Photographers' Rights

[Hazuza]

I figure with the rise in public photoshoots, meetups, etc, it'd be good for more of you guys to know about this. I only found out myself today, and I'm sure you'll find it useful as well

If you've ever been stopped by security or police when taking photos at a meetup, or just on your own, or even if you haven't but you're worried about the legality of it all, please read up on this.

Mainly page 2 and 6 are what you should know.

Hope this can help you out in the future~


--

_{Oh, also, I want to say that this info goes both ways. At a few meetups, I've heard cosplayers get 'annoyed' or worried because some normal person was photographing us. Uh, hello? You're in costume, you're a freak in a public place, of COURSE people are going to take pictures of you xD! I mean, wouldn't you do it?
If you really don't want them taking photos of you, approach them directly and ask them to stop. Please don't let the police 'handle' it, since they aren't even allowed to stop it. (And they're probably telling the photog untrue laws anyway.)}

[Mr Silmero]

I have the wallet sized version of this card with all my civil liberties as a photographer on it, Forgot which site I found it from though- will try to find it.

[xxxchihiroxxx]

--

_{Oh, also, I want to say that this info goes both ways. At a few meetups, I've heard cosplayers get 'annoyed' or worried because some normal person was photographing us. Uh, hello? You're in costume, you're a freak in a public place, of COURSE people are going to take pictures of you xD! I mean, wouldn't you do it?
If you really don't want them taking photos of you, approach them directly and ask them to stop. Please don't let the police 'handle' it, since they aren't even allowed to stop it. (And they're probably telling the photog untrue laws anyway.)}

xD i think i only have one story like that and it was more a wtf story than an annoyed story. : P

whats kinda funny is at the mall i saw some guy trying to take a pic of me as peach, so I walked up to him and asked if he wanted a picture xD

[ZombieFace]

@Hazuza

Great post! I appreciate this.  I still have questions about things.. I suppose that a good place to start would be the kcon forums.

Questions:

1. Is it legal to sale photos of cosplayers in costume or are you violating copyright laws by doing so?

I have more.. but i'll see if this is helpful.

[MichaelEvans]

@Hazuza

Great post! I appreciate this.  I still have questions about things.. I suppose that a good place to start would be the kcon forums.

Questions:

1. Is it legal to sale photos of cosplayers in costume or are you violating copyright laws by doing so?

I have more.. but i'll see if this is helpful.

I Am Not A Lawyer, but my understanding is that if you were not trespassing to take the picture then the one taking the picture owns the picture.  The information you recorded becomes your property, but you are not granted an exclusive right to the real subjects of the picture.  So someone else can also take a picture of the same subjects, but their picture will be their picture.

That is of course a generic statement, not an always true law.


Further this document confirms my expectation that 'public' spaces on private property default to permission granted unless otherwise communicated by the owners of the establishment.  Such as a picture I took of various cos-players in the publicly accessible space that happened to be a fast food restaurant.

[xxxchihiroxxx]

however isnt it something like the model in the picture can sue if your selling their photo to advertising company's or using the photo for personal gain with out their permission?

[@random]

Wrt cosplayers, I think it's a horrible idea to assert "I can take your picture whether you like it or not." Cosplay pictures are best when they capture a moment where 1) someone has a great cos AND 2) is either very in-character or very out-of-character (for humor). Unless it's a character that's famous for their politeness and kindheartedness, a picture of an annoyed person in a costume is neither of those. It's just a picture of an annoyed person in a costume.

This is invaluable information for stuff like the photoshoot I'd love to do some day - a bunch of Kakashi cosplayers pretending to make copies at Kinko's. And it's invaluable in case a policeman starts trying to make up reasons why you can't have a photoshoot in a park.

But personally speaking, I'd never even want to apply it to taking pictures of a cosplayer without permission. Even in the case where I can only get the perfect shot when someone's not expecting it and has a priceless expression, I'll still show it to them afterward and ask if it's okay to keep the shot.

[xxxchihiroxxx]

randompvg: store policey may prohibit you from taking photos in their store. I know some stores do that. xP either way i agree a bit with the taking with out permission, but most people I know ask, and even then I'm not really annoyed by it : / if you want a picture take a picture.

