Thread: Legality of someone selling pics of me?

What is the legality of someone selling pictures of me if

a) a model release wasn't signed
b) they were taken in a public place
c) they are selling them on a "stock" type photo site where they can potentially be used in any context (including some I might not possibly approve of)

???

Here's are the sites in question:

Editorial Photo: New York Dance Parade 2010

NewYork Dance Parade 2010 - leomoge's Photos- powered by SmugMug

Is it within my rights at all to ask them to not sell pictures of me, or to ask them to contact the photographer about this?

This is difficult and depends much on your municipality. Here in LA there are a lot of laws which support the Papparazzi, so basically, if you are in a public place - walking down the street, etc., they can take a photo of you, video tape you, etc and use or sell the images as they please. If the photos are taken in a private setting, such as a restaurant or at an event even if the GP are invited / allowed in, then only the authorized photographers technically can photograph and use the photos. But it also means that the owners of the venue have to stop the photographers.

This law is being challenged.

{{{HUGS}}}

I don't know about the legalities, but it does no harm at all to ask them not to use your image without your consent.

You can contact the photographer and ask nicely, but you're in the public domain so there really isn't much you can do. Images belong to the photographer, not the subject unless otherwise decided by the photographer.

The two shots I see posted are OK pictures, but won't be good for most commercial applications because you are carrying a camera in them. So I wouldn't worry about those pictures being sold to porn sites/restaurants/whatever.

I understand that it feels weird to see these pictures of you with someone else's watermark on them, but this photographer is protecting you as well as his own work. Several years ago a weekly newsmagazine STOLE very beautiful/dynamic pictures of the local ren faire cast off of a cast member's/amateur photographer's website, and published them along with a very unflattering article. I thought the photographer had been duped into sharing the pics with the idea that they would promote the show, but in fact the magazine considered the pictures fair game since they were on the web - they never asked his permission, just pulled and published them. After a general outcry from people who knew the photographer and his work, the weekly finally agreed to compensate the photographer with a token payment (which he intended to give to charity), but the last I heard, they never came through with the cash.

Please keep in mind that you were in a parade. You can't get much more "public spectacle" than that! No one thinks of compensating Rio's Carnivale Samba dancers for their appearance in journalist's pictures, after all.

Public forum = public access = open season for pix. Sad but true.

Originally Posted by da Sage

Please keep in mind that you were in a parade. You can't get much more "public spectacle" than that! No one thinks of compensating Rio's Carnivale Samba dancers for their appearance in journalist's pictures, after all.

Oh, I'm absolutely aware of that. However, something still just seems "off" about someone being able to do that, and you do never know where things will end up. Seems like such a fuzzy gray area. <sigh> I guess I'm just so used to being on the permissions side from doing PR/marketing and getting releases signed, etc.

I may try to get in touch with the photog (though it's a bit tricky to see how to do that through either site as people use pseudonyms)....we'll see

PS. I feel like it's a whole other story when something appears in a newspaper, etc. Generally crediting, etc are much better in those cases

Another related question?

What if I did see this show up somewhere? Or any image of me (whether pulled from my own site, or someone's pictures, or a stock site)? I know there have been cases where dancer's pics are swiped for CDs or costume sites, etc. What do you do then? Quite curious about all this now.

We had a discussion about this issue a while ago here.

Basically, you have a right to your likeness, not to the photos themselves. So it would be a violation of your rights to your own image to use a photo of you in which you are recognizable to advertise a product, since doing so implies your endorsement. Otherwise, photographers in the U.S. have the rights to do what they want with images of people taken in public places.

The Leomoge site you posted appears only to be selling prints, which is well within the photographer's rights. The other site is selling editorial licenses (for media coverage), which is also fine. Under the photo is acknowledgment that they don't have a model release from you, and the following information is posted at the bottom of the page: Editorial image. Not to be used in commercial designs and/or advertisements. Click here for terms and conditions. This is an exclusive image.

Najla, I felt the same way when it happened to me. I did some research and with the help of some bhuzers on my thread (which was linked in the post above), I realized that the photographer was within her rights to sell my photos.

Regardless, after a few e-mail exchanges which had started out politely and eventually became a little nasty, she did edit my photos so that I could not be recognized.

In your case I'm sure they wouldn't do that, but if you ask nicely they might be willing to take down your pictures. Unfortunately, they don't have to, as Ainsley explained above. If they were using the photos for advertising it would be a different story. But that's not the case, as it wasn't in my situation either.