Monetising photos vs videos in public

Messages
598
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all..... I was watching a random youtube street vlogger video yesterday that raised a thought in my mind as follows....

I was of the understanding that if you took photos on the street that included people as being the subject or part of the subject, you could not use those photos for commercial purposes unless you obtained some sort of release from them (and presumably then perhaps with some fee being requested) but this doesn't seem to apply to videos given that youtube street vloggers ultimately monetise their content.

The video I saw happened to involve a paramedic telling someone to stop filming him (he wasn't being particularly intrusive and it wasn't really a medical situation either), to which the vlogger replied that it's a public place so I can film who or what I want, which of course is true (subject to certain criteria) and it happens all the time with street vloggers.

Now this isn't something keeping me awake at night but is there some sort of legal difference between videoing and uploading to a monetised youtube channel compared to commercial photography and making money that involves using someone's image or have I misunderstood the rules around using someone's image in a small commercial capacity ?

Just curious
 
Put it through claude /legal-review or similar if you must or call a lawyer but i am sure there is zero difference.
The difference is content overload and chances of lawsuit in a advertisment, website front page (both video and stills) vs hours and hours of blogs with some paid add placement.
 
Just think about all of the 'Street Photography' books available for sale, how many of the photos contained do you imagine had release forms?
As Ben says, it's all in the interpretation of what constitutes 'commercial'. :)
 
Just think about all of the 'Street Photography' books available for sale, how many of the photos contained do you imagine had release forms?
As Ben says, it's all in the interpretation of what constitutes 'commercial'. :)
Yes true.... I never really thought about that.

Put it through claude /legal-review or similar if you must or call a lawyer but i am sure there is zero difference.
The difference is content overload and chances of lawsuit in a advertisment, website front page (both video and stills) vs hours and hours of blogs with some paid add placement.
It doesn't affect me in any way..... just a curiosity that popped into my head.
 
Back
Top