[Hazuza]

1. Is it legal to sale photos of cosplayers in costume or are you violating copyright laws by doing so?

I really have no clue *_*; I know the tuxedo team wanted to sell their photos in an artbook once, and were wondering about this... They might know, since they were asking lawyers about it and such.

However, selling photos of someone else's likeness, when they are the main subject (ie, a picture of someone's face vs a picture of a silhouette of someone) is usually illegal without their permission. I think. Too confusing for me to read over a lot before bedtime ;u;''

Wrt cosplayers, I think it's a horrible idea to assert "I can take your picture whether you like it or not."

Unfortunately (I guess in your case), it is legal to take photos of someone at any time in a public setting, unless they are trying to hide what they're doing. You can also upload their pictures online/in a newspaper as long as you aren't trying to frame them for something, or use the photo for monetary gain. It is impolite though

[Mr Silmero]

Yes legality and morality are two VERY different matters.

[MichaelEvans]

I usually take pictures of any cosplay that looks interesting.  It's rare that I know the subject; sometimes it's an opportune moment to take a picture, but I think it would start to get on everyone's nerves if they were asked every 30 seconds for a picture; or if it interrupted a conversation they were hurrying to get to some panel.

What would be nice is if there were a well-known word or phrase... maybe I should ask a shortened version like "Picture Please?" even though it would be broken English.  I haven't heard enough other people actually -ask- that to learn if there's a common protocol for it though.

[Slash5150]

AHH!  I finally get to be of use now!

First off, in regards to photos on private property, I think that pertains more to if you are trespassing onto the private property when there is a no trespassing sign.  I have been told by Paramedics that by taking pictures of them assisting a man who was injured and inebriated, that I was violating patient/doctor privacy.  This was not true as it was being used for news worthy information, and there was technically no doctor on the scene as well as the fact it was on public college property.

Okay, first thing, copyright law.  Whoever takes the picture owns the picture.  Simple as that. 

NOTICE -- to all who have photoshop/bridge/lightroom.  Go into File info and copyright your photos.

If someone takes your photo and calls it their own work, you have the legal right to tell them to take it down, and if they don't you can pursue them for damages and such.

Example (and using real people as an example and I am eating oreos so its gonna be people from this thread):  I take a photo and place it on Smugmug.  Now lets say Mr. Silmero went on to SM and took the pic and called it his own because he needed work or something.  I am within my right to tell him that he needs to take the photo down immediately.  He must do it or a lawsuit will happen.

Example 2: My photos are on SmugMug, this is known.  Now if 2010's Kumoricon Publicity director went onto SmugMug and decided to take one of my photos without informing me, this would be illegal.  And if it went into print, I would be within my legal right to deny them use of that photo in all of the printed papers, therefore, all books printed, could essentially be rendered useless.

Now when it comes to photoshoots.  ANYONE who was involved in a photoshoot, not a random "can I take your picture!" con moment but a real legit photoshoot, TECHNICALLY, the photographer needed to have a photo release with him and signed by each individual (you can expect this next year if/when I come back under photographer/doing photoshoots) 

Photo releases can say a variety of things saying "your picture may appear for publicity use" to anything like "your picture will be sold online and by signing this, you agree to those terms" and if you signed it, you're locked into it. 

Now if no releases were signed, then this is another interesting part.  Now if you are in a photoshoot and you don't like how you looked in ANY pictures with you in them, you are within your right to tell the photographer to take them offline.  And the photographer has to agree.

Now the FINE line between this is what is the photo being used for?  Sale? Portfolio? News?

If its news and you're caught on camera you're SOL. 

Best example is by Jason D. and the photo of Rikku, Yuna and Paine with the Security Guard.  IMO, that photo comes off as more journalism worthy than photoshoot/artistic.  If the security guard, associates or even hotel secuirty managers said "I don't want that picture online."  they're SOL. 

Now for people taking pictures of you on the street.  Deal with it.  You can't prevent them from doing it.  Its like yelling at the cops because you were caught on a security camera without your knowledge and didn't approve of it.  Its life.  PLUS, believe it or not, conspicuous photos can turn out VERY well.

