was given a lot of the files I took. Other shots were with mine, to continue in comment
not sure where you are...but here in the uk it's not ilegal to put the image online. it only becomes ilegal if you sell the image to be use for, lets say, advertising. Because when you do that you are, in effect, putting their name to whatever is being advertised, and making out that they endorse that product, when in fact they may not like that product or the company behind it. (I'm not an expert, so I MAY be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the basic idea.)
I've always wanted to do Street Photography, but I've been afraid to do it because someone could flip out and beat me or something, and I'm not sure if the rules in the states still apply to Canada.
in short if you take the image you own the image and copyright and depending on the release you got from the model as to how she is delt with or compensated if at all.
Hey Jared, thanks for the info but you left me in one hole now.... I also recently did a photo shoot (TFP) for a model who also brought along a friend.. I didnt get a release form the friend... Can I use the photos in my portfolio legally without the release form? If yes, then so what is the point of needing a release form?
What about the public photo. In Quebec Canada and in France you cant take photo of people in the street and use it without their permission. So it's also depend of your location.
You forgot about one thing. You can't use your footage how ever you won't publicly without the confirm from the subject you shoot. What I mean is, you can't for an example interview a random person on the street and then public release it against he's will. You talked about rights, and that's good, but you should also talk about the rules of publishing. Because their are some shady lines there to look out for as a newbie in photography.
Hey Jared! Great videos! I have a kind of legal manner question about street photography and generally shooting in public. Is it invasion of somebody's privacy if u take their photo without asking first and what rights do the ones depicted on the image have on the picture itself?
There is this Gypsy Vanner horse show that tours the country. People bring in their Gypsy Vanners and pay to compete for prizes. They were performing at a public venue owned by the local city. As we entered, a woman came up to me and asked me if I was there to take photos for business. I told her no, it was just personal photos. The event photographer, apparently, was so insecure with his job being taken from him, that during a break in the show, the announcer told everyone that they could use the photos they took of the horses for personal use. However, if we took our photos and tried to sell them for profit, or even utilize the photos in our photography portfolio to obtain business profit, then the event photographer would legally be able to track us down and sue us over our photos. It was very hard to find this event photographer, but I found his portfolio, and he mass uploaded every photo of his, even the very bad ones (He used flash a lot, causing a lot of white eye in the horses). I can see why he felt so threatened.
I wish you would have elaborated on taking pictures of people in public and what the laws and rights to you as the photographer. BUT, thanks for the info!!!
That first part is very correct. But I am wondering where you got that last 4 sentences of information from? I'm just looking to see for myself. Photoshop is not cheating, it's the darkroom of digital photography. Cheers :)
Yeah, it's tricky on private property. The guidelines for when you need a model release or a property release used to be fairly straightforward, but the lines have blurred between what is editorial content vs. commercial these days. Here's a fairly good article on the ASMP website: asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#.UK4HqaWlmrg
Also sometimes with street photos you have to worry about defamation. Some people like to knock photogs with that. One of the grey areas is with architecture. If it's a well known building with a unique recognizable look you need permission to use the image. Government buildings are a no no, but you're not allowed to know which ones those are until it's to late. Not sure if someone can tell me how it goes for places of public transportation. I understand the security risk, but is it ok?
I'm not sure you are right in all terms. Here in Germany, and we are not the only one, you cannot take photos of persons and own them automatically. If there is nothing written, the person on the Photo can demand to delete the photo, especially when you can make profit out of it. So, no "contract/written agreement" --> no owner of shooted photos. This is also to protect the people on the photos, so they have control what happens with the photos.
Thanks so much for this. I hope you make a video about taking pictures in a public space. I'm constantly told in many areas of Los Angeles that I can not take pictures in those areas. For example the blue suits in Downtown LA constantly stop photographers from taking pictures. Would love to hear your thoughts or what the real so called "law" is
Hi Jared, I recently took photos during a wedding of a relative (family). I told the couple that I will post the photos online (on flickr) so that everyone in the family could see them and the couple could download them. However, the mother of the bride threatened to sue me because I did not seek permission from her. I posted a few photos and in fact most photos were my own family (my daughter, my son, wife etc) during the wedding. Any thoughts? I have since remove the photos.Tq!
