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.

If anything, their image is their livelihood, and should be afforded more protection, not less.

In principle, that's true-- take for example Spike Lee's suit against Spike TV (the reasoning behind it, if not the result). I can see the difference however from a potential profit perspective-- it's my right to control what I intentionally put out there for my image (for example, a commercial that used my image to sell something if I was famous) but I certainly didn't put any work into disseminating pictures of myself having brunch. If that makes sense.

This is not my field of expertise but I think that for say, MTV Networks, getting releases from everyone they film is just the best way for them to avoid any liability, but not necessarily a requirement.

Whenever we watch Cops, I find myself saying in an awed voice when someone does something egregiously stupid, "And this guy signed a release to let them put this on television." Never ceases to amaze me.

This is not my field of expertise but I think that for say, MTV Networks, getting releases from everyone they film is just the best way for them to avoid any liability, but not necessarily a requirement.

A lot of events that I've gone to have release forms you have to sign before you are admitted. All of them have been the usual "You might be photographed or filmed when you're here, just so you know" thing.

And yes, I know people who have, at the last minute, decided not to attend those events because of that. They don't want to take the risk of pictures of them at an 'alternative lifestyle' event possibly becoming public.