For pictures of other people (sometimes random people), does permission really matter?

a) yes

b) no

When you answer, can you give me an explanation?

2 Answers

  • 4 weeks ago

    It would depend upon what you're using it for. If you're just taking pictures of people out on the street and posting them to your flickr page, without making any representation about them, no permission is needed. If you're including the pictures in an advertising campaign, then you'll need to get a release from them.

  • 4 weeks ago

    This is a good question for another category:  Politics & Government  >> Law & Ethics . It would be a good idea to move it there. Another good category is Arts & Humanities >> Visual Arts >> Photography. 

    I don't know if Yahoo Answers allows a question to be in two categories, but if it does, I think you should move your question to both.

    I'll try to give an answer now, but expect me to delete it when you move it to a proper category. I expect answers there will be better than mine.

    Yes, permission matters. How much it matters depends on the circumstances.

    If you take a photograph, and use it only in private, you likely wouldn't need permission. This is typical of photos of family, relatives, and friends. But, if you want to submit a photograph where it will be published, you might need a model's release from each recognizable person in the photograph. This might be the case if, for example, you want to submit an photograph of your grandfather to a photography contest.

    If you take a photograph of people in public, you have more freedom. For example, if you take a picture of protesters, you could submit it to your newspaper without having the people in the picture sign releases.  If you take a picture of people playing chess at the mall, you could publish it in your newsletter without releases.

    Comment: So far, only one other answer. I'll leave this one up until there are more.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.