Start by Googling "krages the photographer's right" and read his PDF and look at the extra links on his website. Reading "Photography and the law" on Wikipedia is a good start. The "photo attorney dot com" has lots of good articles.
In Australia the laws on copy rights is different, for commercial photography it is as you describe but domestic photography ie Wedding Portrait it is the client who owns the copy right unless their is a contract very the ownership.
Thank you for this video!!! This happened to me but with my family. I was threatened for posting on My photo ig account for a family event that I offered to photograph and paid for the materials in that shoot (smoke bombs). I was proud of my image and for my family and they threatened me.
only in public spaces like the street, if you're taking a picture of someone in a house through a window (or something creepy like that...) it's invading their privacy
Yo fro, I need a good Intermediate camera, i thought of the D3200 but then again thats too beginner-ish, don't know about the 650D though. Any suggestions. Cannot exceed $1000
Yes. In Lithuania (EU) you must have a parents permision to photograph kids. And you can't phograph compromising things (like injuries or damaging things). Cheers.
Also, if you're an employee of a company, not an independent contractor, then you don't own the rights to the photos that you take while working for the company. However, in all other cases, you own the rights to what you shoot, unless specified otherwise.
I'm taking pictures at a public marathon. This is a public event with no expectation of privacy. I'll be taking pics of hundreds of people. Getting a model release for every person in the race is going to be impossible. As you know, out of 100 photos maybe 2 will be worth printing and entering into a contest. Do I need to get a model release from one of the runners in the race to use the photo I took of them for the contest?
this applies to all photographs if you take the photo you own copyright to it unless you sign a contract stating otherwise either before the shoot or after the shoot if you sell them which i don't suggest ever doing or in australia im not sure about around the world but if you are paid by a client eg couple or wedding to shoot for them they own copyright however check this for your country
Hi, What are your thoughts on 3rd party use? For example: Your client gives the photos that were made to promote their services to another entity/vendor.
Okay, Update: I just read about the laws in Sweden and you can photograph anything you'd like atm, unless it's in a private area where the owner of the area is in charge. You can also publish anything you shot without permission except for commercial use. The photogropher is the owner of the pictures, and decides what to do with them. Although as I said the laws is subject to change here in 6 months. I'd google your own photographic laws to find out what they are in Greece.
There are exceptions, however. For example, if someone in the witness protection program was photographed by you -- even unknowingly -- you would be in violation of state and possibly federal law for not deleting the photos of that person when a request was delivered to you either immediately or later.
So in NZ, If you ask permission,the subject owns your photo? Who becomes the subject (owner) if there are 50 or 60 people in the photo, What if you're in the photo too? Only those you ask becomes the owner?
Question, Im a photography enthusiast, I regulary join paid or free event that allow me to shoot certain model. Ofcourse I dont have any written model release form. If I publish the picture on a Magazine or somewhere without letting the model know, does he/she have the rights to take legal action against me?
Stephanie, He was trying out & learning how to shoot videos. Then all of the sudden, he found out that you are a better photographer than he was. Be proud of yourself. Don't deal with jerk like him. Did you know Bambi Cantrell, Dennis Reggie and many well known photographers are not really good photographers. Most clients like their assistance's photo images. But they are smart and made sure the assistance signed their contracts. All cheat and using Photoshop daily.
