Not Your Everyday Banana

by Bart Arondson

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Who actually owns a photo that is taken in a public place?

share|improve this question
9  
It's doubtful that anyone can give you legal advice here, only guidelines. You'll need to talk to a lawyer if you need to be absolutely sure. –  Mark Ransom Aug 4 '10 at 17:16
1  
In the United States, architecture is classified as "public domain" - so you can take a picture of the Washington Monument - or the Chicago Mercantile - or Frank Lloyd Wrights Unitarian Church building - and not face problems. However, if you take a picture of a building which falls under trademark rules, then you would face problems. A very few buildings fall into this category - the tall pyramid skyscraper in California (San Francisco?) is in this category. –  Mei Jan 15 '11 at 2:41
    
This really depends on what country you're in. –  You Feb 15 '11 at 17:55
add comment

8 Answers 8

up vote 16 down vote accepted

The copyright belongs to the photographer unless otherwise specified in writing.

However, depending on local laws you may not have the right to take pictures of some subjects, and may only have permission to sell your images of certain subjects with expressed consent.

share|improve this answer
    
Also, see photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/… –  chills42 Jul 30 '10 at 19:41
    
so i can publish (share it on filter) photos (individuals, groups, children) taken in public (some event/gathering). though some of the pictures taken with the VERBAL consent? –  Ifi Jul 30 '10 at 19:51
    
Most likely yes, but I don't know your local law. –  chills42 Jul 30 '10 at 19:58
    
If taken in Virgina and does local law applies on Flickr and what settings are best to avoid any law suit? –  Ifi Jul 30 '10 at 20:06
1  
@Ifi - too many variables to say for sure. If you have particular reason to be concerned, you need specific advice about your specific situation. –  ex-ms Jul 30 '10 at 20:17
show 1 more comment

Main issues that are related to usage of your pictures are the following:

Copyright

In most circumstances, you own copyright to photos you take, and can do whatever you want with them. The exception is either when you've assigned copyright to someone else (paper you shoot for, for example), or when you'd infrige someone else's copyright. For example, when you take Ansel Adams photo print on street and make 1:1 photo of it, you don't own the resulting picture.

Rules regarding what kind of works you can photograph and reproduce freely when they're in public space are different in every state, but mostly should cover buildings, permanently installed statues and so on. The overview can be found at Freedom of panorama page at Wikimedia Commons. For commercial usage of such pictures you usually need some kind of model release.

Personality rights

Personality rights are mostly intended to prevent you things like snapping strangers on the street and then selling them for advertising (imagine text: "I'm a HIV-positive prostitute and recommend this toothpaste"). Some details regarding publication can again be found on Wikimedia Commons.

National security

Special laws can prevent you from photopraphing power plants, military installations, railroad stations, security cameras, policemen, etc., depending on the state of paranoia in your country.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for the National security issue. A beautiful building in Pasadena overlooks the Arroyo and Colorado street bridge but it's a US Court of Appeals and you need permission from the judge to photograph it ... for National security purposes. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Court_of_Appeals.jpg ) –  Jared Updike Jul 30 '10 at 22:11
add comment

Here in germany it is legal to publish a photo without permission of every single visible person if the picture contains several people of similar size and no one of them is emphasized.

share|improve this answer
5  
What an interesting and sort of sensible law! –  Jared Updike Jul 30 '10 at 22:13
    
Franc has in theory the same law - although it is open to mis-use –  Martin Beckett Jul 31 '10 at 1:07
add comment

If in doubt, speak to a lawyer

In most jurisdictions, you can generally take photos for personal use of most things, as long as you're in a public place, your own property, or somewhere where you have permission to be (which may in turn include conditions; for example, art galleries tend to allow you to be there as long as you don't engage in photography).

Theoretically, there is no law to stop you from taking a photo of a child playing in the street outside your house in the UK. I would advise against it, however, as the local constabulary may question your motives.

Most stock photo agencies will not handle images of people unless there is a model release signed. In some jurisdictions, this isn't a legal requirement, but agencies will want to cover themselves for an international market. Similarly, they like a property release if the subject is an identifiable piece of property (be it a can of cola, or a mansion).

Some organisations have reputations for being photographer unfriendly so it is always best to check in advance if you want to use the work commercially.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The rights of a photographer is generally quite strong. There may be local variations, but commonly:

  • The photographer always owns the photography, unless you have a contract that transfers the ownership. Even if you ask someone else to actually press the trigger, the photographer setting up the session owns the photograph.
  • You can photograph anything or anyone in a public place (unless you violate any other laws).

Owning a photograph doesn't mean that you can use it for anything, though. Publishing a photo without permission where a person can be easily recognised is only allowed for artistic or journalistic purposes.

Using a photo for profit (e.g. ads) almost always requires a model release.

share|improve this answer
add comment

For some background discussion ... consider reading Carlos Miller's Photography is not a crime blog.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Copyright belongs to the photographer in most situations. In Berne Convention countries, if you're not being paid or not employed to take the photograph, it's almost certainly true.

Publication is a separate act to taking the photograph, and whether it's legal to publish it depends on many different variables. Some examples:

  • In France, you couldn't publish someone's portrait without consent or any photo with them as a main subject. If that same person was incidentally in the background of another photo, you could publish it (probably - this is not a hard and fast rule, just a guideline, and subject to interpretation).

  • Commercial photography generally requires a release for identifiable people or property in the US, but not in the UK unless the person already has a significant public reputation.

  • Some photos taken and published legally may fall foul of other laws, such as defamation or indecency.

The best advice will always be that if you have particular concerns about a specific situation, to seek out specific advice about that situation.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I would say that if it has been taken by google street view then you will pretty much be safe, but they may have deals, agreements and show credits for certain publicly visible property. But also be aware that google have blurred all faces and number plates, so if there is someone visible and they can be identified you will most likely need a model release.

At the end of the day the safest option is to speak to a lawyer.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.