[Mr Silmero]

make me the bad guy eh Slash? I see how it is *Joking*

[camname21]

Personally I think he picked exactly the right person as the bad guy!

(Look I'm even beating your posts, take that Mr. line cutter/all around rule breaking doo doo head!!!) 

[Mr Silmero]

you and me Camname- we're going to have words at the next con


Believe it.

[Slash5150]

@Cam and Sil

well, it would be rude to not talk to one another.


But so you know, copyright laws also apply to websites.  And if anyone decides that they will just remove the copyright info, thats illegal in its own right.

[Mr Silmero]

Yeah- Plagiarism among other things apply when you call someone elses work your own.

[camname21]

Shall we have a word duel next we see!?  Bring your glove!

[Spott]

Wow, what a topic. I'll actually toss in my 2 cents worth. Photography is one of the areas where the law & technology & ethics do not see eye to eye to eye. There are a lot of gray areas that only really expensive attorneys can understand. (Disclaimer; I am not a lawyer or attorney. On the other hand I am a safety & security officer with a serious photography addiction.)


Selling images - Selling images you have taken is difficult. Many photographers are vulturous in the context of as soon as they smell money there will be a bigger / more experienced pro shoving you out of the way. Ever watch the photographers at pro-events, it can get violent. Ive seen it happen at local pro events. That really takes the pleasurable recreation out of being behind the camera. Don't even get me started on the paparazzi!!! In the film days creating a beautiful image took skill, talent, & experience. Now with digital trumping film everybody that spends $500 on a camera kit in a box thinks they are a photographer. That perception has changed the way the public trusts the general person with a camera. A photographer lives or dies more by his/her reputation as a person than by image quality. A photographer that is a jerk but gets great images will 99% of the time flip more burgers than snap frames. On the other hand great personality & humanistic attributes with mediocore to good images will allow a photographer to deserve the title of professional. The ones that can mix both of those are the top pros that all us amateurs look up to. (For me they are Nigel Jourdain & Mark Wayre).

Another element of selling images that has not been mentioned is theft of images. When a photographer uses over $10k worth of equipment, decades of experience / education & hires assistants only to have his/her results stolen with a simple screen capture it really demotivates a serious photographer. The watermark is not a means for you to advertise a web page after stealing images. It is a polite reminder that a lot of hard work went into being able to do this for you.



Public vs Private property. The only places that are "Public" property are grounds that are owned by government bodies (city, county, state, federal). A business is deemed private property just like your home is. The difference is that business owners open there private property to the public for the purpose of doing business. If the actions of the public within that private property are detrimental to business (gray area) the privledge to remain on said property can be revoked. Many times in my "real job" I am the one enforceing the policies of the private property. In the context of photography on private property... When I have been questioned by authority figures regarding taking pictures my 1st question is "can you please show me where that is publicly posted?" That will normally confuse the crap out of the general security personnel.



..."however isnt it something like the model in the picture can sue if your selling their photo to advertising company's or using the photo for personal gain with out their permission?"...


No reputable company will touch a image without a signed model/property release. Without a signed release the subject has legal influence on how & when their image is used. Getting model releases from each subject at a event that you photograph really ruins the experience both infront of & behind the camera. This is where the reputation of the photographer comes into play. Once you have earned the trust of the eventing populous they are more receptive to the camera. Most large events have a line in the attendee documents that is a waiver for the event promoter to use any images strictly for the purpose of promoting the event. Which does not convey the right to sell images to businesses not promoting the event the images were taken at/for.


..."What would be nice is if there were a well-known word or phrase... maybe I should ask a shortened version like "Picture Please?" even though it would be broken English.  I haven't heard enough other people actually -ask- that to learn if there's a common protocol for it though."...

Based on my experience most people can tell when a photographer wants to take their picture. The photographer can communicate with the subject by body language & reading the body language of the intended subject. Eye contact plays a big part of this. If the subject does not react positively to the photographers getting into shooting position the the photographer should lower the camera, thank the subject & walk away.

