? about photo usage

You don't need someone's permission to publish a photo of him or her. If I'm walking down the street, you can take my picture and put it in the newspaper and, like it or not, I can't do a thing about it. If, however, you're photographing me in your studio -- that's different because it's not journalism or a publicly viewable event. Further, if I take a picture of Lindsay Lohan walking down Rodeo and run it on my website, that's fully protected. But if you copy the file off my website and run it on yours, I -- not Lohan -- have a legal claim against you. (I used to be an editor at a community newspaper, so I had to deal with this issue from time to time.)

Free speech rights, copyrights and privacy rights all come into play and major publishing houses make it their business to know the law.

If you're working with a major and/or respected publishing house, I would not hesitate to trust them. If you're self-publishing or working with a less-established organization, I would consult a lawyer.

You cannot take just anyone's picture on the street and run it in the newspaper. And I don't know why a newspaper would do such a thing. If people are in famous or public figures, or committing a crime that is different. But if you look under the photos in the newspaper, they usually say the names of who is in them. That is because the photographer got there permission.

As for LC's question, I would not worry about getting the subject's permission as much as the photographer's permission. Someone must own rights to those photos.

LC123: I would say you're OK to use these -given the public domain provision. Had you not had that, you'd be grappling with "right to privacy" and "right to publicity" issues even for those in the public eye. And to go the conservative route, releases would be needed. For peace of mind, you could always contact Jenna's co-author and lawyer Dan Stevens who wrote the book, "The Street Smart Writer".

gettingby said:

.. if you look under the photos in the newspaper, they usually say the names of who is in them. That is because the photographer got there permission.

Click to expand...

I worked in news for 10 years. As city editor of the former Our Times supplement to the Los Angeles Times, it was my job to get and input those photo IDs from the photographers. The reason photo subjects are identified has nothing to do with permission. It has to do with providing readers with as much information as possible. Sometimes photographers didn't have the info. In rare cases that is because the photo subject didn't want to be in the photo. The Los Angeles Times media attorney would give us annual seminars on media law. They made sure we knew what we could and could not do.

You said you don't know why a newspaper would do such a thing. Yet they do it all the time. Ever see a photo of a crowd of people -- say shoppers at a mall during holiday season or sunbathers on a beach? Those people did not all give permission. And if one of them has a problem with it, they have no recourse.

The laws get really interesting here. Imagine a guy sitting on the beach with a woman who's not his wife. A photo accompanying a weather story shows a group of people on the beach and he and his friend are identifyable among them. It costs him his marriage. He has no legal recourse because the image was publicly viewable. If, however, the shot was taken under any of a million more private circumstances, he could sue and win.

This is the kind of stuff media attorneys taught us in the libel seminars at my former job.

As I said, there are complicated laws governing what you can and cannot print. But I'm a stickler for the free speech principles inherent here. Newspapers print photos of people without their permission every day. As long as it's done according to guidelines, it's legal, ethical, and routine.

Since you're dealing with an established house, there's no need to doubt your editor.

Don't borrow trouble. Some will be along shortly.

aka eraser said:

Since you're dealing with an established house, there's no need to doubt your editor.

Don't borrow trouble. Some will be along shortly.

Click to expand...

-----
I agree wholeheartedly. I had plans to have a picture at the start of each chapter pertaining to my soon-to-be-released book on beach volleyball. A well-known literary attorney advised me against it.

.

June Casagrande said:

He has no legal recourse because the image was publicly viewable. If, however, the shot was taken under any of a million more private circumstances, he could sue and win.

Click to expand...

That's the whole "reasonable expectation of privacy" part of the law that makes things so exciting. As far as photos of celebrities, there are such things as "likeness rights," but if your source material is public domain and provided by the government, you ought not run into any issues there (especially if you're presenting them in a positive light).

Speaking as a photographer, however, it sucks that you're leaving off the photographer's names. For one, it's part of the Terms of Use under which you're using the images, and for two, it's most likely the only compensation those photographers are getting.

Just saying.