Getting permission of individuals in photographs.

Boredwalk

Boredwalk

Messages
38
Name
Colin
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got loads of photos that are 20 or more years old that I have posted on various websites, with individuals in them who have - in most cases - agreed to be featured but I have no written permission; or photos where the people are part of the scene but I feel blurring their faces would spoil the photo. I gather that for a photo to be used commercially EVERY possibly recognisable individual needs to have signed a release form. Some of my pictures have potential worth artistically (IMO!), historically, or perhaps commercially, but it seems that even posting faces from long ago on social media can be troublesome. Should I (at least theoretically!) just keep such photos 'on file', as opposed to posting on social media or wherever; as it is near-impossible to contact every individual in a street scene (that may be 30 years old) - impractical even then, hopeless now. I see why picture agencies etc. are covering themselves against plausible or hypothetical lawsuits but the 'privacy' movement/legislation (and readiness to sue), now seems complex and ridiculous. Can anyone set me straight on the legal position here.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is a law which says you need their permission but if you wanted to get the images accaepted by an agency, they would require it.

Posting on social media isn't commercial use. I would just do it and in the unlikely case of one of the subjects complaining, consider removing it.

My experience is that people like seeing old photographs including their relatives and even themselves and the benefits of posting them far outweigh those of keeping them to yourself.


Steve.
 
Boredwalk said:
I've got loads of photos that are 20 or more years old that I have posted on various websites, with individuals in them who have - in most cases - agreed to be featured but I have no written permission; or photos where the people are part of the scene but I feel blurring their faces would spoil the photo. I gather that for a photo to be used commercially EVERY possibly recognisable individual needs to have signed a release form. Some of my pictures have potential worth artistically (IMO!), historically, or perhaps commercially, but it seems that even posting faces from long ago on social media can be troublesome. Should I (at least theoretically!) just keep such photos 'on file', as opposed to posting on social media or wherever; as it is near-impossible to contact every individual in a street scene (that may be 30 years old) - impractical even then, hopeless now. I see why picture agencies etc. are covering themselves against plausible or hypothetical lawsuits but the 'privacy' movement/legislation (and readiness to sue), now seems complex and ridiculous. Can anyone set me straight on the legal position here.
Click to expand...

I don't know where your getting these ideas from :)

Around half a million pictures for sale on my website...... not one single release form...
 
I thought pretty much as Colin so the response from @KIPAX is illuminating. Not known a professional photographer seeking signed releases and yet takes group shots to be sold commercially. Hmmm!
 
sorry.. more on the quarter of a million not half a million.. 300 thousand plus pics on my website..all for sale.. as prints or to media
 
Carl Ayling said:
I thought pretty much as Colin so the response from @KIPAX is illuminating. Not known a professional photographer seeking signed releases and yet takes group shots to be sold commercially. Hmmm!
Click to expand...


why do you think you need a release form ? there not legal requirement for anything in this country... people use them just in case maybe.. and some agencies need them in case dealing with foreign clients whos countries demand them... I do all age groups.. all manner of people from amatuer to pro...
 
Carl Ayling said:
I thought pretty much as Colin so the response from @KIPAX is illuminating. Not known a professional photographer seeking signed releases and yet takes group shots to be sold commercially. Hmmm!
Click to expand...
It's alright, you learn something new every day.
 
KIPAX said:
I'm still learning :(
Click to expand...
By 'you' I didn't particularly mean Carl, I mean all of us. I'm having a quiet day if I only learn one thing (though that might be because my memory is going and so I can learn the same thing lots of times)
 
A very good lesson learnt Phil. I tended to be hyper sensitive to taking images in case of infringement, even in public places .... and in my case, with very little prospect for commercial gain. I suppose there's still the prospect that an individual may object to their inclusion in an image. How do you handle that?
 
Phil V said:
By 'you' I didn't particularly mean Carl, I mean all of us. I'm having a quiet day if I only learn one thing (though that might be because my memory is going and so I can learn the same thing lots of times)
Click to expand...


yes i was adding weight to your statement :)
 
Carl Ayling said:
I suppose there's still the prospect that an individual may object to their inclusion in an image. How do you handle that?
Click to expand...

simply dont include them then.. theres a lot of people out there to photogrpah :)
 
Hi

Be like me stick to wildlife photography and you will not get that problem.