Does a news outlet have any right to use my photos? I shot photos of an outdoor music festival as a volunteer for a radio station with the understanding I would allow them to us the photos in promotions and on their Facebook. That is fine. But Monday evening I find two of my photos on the front page of the newspaper, I was not asked for permission to use them (they did credit me). They pulled the images from my public Facebook post. Does the newspaper need to seek my permission to use my images?
diapernh entirely depends on the licensing... from a Facebook post is a no-no unless you specifically released them in their, but if you said something like these are CC-by-SA 4.0 then that would be allowed. So no, the newspaper commited copyright infringement, unless they got a deal with the radio station
My understanding of FB privacy policy is that, once you post something to FB it ceases to be your property. Sort of the same way with your bank.... when you deposit money in the bank, it's no longer yours, it belongs to the bank.
pthompson108 pthompson108 it doesn’t become Facebook’s. That’s like saying if you draw on paper it becomes the paper company’s property. Your copyright is yours on any social media unless you sign over the rights or produce content under ‘Work for Hire’. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Flickr ask for the right to modify creative works because the companies need to resize, compress, and transmit those works across servers. Intellectual property cases have slapped those companies on the wrists for over reaching Term of Service.
I've been harassed by the police before about the rights I have to take photos, so since then I've always carried a sheet explaining my legal rights I have. I also don't take verbal agreements from people unless they are very close friends even if I'm not getting paid for the work
as an add-on to this, when you post media (in this case, photos) to online services, be sure to read the fine print on rights, some sites declare that once you upload them, they become the owners. In ALL cases, read the fine print for media ownership.
I've had similar treatment from security in a shopping centre/mall. These are "private property" according to the security and any management types. Just so happens they're open to the public and their entire purpose is to be accessed by the public. Sometimes, writing a letter or calling the management well in advance and outlining what you'd like to do and how it'll be used... can get you permission. If you have to agree to certain conditions then it may be better to find a different location.
Jared, great video. Thank you for making yourself available and being open and generous with your knowledge and experience. We're all very lucky when somebody decides to share and help others out. I've found your videos to be very helpful and this is a very important issue that (in my experience) a lot of working photographers don't fully understand. Thanks again!
Hey Mr Fro dude. Just discovered your channel recently and wanted to thank you for sharing with us all your knowledge. I'll be going through more of your vids over the weekends cause there's a lot I know I can learn from them. Anyway, thanks again Fro Bro.
Also, regardless of whether or not you sell the rights to your photos, you can always use them as part of your portfolio/to promote you business. You took it, it is part of you body of work. You might not be able to sell them if you sell the rights to the photos, but you are always allowed to let people know that you took those photos.
[cont]
You will also have to be careful of any copyrighted design or artwork in the photos. In the case Jared is talking about, are there any copyrighted artwork or design elements in her photos that are copyrighted to the other party, or a third party? She could be restricted in how she uses the photos if there is. However, she should still be able to use the photos in a non-commercial manner if there is. But I will say, are the photos good enough to go to though this hassle over?
This is one of the reasons why a manager from a private entity could ask a photographer or other digital creator to stop recording/taking pictures in certain areas.
Restaurant and hotel kitchens can be a bit tricky to get some "street photography" shots depending on the management and/or managers on duty. Kitchens generally don't have corporate logos, but TMs could just be their scapegoat for privacy as kitchens have some expectation of privacy. Never got these employees forced me to delete the pictures of them, but only asked me to stop.Other times the kitchen staff give me a look and I point my camera away as I intended to do candid street photography (i.e. documenting cities/towns).
For anyone: The catch here is try to read the room of the group of people and listen to your intuition. Not an expert in reading the room, but a stoic mind increases accuracy. If you are anxious around certain areas or people with your camera/phone, there is a chance that it may not be the best time.
Even if it seems creepy or weird, you can photograph the kids in public too (in the US). If you are standing on public land you can photograph essentially anything and anyone (except some military property and some nuclear power plants, but the publicly visible areas of both are usually OK to shoot). The only time you really can't shoot someone is when they have a reasonable expectation for privacy (i.e. you can't go in a public bathroom and photograph them even if it is "public").
In the US, copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of the work. You own the copyright on that picture. Now, whether you can get the picture from the camera or not could be an issue, and how you prove that you actually took the picture is just your word against his. So you do own the copyright, but it doesn't seem like a smart thing to do unless you have a lot of access to the camera to get your pictures off before the other person claims they are his.