OK thats about enough of my opinions & experiences. Thank you all for your time & trust in me at Kumoricon. I look forward to seeing you in 2010.

Spott

[Demonique]

I think this topic should me made a sticky.

[@random]

randompvg: store policey may prohibit you from taking photos in their store. I know some stores do that. xP either way i agree a bit with the taking with out permission, but most people I know ask, and even then I'm not really annoyed by it : / if you want a picture take a picture.

Righto - honestly, I think most stores have policies somewhere in their corporate manual to prohibit it. I know Kinko's does. (I work for one, but not in Portland.)

Buuuuuut...
1) Cons are during the weekend. Weekends are low on management, and understaffed. Probably they'll be too busy to care, or they may even be amused.
2) Say that a hardnosed manager is on duty. Even then we could probably set up, get pictures, and be done long before the following chain of events can occur: a) They notice. b) They remember that there's a corporate policy that applies. (There are LOTS of them to remember.) c) They come out and tell everyone to stop.

Since they would have no legal standing to say "You have to delete the pictures," the effort doesn't go to waste. No one is harmed in the process; the worst that happens is that a flurry of management emails back and forth wastes the time of everyone reading them.

[ZombieFace]

Now when it comes to photoshoots.  ANYONE who was involved in a photoshoot, not a random "can I take your picture!" con moment but a real legit photoshoot, TECHNICALLY, the photographer needed to have a photo release with him and signed by each individual (you can expect this next year if/when I come back under photographer/doing photoshoots)  ...

...Best example is by Jason D. and the photo of Rikku, Yuna and Paine with the Security Guard.  IMO, that photo comes off as more journalism worthy than photoshoot/artistic.  If the security guard, associates or even hotel secuirty managers said "I don't want that picture online."  they're SOL. 

I don't think that is correct about the photoshoot.  If you do a legit photoshoot, with a group and they don't like it then that's too bad.  They can ask you to take it down, but you don't have too.  It's the same concept as taking a picture of a kid on a swing.  The mom can ask you to stop or take it down, but that's as far as it goes.. as long as you don't sell the photos without obtaining a model release.


When I posted this photo that I took at KumoriCon this year, I was wondering if I would recieve some sort of backlash, but thise thread sums it up rather well i think of how this does not focus on a single subject, rather it focuses on a news worthy event.  Good call @Slash

http://jailbreakdesigns.deviantart.com/art/Summary-of-KumoriCon-2009-136374676

This thread pleases me.

[Slash5150]

Now when it comes to photoshoots.  ANYONE who was involved in a photoshoot, not a random "can I take your picture!" con moment but a real legit photoshoot, TECHNICALLY, the photographer needed to have a photo release with him and signed by each individual (you can expect this next year if/when I come back under photographer/doing photoshoots)  ...

I don't think that is correct about the photoshoot.  If you do a legit photoshoot, with a group and they don't like it then that's too bad.  They can ask you to take it down, but you don't have too.  It's the same concept as taking a picture of a kid on a swing.  The mom can ask you to stop or take it down, but that's as far as it goes.. as long as you don't sell the photos without obtaining a model release.

What I'm saying is if you yourself take person X out into the park or whatever, and you are doing the photoshoot, and you don't get a release, then they can tell you to take the photo down.  If someone else takes the photo, you can also tell them as well after its been put into publication or online.  Again..its one of those news/not news fine lines

[MichaelEvans]

Another way of looking at this:

Anyplace you are allowed to view and have not otherwise been expressly forbidden from doing so, you may augment your natural memory with a record keeping device.  Once the information is transcribed in to your device's storage you own the contents of the storage; that is you own your copy of the 'fact' that a given moment in time happened.

Public (most roads, many parks, etc) places are owned by a commons, and it's very difficult for any single person to have the privilege to say you cannot take pictures.
Privately owned 'Public accessible' places are places where your continued privilege of entry may be contingent on obeying a restriction from such record keeping.

[ZombieFace]

So how about if it's a minor? Say a 16 year old cosplayer gets pictures taken at a con.. Parents don't want pics up.. When minors or parents are involved, are there any special rules to follow, or things to avoid?

