the laws with bands and people at shows?

[angrykitty]

So I know that off the record I can pretty much do whatever I want with my prints, but I was wondering what the rules are in terms of publishing prints with people who you don't know, and can't contact, in them.

It's pretty easy for me to get ahold of the bands I shoot (small local bands) and ask about how they feel about being published here or there, but theoretically, what if I couldn't get ahold of someone and I got a great shot of something and wanted to submit it somewhere? I'd feel terrible sharing something that the subject(s) or the band didn't want published.

I get a lot of crowd shots and a lot of interesting shots of random people doing random things at shows, but do I have the legal right to submit those images to magazines without the subjects permission? Do I have the legal right to publish the bands without their permission?

I doubt it would really be a big problem but I actually don't know the technical legalities of all this...

the state is California, btw

 

[Eric Rose]

Wow there is nothing worse than an angrykitty LOL. Just think an angrykitty and a bad dog on the same forum.

Not sure about California but in most places if the people are in a "public" place and have no expectation of privacy then you can print them and sell as art prints. However if you were to want to use them for advertising this is another kettle of fish all together.

Now the tricky part is defining what is a "public" place. PM blansky he might have some California specific advice for you.

 

[MikeSeb]

Are you on private property while you shoot these images? IOW, who owns the venue, and what are the terms of your ticket purchase? Often private venues restrict photography of things happening on their property.

If you're standing on public property, however, you can generally photograph anything you can see, as Eric implies, and do with the images as you will for non-commercial purposes. For those purposes (ie, use the images to endorse a product or service) you'd need model releases.

Not a lawyer; I'm sure one will chime in.

 

[angrykitty]

it would be art, lol, I'm not a marketer! or documentative... but the venues really dont care, most arn't exactly legal in the first place. But obviously I'd run it by them anyway, I just happen to know they really wouldn't care 99% of the time, as long as nobodys naked, and even then its probably up to the band or naked person in question. That's one I would definitely ask permission for first...

I'm more concerned about things like what if I submitted to something like 'my shot' to nat geo and it turned out the band in the shot or the person singing along with them ended up not being cool with it....

I don't expect these things to happen because I will ask if I can get ahold of the person, I know most of these people, but sometimes no one knows who this or that guy is...or if for some reason I can't get ahold of the band, or (hehe) if I don't remember what band it was and nobody else does.

would it be safe to submit it in a situation like that?

 

[tkamiya]

One thing to keep in mind... You may very well have a right to do whatever you wish with your photos. But, that doesn't mean someone won't try to sue you and drag you through the court system. It can be expensive and frustrating to defend your rights. Even if you eventually prevail, the expense will be partially yours.

 

[Steve Smith]

It can be expensive and frustrating to defend your rights.

Only if you pay someone to represent you.


Steve.

 

[billbretz]

do I have the legal right to submit those images to magazines without the subjects permission? Do I have the legal right to publish the bands without their permission?

1) Yes*

2) Yes*

*Assumes you are talking about "editorial" use - commercial, such as for in an advertisement, is different.

 

[MattKing]

Only if you pay someone to represent you.


Steve.

Steve:

In at least most of Canada, if you try to defend your rights, but lose, you will end up paying part of the costs of the party that sued you. If you win, and have had the assistance of legal counsel, generally the losing party will be required to reimburse you for some of your costs.

Hiring someone who knows their way around a court action may indeed save you some money.

 

[SuzanneR]

1) Yes*

2) Yes*

*Assumes you are talking about "editorial" use - commercial, such as for in an advertisement, is different.

What Bill said. Still, just for karmas sake, I'd try to reach whoever is in the pic if possible. People can try to sue for just about anything, I suppose, but that's not a reason to not give the "one shot" thing a go.

 

[angrykitty]

hmmm so the general consesus seems to be - yes I do have the right - but that won't necessarily stop people from trying to sue anyways.

how comforting...

Well I'll just have make sure to ask around as much as I can if I do plan on doing something like that... thanks!

 

[Tony Egan]

I currently have an exhibition running of 40 prints from various gigs and concerts going back over the last 7 years. Never been hassled and many artists have contacted me for permission to use their photos. Never been asked to cease and desist or remotely threatened with legal action. My approach would be, well, if you want to cover my production costs I'll remove the image. That would total about $5,000 per image in time, energy and materials. Or you can just pay me the $600 asking price and take it away for yourself! Again, important always to distinguish between a "fine art artefact" and commercial use of the image to promote or sell something else. There's an enormous difference.
Dead Link Removed