The mall is a public place on private property. As a private owner they can ask you not to take pics. It is not illegal to take pics since you have to be breaking a law in order to be doing something illegal. If a mall rep asks you to stop taking pics be polite, apologize, and tell them you didn't know that it was against their policy. They can't ask you to remove film or delete digital pictures and they can't detain you or take your personal property unless you are actually breaking a law.
Kudos Jared, I can't stress to my fellow photog friends and upcoming photog friends enough on how many rights they actually have as photographers regarding the images.
Great video bud
In Singapore, according to Copyright Act, A: If you are a freelance, 1. If you are paid, Copyright goes to your client. 2. If you are unpaid, Copyright belongs to you. B: If you are from a registered company: The copyright goes to the Company, NOT the photographer who shoot it. and doesn't matter its paid or unpaid. All above subject to other agreements made as you mentioned in the video.
Perfect Video... Short... To the point...No repeating the same thing... a and not to much ranting... perfect... Keep it like this.... Thanks Fro!!!
Thanks Jared, that was good info to have in mind. I always had my doubts as to my rights as a photographer, but you made it clear here on this video. Thanks again, I am learning a lot from you and the fro site.
I was with my friends taking pictures in front of BJ's restaurant in California and I was stopped by security personnel told me I can't take pictures with their logo on it because it was copyright protected.
Because if you say it in a normal tone at a normal speed you run the words together and it sounds like frono's photo and it is confusing, so he makes a point of separating the words entirely and changing the intonation of each word so they are distinct. For marketing and branding purposes it helps to do strange little things that make people remember you too.
yes
This also applies to the following, If you use somebody else's camera your still considered the artist and therefore the copyright belongs to you.
If you shoot on the street for editorial purposes such as news etc and not for commercial purposes you do not need a model release. I'm a press photographer and I have to deal with this issue on a daily bases.
That is highly determined by the "owner" of the landmark. For instance, the Eiffel Tower has no daytime restrictions, but in Chicago you can't take pictures of landmarks without a permit. You need to specifically check the rules for each landmark. It can take a lot of research and calling around to know for sure. On the other hand, people take pictures of landmarks and make money off them all the time and they get away with it even when they shouldn't, so it depends on your personal ethics too.
That is a grey area because the mag could claim the pics are editorial in nature, not advertising, thus they can publish them (if you do the research, artistic expression and fair editorial use are generally held up in court). However, again, they have the right to ask you for the release regardless of your actual rights to the photo since they are the publisher and they make their own guidelines based on their own legal interpretation. Either way, the magazine will let you know the specifics.
Hey Jared, great reminder to keep our rights in mind. I have a question about rights when shooting a show. I've taken some shots of bands playing that have been used in online concert and album reviews uncredited (just taken from facebook). They're watermarked, but not with my website or anything, should I send an email to the author of the article or the publication and request credit? I'm stoked to see my work there so I don't necessarily want them taken down.
depends on your location, the Canadian copyright act Section 13(2) says that the person who commission you to take photos (client or photographer that hires you) holds the copyrights unless you made it clear in a contract. If you want to read more, google "capic what you sell". Very interresting site I learned a lot, I also printed model releases to carry "just in case"
One thing here, I think needs clarification... Just because someone paid you to shoot them does NOT surrender your rights as a photographer to use the images yourself. You can still use them in your port, on your web site, etc, for self promotion, UNLESS you signed a contract with the client giving them EXCLUSIVE rights to the images. You do need a model release expressly giving you the right to sell the images or have them used for promotion of a product or service OTHER than your own photography, which this photographer seems to have gotten from the models directly. This videographer she was dealing with is totally full of crap though.
I’m a fine art photographer do I need a model release to sell the images. I paid the model for the shoot and no model release was signed. And each time the work gets published to promote my work she goes to Harris the organization saying they own no rights to publish them.
In public, you have no expectation of privacy and you may photograph whomever and whatever you would like -period. You have all rights to the photo for personal use and prints, but if you wish to use the photo for commercial applications (advertising) you need a written release. This is the case in the U.S., but this varies greatly by country.