[Slash5150]

So how about if it's a minor? Say a 16 year old cosplayer gets pictures taken at a con.. Parents don't want pics up.. When minors or parents are involved, are there any special rules to follow, or things to avoid?

Ooo...that one is indeed a toughie. 

I guess in those instances, if its a minor, then the parent needs to sign the release (kinda like child labor for magazine) type things.  And unless the child has been emancipated (and if that were true the parent wouldn't be there) the parents would have a right to say it.  I would imagine anyways.

[MichaelEvans]

I 99% sure you have the right to -take- the picture (as long as the picture doesn't contain something not legal; I'd hate for a wardrobe malfunction to occur in the few seconds between the button telling the camera to figure out a picture mode and actually taking the picture).   I think, but am not completely sure, you have the right to 'share' your photo-album with anyone else.  With commercial endeavors it becomes complicated; just because you're in the right doesn't mean someone can't tie up a lot of your time and resources with a lawsuit.   I -think- that is why releases are usually required by most corporations.

[ZombieFace]

See.. If I don't plan on making MONEY off the photos is it still required to have a model release? This is assuming that the central figure is posed in front of the camera and it is an under 18 person..  If I just put it up in an online portfolio does that still require it? Does having it on a site that is used for business considered as making money with an image?  Same as having the pic on a business card?

I don't know where to get these questions answered.. and one I know I'll know forever! MWahAHAAHH!!

[Slash5150]

A Model release is more of a "Yes, you have permission to place my photo online or wherever" kind of thing.  It's basically "I acknowledge that you are taken my photo and I grant you so and so permission with my photo"

[Slash5150]

Because I love to rekick old threads, though this would be a good look for everyone.

http://www.macworld.com/article/142497/2009/08/digitalcamera_law.html

[camname21]

You don't need a release, as far as I'm getting out of the article, to take pictures of people (even minors, thought parents then have a say) and use them on display as long as it's not for monetary gain.  If they ask for you to take it down at some point, it needs to get taken down.  If you have a release from the subject in a picture, then you can do whatever you want and they can't tell you anything.  As a rule, always get a release if the situation seems supports it.

[chelseahavoc]

this is very useful information thank you all so much for posting all this

[Slash5150]

You don't need a release, as far as I'm getting out of the article, to take pictures of people (even minors, thought parents then have a say) and use them on display as long as it's not for monetary gain.  If they ask for you to take it down at some point, it needs to get taken down.  If you have a release from the subject in a picture, then you can do whatever you want and they can't tell you anything.  As a rule, always get a release if the situation seems supports it.

Thats basically how it goes.  Take pics of whatever you want (within reason) and with no release, you pretty much have to take it down if you're told.  If you are told to take it down AND you have a release (depending on what the release says) you don't have to use it.

And when I say "depends on what the release says" what I mean is say you take a picture of someone for practice and have the release signed and it states "this is for practice" and then turn around and try to sell prints.  Then they can tell you to take it down.

[camname21]

If slash decided to take near nudie pictures of me for practice getting into the field of human art, then put them up on his website a year later as part of his prints for sale.  I can come beat the crap out of him at the next con and demand him to pay me everything he made off my photos and have him take them down, basically..  Or sue him for the same thing plus additional emotional trama/distress $ and win the case ^.^  Sometimes laws are so good at screwing people its scary what you can get away with.

[Slash5150]

If slash decided to take near nudie pictures of me for practice getting into the field of human art, then put them up on his website a year later as part of his prints for sale.  I can come beat the crap out of him at the next con and demand him to pay me everything he made off my photos and have him take them down, basically..  Or sue him for the same thing plus additional emotional trama/distress $ and win the case ^.^  Sometimes laws are so good at screwing people its scary what you can get away with.

Unless you signed a release stating that I can do that with them, and also sell them.  Then I countersue for assault and win.

[camname21]

Gets slap on wrist from judge for being a good citizen ^.^

[Slash5150]

Actually no you wouldn't. 

If I took photos of you, posted them online and you knew about it and signed a release, then still assaulted before taking any other steps, it gives me a huge advantage.

[camname21]

Ya that's IF I signed a release, my original statement was if I had not signed anything.