Good thing about today's microstock: Upload once, and your work is done; forget the image and (maybe) get multiple sales.

Jet engines don't require a "run up."

Excellent results with Blurb:

http://www.blurb.com/b/1217191-hinterlands?utm_source=badge&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=280x160

Read the definitions of the words "privilege" and "right" in your dictionary (if you have one). Then read the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We have the RIGHT to speak, write and publish what we want (including photographs). If your photography is published "around the world," perhaps you could send us a link to some of that work.


http://www.corbisimages.com/photographer/richard-michael-knittle-sr-




If you are indeed the Richard Michael Knittle Sr. of Texas who photographs (without permission) people in the street and is represented by Corbis, then you have an extremely perverted view of your RIGHTS and responsibilities as a journalist. I suggest you go to your local college for a class in Constitutional Law or perhaps just Introduction to Journalism.

Believe what you want. Just don't try to interfere with my RIGHTS.

Read the definitions of the words "privilege" and "right" in your dictionary (if you have one). Then read the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We have the RIGHT to speak, write and publish what we want (including photographs). If your photography is published "around the world," perhaps you could send us a link to some of that work.

Right! I too do shows, and I agree with Jim. Best answer to the original question.

I must assume you have never seen a newspaper or magazine and probably don't read (at least not the U.S. Constitution). Or if you have looked at a picture or two in one of the thousands of daily, weekly or monthly publications, how do you suppose those publications got away with taking pictures of buildings and people? I can assure you that neither their photographers nor their publishers have any special rights different from those afforded to all; nor do these publications obtain releases for their subjects.

It's a free country with a free press, and anyone can be a publisher--even you. How ridiculous--"while you have a right to take photos IN public you have NO right to take photos OF the public ." You must be shooting blanks.

I have no idea what people do with the many images they capture with their cell phones, and I don't really care. I display my work at art shows, and often encounter those who wish to photograph my photographs. Some ask and some don't. Never has bothered me. They'll not capture the quality of the original, so I don't consider it "stealing." Other artists, however, have told me they object to photography because they want to protect their ideas. Some validity there, particularly in the craft categories.

No. Never done.

Here is the exchange that prompted my reply:

Me "It's not illegal to photograph people and sell photos of them without their permission. Done all the time. Check your local newspaper. Those photos of street protesters are not illegal, nor do they carry a model release. As a general rule, if a person is in a public place, you can photograph him or her, post the image, sell the image--just not use it in advertising or promotion without a release."

Annie: "sorry you have some misinformation that is pretty common. newpapers do not require a model release because they are the news. photos used for education and news related items and stories do not need or require a model release. this clause is also the reason that sites like tmz and mags in check out lines don't need model releases for the rich and famous, it saddly is considered news."

Mine was not "misinformation," yet most who posted in this thread were totally off base--just wrong. Annie's post implied that newspapers have some special privilege not available to the general public; further that it is acceptable to photograph the "rich and famous" but not others.

Bottom line: I was responding not only to her post--which seemed a little off--but to others who were totally off. She asked how I acquired my information, and I responded. Doctors may cultivate bedside manners, but journalists are usually blunt.

Thanks for your suggestions, SS.

Sorry if you feel offended. I was referring to other posts as well as your assertion that I have "some misinformation that is pretty common." It is incorrect to say that newspapers don't need releases "because they are the news." They don't need releases because there is freedom of expression in this country, and anyone can publish (a newspaper or a photo) without permission.

50 years in the news business. Selling stock through 9 agencies. Model releases when needed. Street photography as ART or NEWS does not need permissions or releases, nor does it violate any state or federal laws. Most of those who posted on this thread obviously do not understand these basics.

What a revolting passel of stupidity! News outlets have no special rights. Newspapers have the same constitutional rights that every person in the U.S. has. Do you think you must have a license to publish a newspaper in this country? Rich and famous? You don't need a model release for anyone if it is news. And the sole judge of whether it is news is the publisher. That would be you, Annie_Girl, if you choose to publish a photograph.

What is pretty common, it seems, is the ignorance you and many others have expressed on this topic.

It's not illegal to photograph people and sell photos of them without their permission. Done all the time. Check your local newspaper. Those photos of street protesters are not illegal, nor do they carry a model release. As a general rule, if a person is in a public place, you can photograph him or her, post the image, sell the image--just not use it in advertising or promotion without a release.