Great video! Carolyn E. Wright is the USA authority on photographers rights. I wish I had visited her blog sooner, it would have saved me hours of legal research.
Another amazing video! I would have to agree. You created the shot. You took the time to angle it, focus it, make it what it is! Of course its YOUR picture! Great topic
It’s clear to us as photographers, but I’ve had clients that don’t see it so clearly. That’s why it’s so important to write it out in the clear. It helps to avoid future misunderstandings.
Hi, TheCrookedPenguin. I am a photojournalism major at Purchase College, so I'd like to hel answer your question.
From what I have learned so far, you are allowed to take someone else's photograph without asking first as long as they are not a minor. It is usually a good idea to ask the person regardless, however, it is always good to take the photograph as you intended before going in and asking to make sure you do not interfere with the moment your capturing.
Jared I love what you present to the people man!!!! I met you back at the FStoppers party at Peter Hurley Studio!! Aside from being an amazing photographer you are a cool ass dude!!
Yo Fro!! Just wana say thank you for the amazing videos that you do, and really great to see that you are directly helping some people...
It is legal for you to take photos of someone as long as you are not hiding it or if they are aware of it, it IS however illegal to make the photo public online or in prints without a written realease form.
If a parent of each girl cosigned a contract that states you are giving them something in exchange for money, then it is a valid contract and they owe you the money if you gave them the product. If you mutually chose to void the contract, they need to return all of the product to you. The digital pictures are part of the return, meaning they need to delete digital copies but you need a lawyer in your jurisdiction to verify. If you didn't void the contract, they owe you the money for the product.
hey jarid....im a photographer also....(have a D7000...LOVE IT)....what forms do u use....release forms, useage forms, etc...???
Portrait, Landscapes, Night, outdoor stuff mainly
That's an easy question to answer. Basically with street photography since you're in public you have 0 expectation of privacy. Without having an expectation of privacy legally you can be photographed or you can take photographs without asking permission. With that said far as I know the subjects have 0 legal rights to the images HOWEVER it is good form to ask first if possible and if a subject sees a photo and asks for it to be deleted it is good form to do so.
In Canada, federal copyright law has been changed. Now a photographer always owns their photos. You still need a release to sell the photos, but even after selling, the photographer retains copyright.
It's obvious that the photographer always has the publishing rights on a pictures unless the contract about those pictures says differently. However, the people you can recognize in your pictures also have rights and you need to have permission from them before you can publish those pictures. Even when shot in a public place. There are exceptions to this, of course, but in general, you need a release form from the people in your pictures. At least, that's the law in Belgium.
Fast and to the point. Thats how I appreciate videos. Fro do you happen to know where can we have access to the Photo release forms? Or we basically write them, print them, and use them?
HUgs,
Zoe
Jared is right - unless you have some verbal (harder to prove, but still valid, IIRC) or written agreement *prior* to the shoot, whoever pressed the shutter button owns the copyrights & licensing rights.
IIRC there are slight differences in different countries, e.g. in Australia I believe if you are employed as part of your job to take photos, the employer owns the rights regardless of if you have signed a contract (as in the US & UK). You'll have to check in your own country.
[cont...]
She gave you consent to shoot her because she knew you were taking model shots and she willingly entered into them. There is nothing she can really do about a public showing of the pictures, for instance if you put them in an art gallery or a photo book or your web galleries. The model release gives permission to use their likeness in advertising, so if you try to sell that photo to a magazine they likely won't print it without a release from the girl.
Could you elaborate on this further? I'm just interested in where you found this information. :)
How about a smartphone app that shows the most relevant legal points depending on which country you are in? With auto-update of course. Digital model releases could also be built in.
Great tips thank you! my brag- won an online photo contest with a naturally amusing cat photo it was published into a large book. Amazingly this was all done online no negatives frills etc. Just agreed to conditions offering permission to use photo. Tried to make a wildlife calendar years ago was asked to surrender negatives permanently therefore ownership to photos.
