I don't know what paparazzi do during the day, nor the profile of that restaurant -- I'd imagine these days a lot of the photos come from someone with decent megapixels who's just out with their camera.

Of course, since my one stealth photo of a celebrity was with a cameraphone and is only recognizable if I walk you through it -- I'm not expert.

I'd imagine these days a lot of the photos come from someone with decent megapixels who's just out with their camera.

I don't think any more highly of a non-professional snapping a bunch of photos of them without their permission.

I've never asked permission of strangers on the street who've made it into my photos or been the subject. I don't do it so much anymore -- in fact, the unease is a big part of why I take much fewer pictures.

I've never been sure of the legality of the whole thing (which is separate from the morality, I know). I've heard talk of getting releases signed, but for which photos? For publication? Sale? Profit? And I'm pretty sure it's not required. I wonder why it's ever done, then.

In my personal morality, there's a difference between taking an artful photo of a random stranger who looks interesting (in their pose or setting) and taking a series of photos of a couple leaving a restaurant.

Releases would have to be signed if you plan to sell the photos. Though subjects in the public eye (like celebrities) may be treated differently.

Though subjects in the public eye (like celebrities) may be treated differently.

This the part that confuses me. That doesn't seem fair. If anything, their image is their livelihood, and should be afforded more protection, not less.

But if I take a crowd shot and sell it to a newspaper, I'm really expected to get releases from everyone recognisable in it? That's never seemed practical. Or I could sell it to a tabloid, or People or something with less clear journalistic ... integrity?

Very fuzzy to me.

Releases would have to be signed if you plan to sell the photos.

Not if they're walking down the street, you don't. Red carpet/other candid footage belongs to whoever shot it.

Huh. So when do you need a release signed?

IME, whenever someone is credited as "talent," you need their permission for reuse. (Which is why TAR contestants need to get releases from anyone they ask for directions, but not everyone they pass on the streets.)

Likewise, you need a release in order to sell anything that's an image of a copyrighted event (play/sports game/etc). (When we sell clips from Pride and Prejudice, we need Colin Firth's permission to sell scenes with Darcy in them, etc.)

When we sell clips from Pride and Prejudice, we need Colin Firth's permission to sell scenes with Darcy in them, etc.

I volunteer to call him and ask him for you.

When we sell clips from Pride and Prejudice, we need Colin Firth's permission to sell scenes with Darcy in them, etc.

You need to get that every time? If Colin gets pissy about the whole Austen thing, he could crack down on having his clips ever sold again?

whenever someone is credited as "talent," you need their permission for reuse

I can see how that works for moving pictures, but for stills ... seems a wobbly arena.