 David T. Hughes |
Photo Consent Occasionally, when taking pictures of parks etc, I capture an employee mowing lawns, raking etc. Since they add to what I am trying to do I keeps them in the picture. Do I need their consents if you cannot really recognize who they are? Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Nope. If they're not recognizable, then you can snap, clunk (or whatever sound your camera makes) away and use the images for any lawful purpose. :>) Take it light.
|
|
|
|
||
chrisbudny.com - Chris Budny Contact Chris Budny Chris Budny's Gallery |
Mark, I thought for sure I'd see a "yes and no" answer... "No" if the person is not identifiable... but what about "Yes" if the property itself is private, and remains indentifiable in the photo---would a property release be needed?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
He didn't ask me that. BUT, since you did Chris, yes, if the park is private, even if it allows public access, like Huntington Gardens in Pasadena, San Diego Zoo, etc., yes, to publish (electronically or in print) or sell, David would need a release even if the person in the photo is unrecognizable but the property is. M.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David T. Hughes |
The "park" in question is municipal property - therefore the person raking up dead greass was probably a city employee. Therefore, it is not a private area. Does the release still remain necessary? David
|
|
|
|
||
|
Slim Brady |
you won't sell it, so you won't need it
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brendan Knell |
Who said he wasn't going to sell it?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Unless the guy is a public monument or statue, or permanently affixed somehow to the park itself, he's still an individual with rights to privacy and yes, if he's recognizable you need a release. As to the municipal park, no. Okie dokie? And yeah, like Brendan said: Who says he isn't going to sell it??
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||