I had a question about putting watermarks on your photos. I have been looking up information about the pros and cons. Best piece I have read is that "You don't get mad when you see an emblem on your car, infact you take pride in it" What are your thoughts on having a small discrete watermark on your photographs you give clients.
Can't help but picture the grid lines of the rule of thirds in the screen... LOL!!! Good video... and very informative as well...
I had a shoot yesterday for Willis Tower (Formerly Sears Tower) and they paid extra money to have exclusive rights to those images. They are giving me credit on the website, but it was agreed that I am not to put it online anywhere. Get absolutely everything in writing, really.
Hello Jared,yesterday I went to a football stadium and tried to take a panorama of the stadium (inside the stadium). But I was stopped by the security guard and he told me I can't take the photo of the stadium with the dslr as it infringes the copyright. I don't understand it, I got my own camera and I own the photo I took, that's what I told him. But he said the is copyright to the professional photographer they hired. You understand what I meant? So, I can't take any photo next time?
Thanks Jared! great info. In this situation, would not having the model release forms from the models change anything?
Jared, would you recommend an 85mm 1.8g for street portraits? I have a D3100.. Thanks in advance!
I was a second shooter for 4 wedding this last spring. I was learning and being mentored at the same time. We had no writen agreement, no mention of whos property the photos belong to. I did ask if I could us any photo in the class I was taking at the time. One of the 4 I was paid $60.00 for being an assistance but I spent most of the time photographing. Some of the photos where taken on their camera but I was given a lot of the files I took. Other shots were with mine, to continue in comment
not sure where you are...but here in the uk it's not ilegal to put the image online. it only becomes ilegal if you sell the image to be use for, lets say, advertising. Because when you do that you are, in effect, putting their name to whatever is being advertised, and making out that they endorse that product, when in fact they may not like that product or the company behind it.
(I'm not an expert, so I MAY be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the basic idea.)
it is , that is one of the many rights a photographer has all over the globe.
@BoldtCave That makes sense. I still think it sounds strange.
You paint it, shoot it, record it (without background music from a live band etc.) it's your's!
Did "the bad guy" setup the lightning for the shoot or put some effort in it?
I've always wanted to do Street Photography, but I've been afraid to do it because someone could flip out and beat me or something, and I'm not sure if the rules in the states still apply to Canada.
What if I use my friend's camera and memory card - does he or do I own the photographs?
Whoever pushes the button owns the photo.
Remember that next time you or someone you know asks someone to use their phone to take a picture.
in short if you take the image you own the image and copyright and depending on the release you got from the model as to how she is delt with or compensated if at all.
Hey Jared, thanks for the info but you left me in one hole now.... I also recently did a photo shoot (TFP) for a model who also brought along a friend.. I didnt get a release form the friend...
Can I use the photos in my portfolio legally without the release form?
If yes, then so what is the point of needing a release form?
@JaredPolin What about our rights as a photographer when taking photos in public?
What about the public photo. In Quebec Canada and in France you cant take photo of people in the street and use it without their permission. So it's also depend of your location.
This is such important info. Seriously. Thanks Jared!
As far as I know the subject that you are taking a picture of has the copyrights.
I have a question for you!! How do you go about officially copyright your photographs and Can you copy right a portfolio's worth of work??
Oh, I've been there. So frustrating!! {This is my most favorite video. Best information. Thank you so much!}
You forgot about one thing. You can't use your footage how ever you won't publicly without the confirm from the subject you shoot. What I mean is, you can't for an example interview a random person on the street and then public release it against he's will. You talked about rights, and that's good, but you should also talk about the rules of publishing. Because their are some shady lines there to look out for as a newbie in photography.
Hey Jared! Great videos!
I have a kind of legal manner question about street photography and generally shooting in public. Is it invasion of somebody's privacy if u take their photo without asking first and what rights do the ones depicted on the image have on the picture itself?
