Carl Weese (email@example.com)
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:15:11 -0400
In most jurisdictions photographs sold as fine art prints are not
considered in the same category as advertising pictures, which need
releases, but more parallel to journalism. That is the
artist's/journalist's freedom of expression takes precedence over the
subject's right to privacy, even though the print is sold for
money---*providing* the picture stays clear of the same rules
journalists must follow. IE, subject is in a public, not private place,
and subject is not "being held up to ridicule" by the photograph. If
someone is having an epileptic fit you'd better not call the picture
"inebriate in doorway". A title can be more trouble than the image
As magazines have found, that means the answer is a definite maybe. If
you can possibly get a release do so. But unreleased does not mean
un-useable. Just doesn't mean positively safe either.
As a last matter, the current problem with street shooting has to do
with the culture-wide paranoia about child-safety. If you are carrying a
camera in an uncrowded, public place, expect to have conversations with
the constabulary if there are children within blocks of your location.
You will have been reported for having taken pictures of children, even
though that is not a crime and you may well have not in fact done so.
But that's the general and paranoid impression I've encountered as a
growing trend over the past decade.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37