buddah17 Loc: The Bahamas

Hello;
I recently took a photo of some costume participants in a public festival in the State of Florida.
I was interested in selling a few images, but I am getting conflicting information regarding the legality of this.
While under Florida laws, a person's likeness, etc.. is protected from unauthorized use, there is also a clause that states that it would be alright for me to use the image if used under the following guidelines:
The provision of this section should not apply to:
"Any photograph of a person solely as a member of the public and where such person is not named or otherwise identified in or in connection with the use of such photograph."
Anyone with any actual experience in this situation who can offer some advice?
And yes I am aware that it is possible for anyone to bring action regarding anything in The U.S. even if they have no chance of winning.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Public venue, you're fine.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

You mentioned "selling" in your title. If money is involved and the person is identifiable, I wouldn't sell it unless...

1 It to the same person.
2 It's for something like a newspaper or is a news event.
3 It's pretty much a generic photo of a crowd on public grounds.
4 The person is of legal age.
5 You have legal rights to do so.
6 Etc. Etc. Etc.

Others will have many other comments on this subject also.

FYI:
Any reputable magazine/book company won't touch it without some kind of release form.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

you should be okay. I also retired to Florida and take alot of beach photos for resale. It is pretty tough to run down everyone on the beach and get photo releases. And probably that gal or guy that are there having that affair with someone elses signicant other aren't going to try to take you to court for publishing their photo. In many cases, the deciding factor is, are the faces and bodies readily identifiable in the photograph? If the face is masked, covered with makeup (unless a clown that has a copyrighted face) or a celebrity, you might have some issues. Most won't care.

DVJ

If you are in a public place where pictures can be taken you have the right to do so and even sell those photos. However, if the photo is to be used in any advertising, you will need a model release. Photo agencies these days play it safe by demanding releases on almost every thing (in case they do sell it as advertising and to simplify things for themselves).

A person is entitled to privacy only if they are in an area where privacy is expected, such as your own home, bathroom. etc.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If the wording was clear and easy to understand, lawyers wouldn't be able to sue.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

beverett Loc: los angeles

Wrong. Unless it is used for commercial purposes such as advertising, no release is needed. If it's news or art, it's yours to sell, post or hang on your wall.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I am not a lawyer, though I play one on TV. My advice: consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction. Maybe your local talk radio station has an "Ask the Lawyer" program (usually on weekends) call in for free advice.

If someone does sue and you go into court and say, "The people on Ugly Hedgehog said it was okay to do it," there will be long and loud laughter.

beverett Loc: los angeles

Do you think news photographers get releases or consult a lawyer every time they shoot a crowd in public? The long and loud laughter would come from a competent lawyer--right after he charges more than you make playing one.

Kuzano

I dispense legal opinions freely. I worked for fourteen years at the credit union serving the UofO, and the nearest offices to that side of the campus were the Law School. I spent many hours walking through the lobbies of the Law School and learned much. So I have no problem offering an opinion here.

Don't worry about it. Do whatever you want.

I remember making my first loan specifically to a Law Professor. As I carried the loan documents into the closing room, I thought, "At last, here is someone who is going to read the entire loan document... this will take some time!"

To my chagrin, I offered up the papers and said, "I'll step out while you take time to read the documents." to which he replied, "stick around kid. I'm not reading these documents. That's the worst thing I could do."

I replied, "Really, why would you not want to know the language of the loan contract I am going to ask you to sign?"

His response....."Kid, in any court of law in the land, your best defense is ignorance of the law, so I'll sign, but I'm not reading your damn loan papers.... Got It!?"

This was a TRUE story and not the least of the weird things I learned by spending years in academia or close by!!!

So, in my opinion, do whatever you want. Anything you do is defensible IF you don't follow any opinions offered to you on this thread. Stay ignorant!

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Number 5 is correct. The others are not and have nothing at all to do with your legal right to sell a photograph.


That simply is not true.

They won't use it for "commercial" purposes, which is advocacy. But as an illustration in a feature article, or just a nice looking picture to publish, no release is required.

A book is interesting by the way. A picture used inside the book requires no release. If the picture is on the a cover, front or back, it is being used to advertise the book and requires a release for anyone shown.

beverett Loc: los angeles

Bingo! Apaflo has it right!

buddah17 Loc: The Bahamas

This should be sent to ALL law schools! It might be the GREATEST advice given in the MOST interesting way regarding the rules of law...
Thanks, this made my day!

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Trust that every contract lawyer is aware of that!

It's a little different than that made it sound, and applies only to contracts (that defense will get you a rope in a criminal case). When the party that wrote a clause doesn't explain exactly what it means to you, if there is a reasonable disagreement later about the meaning... the party that didn't write it defines what it means. Hence not reading it now gives you total freedom of interpretation later! (That is why copious records are kept of contract negotiations, because what it "says" isn't what you read, it's what it was explicitly intended to say that determines what it means in court.)