There is this Gypsy Vanner horse show that tours the country. People bring in their Gypsy Vanners and pay to compete for prizes. They were performing at a public venue owned by the local city. As we entered, a woman came up to me and asked me if I was there to take photos for business. I told her no, it was just personal photos. The event photographer, apparently, was so insecure with his job being taken from him, that during a break in the show, the announcer told everyone that they could use the photos they took of the horses for personal use. However, if we took our photos and tried to sell them for profit, or even utilize the photos in our photography portfolio to obtain business profit, then the event photographer would legally be able to track us down and sue us over our photos. It was very hard to find this event photographer, but I found his portfolio, and he mass uploaded every photo of his, even the very bad ones (He used flash a lot, causing a lot of white eye in the horses). I can see why he felt so threatened.
I wish you would have elaborated on taking pictures of people in public and what the laws and rights to you as the photographer. BUT, thanks for the info!!!
How about taking photos of people on the street in the Unite States? Do you need their permission?
That first part is very correct. But I am wondering where you got that last 4 sentences of information from? I'm just looking to see for myself. Photoshop is not cheating, it's the darkroom of digital photography. Cheers :)
Yeah, it's tricky on private property. The guidelines for when you need a model release or a property release used to be fairly straightforward, but the lines have blurred between what is editorial content vs. commercial these days. Here's a fairly good article on the ASMP website:
asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#.UK4HqaWlmrg
Also sometimes with street photos you have to worry about defamation. Some people like to knock photogs with that.
One of the grey areas is with architecture. If it's a well known building with a unique recognizable look you need permission to use the image. Government buildings are a no no, but you're not allowed to know which ones those are until it's to late.
Not sure if someone can tell me how it goes for places of public transportation. I understand the security risk, but is it ok?
When we shoot people outdoor... Do we need to ask permission to give commercial use to the pictures?
I'm not sure you are right in all terms.
Here in Germany, and we are not the only one, you cannot take photos of persons and own them automatically.
If there is nothing written, the person on the Photo can demand to delete the photo, especially when you can make profit out of it. So, no "contract/written agreement" --> no owner of shooted photos. This is also to protect the people on the photos, so they have control what happens with the photos.
Thanks so much for this. I hope you make a video about taking pictures in a public space. I'm constantly told in many areas of Los Angeles that I can not take pictures in those areas. For example the blue suits in Downtown LA constantly stop photographers from taking pictures. Would love to hear your thoughts or what the real so called "law" is
Thanks for the explaination. Do you know if these rules apply to Europe as well?
Hi Jared,
I recently took photos during a wedding of a relative (family). I told the couple that I will post the photos online (on flickr) so that everyone in the family could see them and the couple could download them. However, the mother of the bride threatened to sue me because I did not seek permission from her. I posted a few photos and in fact most photos were my own family (my daughter, my son, wife etc) during the wedding. Any thoughts? I have since remove the photos.Tq!
Start by Googling "krages the photographer's right" and read his PDF and look at the extra links on his website. Reading "Photography and the law" on Wikipedia is a good start. The "photo attorney dot com" has lots of good articles.
In Australia the laws on copy rights is different, for commercial photography it is as you describe but domestic photography ie Wedding Portrait it is the client who owns the copy right unless their is a contract very the ownership.
Thank you for this video!!! This happened to me but with my family. I was threatened for posting on My photo ig account for a family event that I offered to photograph and paid for the materials in that shoot (smoke bombs). I was proud of my image and for my family and they threatened me.
only in public spaces like the street, if you're taking a picture of someone in a house through a window (or something creepy like that...) it's invading their privacy
Yo fro, I need a good Intermediate camera, i thought of the D3200 but then again thats too beginner-ish, don't know about the 650D though. Any suggestions. Cannot exceed $1000
I have specific questions pertaining to photographing musicians at festivals… i would love a video on that…
Yes. In Lithuania (EU) you must have a parents permision to photograph kids. And you can't phograph compromising things (like injuries or damaging things). Cheers.
Also, if you're an employee of a company, not an independent contractor, then you don't own the rights to the photos that you take while working for the company. However, in all other cases, you own the rights to what you shoot, unless specified otherwise.
