Quick legal question re. photography...

If i take a picture of Britney Spears, naked, on a yacht, in the middle of the Mediterranean...

...The Enquirer will pay me BIG money for that... So, no, i don't think you need anyone's permission... But i'm not a lawyer and i only stayed at an Inn Town Suites last night - i don't know of any Holiday Inn Express in the area...

 

As far as photographs go (I know video is somewhat different) if you take the picture in a public space, you 'own' the image and can therefore do whatever you'd like with it.. Hollywood paparazzi have absolutely no problem doing this on a daily basis.

Out of consideration to the owners, I'd block out the plates.

 

Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites
ATLANTA-NORTH AVENUE
244 NORTH AVENUE, NW
ATLANTA, GA 30313
UNITED STATES
1-404-8810881

Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites
ATLANTA / BUCKHEAD
505 PHARR ROAD
ATLANTA, GA 30305
UNITED STATES
404-262-7880

Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites
ATLANTA-EMORY UNIVERSITY AREA
2183 NORTH DECATUR RD.
DECATUR, GA 30033
UNITED STATES
1-404-3200888

Holiday Inn Express
ATLANTA/VININGS
1200 WINCHESTER PARKWAY
SMYRNA, GA 30080-6541
UNITED STATES
1-770-3339910


Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites
DECATUR-I-20 EAST (PANOLA RD)
5300 SNAPFINGER PARK DRIVE
DECATUR, GA 30035
UNITED STATES
1-678-4180004

Holiday Inn Express
COBB GALLERIA CTR-COBB PKWY
2855 SPRING HILL PARKWAY
SMYRNA, GA 30080
UNITED STATES
1-770-4354990

 

This is a toughie, i would have thought that if the owners of these cars and the people looking at them were at a public event then it would be almost certain that they knew that their photos would be taken, plus i believe that if you have to pay to enter a show then you have the right to take photos of anything that you desire, even photos of NNO naked on a yacht

 

It's been a while since my photojournalism classes, but basically, if it's in public it's fair game.

 

Jordan Who are you planning on selling the photos to and what is the usage? If its just selling prints to the car owner I wouldn't worry about it. If you are trying to submit them to a stock agency or other commercial uses you need a property release for the car, and the location. If there are any people in the photo that are recongizable (sp?) you need a model release for them too.

When taking photos in public everything is fair game, until you try to make money from it. You may own the copy right to the photos, but it do not have the rights to sell the likeness of things in the photo without a release. Did you know that in most major cities you have to get releases for landmark building in a commercial shot?

 

LOL, there's always a wiseass in the group...

...although the one on Pharr road is closer than i'd imagined... i like Pharr Road... Does anyone know why...?

 

That whould be a situation you would want to cover yourown ass and make sure you have all of the proper releases. you could do it without, since the likely hood of having problems is low, but remember the car owner most likely have deeper pockets than you and they can afford to find you on principle alone.

 

there are diffent rules pertaining to people and property in photographs, but basically, without a release, or permission of the manufacturer or owner of the property involved, you are in violation of the law.

Guidelines when Publishing Photographs of Individuals

Because there are many nuances to the right of privacy and publicity laws it is advisable to always obtain a written release from any individual that would be recognized in a photograph.

Obtain a release ...in the event that you may want to use the individual's photograph for other trade or commercial uses.

Don't forget that if the individual is a minor, you will need parental or guardian consent.

Make certain you caption the photograph correctly.

Be careful when cropping a photograph that you do not alter the context in which the photograph was taken.

If you decide to use a photograph without a release make certain it was obtained without trespassing on private property, that it does not violate an individual's right of privacy or publicity or that it is protected by a First Amendment use.

Releases are generally not required from people who are identifiable in a photograph of a street or public place, provided that the photograph is reasonably related to the subject matter and the identifiable people are not the focus of the photograph. An example of a permitted use would be a photograph of the Rockefeller Center Ice Rink that was used to illustrate a book about Rockefeller Center or about New York City attractions, even though many people may be identifiable.

Photographs of Property

The guiding principle, that of course is muddled with exceptions, is that as long as a photograph of private property is taken while the photographer is on public property or on property that is open to the public then it is permissible to publish that photograph without permission from the owner of the property.

However, there are exceptions where it may be necessary or advisable to obtain permission from the owner of the property. These exceptions may include among others, a photograph of (i) artwork displayed in a museum, gallery or other location, (ii) a well-recognized product, such as a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, where the manufacturer has been litigious with respect to commercial uses of photographs containing their product,

releases are critical to maiking sure you don't get into trouble. Even with a release, my experience with Ferrari in this matter is they don't object to the use of their cars in pictures as much as they object to the use of their logo and type faces. So, if you shoot a Ferrari, and want to sell the image, try to catch an angle where the logo is not legible.

 

Because Pharr is the first 5 letters of the first name of the owner of 134282?

 

BJP gave you good info............... I'd pass on trying to make money on photos w/o the owners of the cars permission including anyone recognizable in the photos. The exception to the rule is take pictures of people in the public eye, like hollywood types. They actually have less rights to privacy then a normal citizen.

I know if it was a picture I was in, I would not be happy unless I gave consent..............not that anyone could make money off my ugly mug...

 

Because it's not near?

 

WINNER...!!!


Sorry, Tillman, Chris is far more in tune with my insanity than you are...

 

Photos taken in a "public place" are supposedly free of obligation. Now, is Amelia Island or whatever Cove a “public place” or “private property’? I exclude any faces from the photo in the 1st place, unless its Paul Newman, etc. & go for the signed release later if needed. If you want to sell prints taken from these events , you might want to find an attorney.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So he does own it? BTW, have you recovered from the last PM i sent you.

 

That's what everyone said in a thread about it, in the Supercar Forum a few months ago... No one would tell me where they got the information, but that's what they said...

 

Yes, we know you met Paul Newman. Give it a rest.