When is a person in a public photo considered recognizable, and do I need a model release?
Asked 1/22/2019
5 views
2 answers
0
I photographed two people goofing around on a park bench at a farmers market in the U.S. Their faces may not be clearly visible. Can they still be considered recognizable, and would I need a model release to use the image later? I'm mainly wondering about the difference between editorial/art use versus commercial/advertising use.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
7y ago
2 Answers
1
One of the classic cases referenced in all of the photojournalism textbooks is Graham vs. Daily Times-Democrat from 1964. Ms. Graham was exiting a funhouse at a county fair when a photographer from the local newspaper snapped her photo just as she passed over a grate that blew up her dress and exposed her underwear. The paper published the photo with the caption "All's fair in Fair Fun." Even though her face was not visible in the photo, Graham asserted that she was identifiable due to two of her children also appearing next to her. She sued the paper and won damages. The jury in the case found that the photo, though truthful and captured in public, was embarrassing without containing any information of legitimate concern to the public. Had the photo also communicated something the jury found to be of legitimate concern to the public, she would not have been awarded damages.
The State Supreme Court stated in their decision of the appeal:
There is a fertile medium in this field of torts for the production of conflicts between the right of the individual to be let alone, and the right of the public to know--the latter concept being crystalized in our age old concept of freedom of speech and of the press.
For a more complete look at what one can and can not do with photos taken in public places in the U.S., please see: A photo of my wife has been used in a website article without her permission. What can we do?
Originally by user15871. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user15871
7y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A person can be recognizable even if their face isn’t clearly shown. Clothing, body shape, hairstyle, companions, location, or the context of the scene can be enough for someone to identify them.
For photos made in public in the U.S., the answers suggest a common rule of thumb:
- Editorial, journalistic, or fine-art/display use is generally acceptable without a model release.
- Commercial advertising, stock licensing for ads, or endorsements typically require a model release.
That said, recognizability isn’t the only issue. A photo that is embarrassing or invasive can still create legal risk even if it was taken in public and even if the face isn’t visible. The example cited in the answers shows that context matters.
So: yes, your subjects may still be recognizable, and no, a release is not usually required for non-commercial/editorial/art use. But if you want to use the image to promote or advertise a product, service, or brand, get a release first. If the image could be sensitive or embarrassing, be extra cautious.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI7y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Do you need a model release to sell fine-art prints of identifiable people?
Can I license and publish a photo of a recognizable person without a model release?
When is a model release needed for photos of identifiable people?
Can I sell artistic photos of recognizable toy cars like Matchbox models?
Do you need a property release to use photos of private property commercially in the U.S.?