Does these rights apply in 2019?
I'm taking pictures at a public marathon. This is a public event with no expectation of privacy. I'll be taking pics of hundreds of people. Getting a model release for every person in the race is going to be impossible. As you know, out of 100 photos maybe 2 will be worth printing and entering into a contest. Do I need to get a model release from one of the runners in the race to use the photo I took of them for the contest?
what products do u use for your hair; i have a afro myself.
You can, unless the picture is clearly harassing your subject, like taking an ugly photo just to offend or blackmail that individual.
this applies to all photographs if you take the photo you own copyright to it unless you sign a contract stating otherwise either before the shoot or after the shoot if you sell them which i don't suggest ever doing or in australia im not sure about around the world but if you are paid by a client eg couple or wedding to shoot for them they own copyright however check this for your country
So you told us about the rights of ownership, wich are right as far as I know. But what about publishing?
Hi, What are your thoughts on 3rd party use?
For example: Your client gives the photos that were made to promote their services to another entity/vendor.
One of your best videos Fro, thanks!!!
Okay, Update: I just read about the laws in Sweden and you can photograph anything you'd like atm, unless it's in a private area where the owner of the area is in charge. You can also publish anything you shot without permission except for commercial use. The photogropher is the owner of the pictures, and decides what to do with them. Although as I said the laws is subject to change here in 6 months. I'd google your own photographic laws to find out what they are in Greece.
You are absolutely RIGHT!
There are exceptions, however. For example, if someone in the witness protection program was photographed by you -- even unknowingly -- you would be in violation of state and possibly federal law for not deleting the photos of that person when a request was delivered to you either immediately or later.
So in NZ, If you ask permission,the subject owns your photo? Who becomes the subject (owner) if there are 50 or 60 people in the photo, What if you're in the photo too? Only those you ask becomes the owner?
Question, Im a photography enthusiast, I regulary join paid or free event that allow me to shoot certain model. Ofcourse I dont have any written model release form. If I publish the picture on a Magazine or somewhere without letting the model know, does he/she have the rights to take legal action against me?
Stephanie,
He was trying out & learning how to shoot videos.
Then all of the sudden, he found out that you are a better photographer than he was.
Be proud of yourself. Don't deal with jerk like him.
Did you know Bambi Cantrell, Dennis Reggie and many well known photographers are not really good photographers. Most clients like their assistance's photo images.
But they are smart and made sure the assistance signed their contracts.
All cheat and using Photoshop daily.
Does a news outlet have any right to use my photos? I shot photos of an outdoor music festival as a volunteer for a radio station with the understanding I would allow them to us the photos in promotions and on their Facebook. That is fine. But Monday evening I find two of my photos on the front page of the newspaper, I was not asked for permission to use them (they did credit me). They pulled the images from my public Facebook post. Does the newspaper need to seek my permission to use my images?
diapernh I would say so
diapernh entirely depends on the licensing... from a Facebook post is a no-no unless you specifically released them in their, but if you said something like these are CC-by-SA 4.0 then that would be allowed. So no, the newspaper commited copyright infringement, unless they got a deal with the radio station
My understanding of FB privacy policy is that, once you post something to FB it ceases to be your property.
Sort of the same way with your bank.... when you deposit money in the bank, it's no longer yours, it belongs to the bank.
pthompson108 pthompson108 it doesn’t become Facebook’s.
That’s like saying if you draw on paper it becomes the paper company’s property.
Your copyright is yours on any social media unless you sign over the rights or produce content under ‘Work for Hire’.
Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Flickr ask for the right to modify creative works because the companies need to resize, compress, and transmit those works across servers.
Intellectual property cases have slapped those companies on the wrists for over reaching Term of Service.
Kinda like how some wedding photographers add in the contract that the couple can't over edit their photos and post them on social media .
I've been harassed by the police before about the rights I have to take photos, so since then I've always carried a sheet explaining my legal rights I have. I also don't take verbal agreements from people unless they are very close friends even if I'm not getting paid for the work