Regards
Pete
 
Joeturner11 said:
My bad I phased it wrong, I mean't selling on stock Libraries. Did put a fair bit on numerous ones in the past but only do a few these days :)
Click to expand...

hence why i mad the jovial comment .. would love t if stock libraries bought pics ..
 
Boredwalk said:
I've got loads of photos that are 20 or more years old that I have posted on various websites, with individuals in them who have - in most cases - agreed to be featured but I have no written permission; or photos where the people are part of the scene but I feel blurring their faces would spoil the photo. I gather that for a photo to be used commercially EVERY possibly recognisable individual needs to have signed a release form. Some of my pictures have potential worth artistically (IMO!), historically, or perhaps commercially, but it seems that even posting faces from long ago on social media can be troublesome. Should I (at least theoretically!) just keep such photos 'on file', as opposed to posting on social media or wherever; as it is near-impossible to contact every individual in a street scene (that may be 30 years old) - impractical even then, hopeless now. I see why picture agencies etc. are covering themselves against plausible or hypothetical lawsuits but the 'privacy' movement/legislation (and readiness to sue), now seems complex and ridiculous. Can anyone set me straight on the legal position here.
Click to expand...


Try getting that in Oxford high street in London. No of course you don't need written permission.
 
Carl Ayling said:
I thought pretty much as Colin so the response from @KIPAX is illuminating. Not known a professional photographer seeking signed releases and yet takes group shots to be sold commercially. Hmmm!
Click to expand...

'In general' photographs which are displayed and published, or sold, for editorial, artistic, educational, or newsworthy purposes do not require the consent of recognisable individuals contained therein. An exception to this would be photographs which have been commissioned for private or domestic purposes (such as weddings portraits). Therefore Kipax, and other event or sports photographers, are free to do exactly as Kipax has said.

'Commercial usage' refers to the use of an image to promote or advertise something, not whether or not it is sold. The reason that it's advisable to gain specific consent if you're going to allow your images to be used commercially any individuals shown in the photos may not be particularly happy with their likeness being used to promote something they may not agree with. There is no legal requirement that you gain this consent, but if you don't you could be setting yourself up for trouble.
 
Carl Ayling said:
I suppose there's still the prospect that an individual may object to their inclusion in an image. How do you handle that?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether they object or not - you have every right to take photographs in public containing people, property, children, dogs and cats and any other bl*ody object you can see. Providing you're not using images of recognisable folk to promote something (which could well happen if you send the photos to stock agencies) then complainers have no grounds to complain. It's also incredibly hypocritical because nine times out of 10 those very people have spent half their lives happily snapping away left right and centre and sticking all the photos on Facebook - which they have every right to do of course. So the best thing is to politely point out that you have done nothing wrong and that most of us have been photographed on more occasions than we care to realise - and it certainly isn't illegal. However my view is that if someone is genuinely annoyed or upset, it's usually better to just remove the picture (unless the picture is particularly significant or important). It really depends on how much aggro you're getting.
 
Carl Ayling said:
A very good lesson learnt Phil. I tended to be hyper sensitive to taking images in case of infringement, even in public places .... and in my case, with very little prospect for commercial gain. I suppose there's still the prospect that an individual may object to their inclusion in an image. How do you handle that?
Click to expand...
As Lindsay says, we're all photographed constantly, it's not something we have a choice about. There will be times when people will object to being photographed, we have to respect their wishes within reason. Likewise when we publish images, some people might ask that we take them down, again, we have to deal with this sensitively.

My default position would be to avoid needless arguments, but for instance, if I post an image online and a bridesmaid asks for it taken down, I'll discuss it with the B&G, as they're the customer, and they can give me an idea of the personalities involved.

But, to be clear, this is hypothetical, I've never had a single issue, and whilst @KIPAX never mentioned a problem, I'd guess he may have experienced a small number of issues. But it'd be ridiculous for him to build his practices round people who might complain, making life difficult 300,000 times to pander to a handful of people.
 
Thanks for the interesting and enlightening replies, guys. I'm a LITTLE ;) less paranoid now. The matter seemed to me to be confusing and fraught with pitfalls so it's good to hear from those who have experience of the realities involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top