Q: Can I photograph people in public places without their permission?

A: Absolutely. People get really muddled about this issue, but the reality is that you have a virtually unrestricted right to use a camera in public. One big caveat: It's common courtesy to get verbal permission. Nonetheless, people don't have the right to bar you from photographing them in public, where they would not ordinarily have an expectation of privacy. If the person asks or accepts you taking their photo they are giving you permission through acceptance. There is no right to privacy in the public. The only time you can’t take a photo is if the person is trying to purposely avoid having their photo taken. This can become a gray area.

Q: Can I publish pictures of people I've photographed without permission?

A: That depends upon the purpose of the picture. If it's artistic or editorial in nature, or can be characterized as to inform or educate, then you do not need your subject's explicit permission.
If the picture or any associated text may be libelous, defamatory, or fall outside of what courts have described as "the normal sensibilities" of the target audience, then you may need permission from the subject for your own protection. You also need permission from the subject if the picture is used for commercial purposes, such as in an advertisement. Said advertisement would have to be “Clearly” for a product or a brand. (I.E. product or brand is defined as a sale for a specific product) (e.g. Chevy, Ford, etc…)

Q: Why is the subject's permission required for commercial photos?

A: You need to get permission from the subjects of your photos when you're creating images for commercial purposes because their role implies that they endorse the product. Again (commercial imples that said individuals are advertising a specific product) If you photograph a mother and baby in a local park, for instance, and the image ends up on a Web site selling baby food, then it implies that the people use the product--or at the very least endorse it. And that's the difference between commercial photography and publishing candid photos of strangers in a photo gallery, in a magazine article, or on the Internet. In those cases there's no kind of product endorsement implied. Personal art not depicting any commercial relevance does not require a release for usage.

The bottom line
Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.

Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public — a mall, office¬ building lobby, city street etc. — permission to enter is assumed.

In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person’s privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone’s private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.

Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn’t be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.

use a camera in public. One big caveat: It's common courtesy to get verbal permission. Nonetheless, people don't have the right to bar you from photographing them in public, where they would not ordinarily have an expectation of privacy. If the person asks or accepts you taking their photo they are giving you permission through acceptance. There is no right to privacy in the public. The only time you can’t take a photo is if the person is trying to purposely avoid having their photo taken. This can become a gray area.

Q: Can I publish pictures of people I've photographed without permission?

A: That depends upon the purpose of the picture. If it's artistic or editorial in nature, or can be characterized as to inform or educate, then you do not need your subject's explicit permission.
If the picture or any associated text may be libelous, defamatory, or fall outside of what courts have described as "the normal sensibilities" of the target audience, then you may need permission from the subject for your own protection. You also need permission from the subject if the picture is used for commercial purposes, such as in an advertisement. Said advertisement would have to be “Clearly” for a product or a brand. (I.E. product or brand is defined as a sale for a specific product) (e.g. Chevy, Ford, etc…)

Q: Why is the subject's permission required for commercial photos?

A: You need to get permission from the subjects of your photos when you're creating images for commercial purposes because their role implies that they endorse the product. Again (commercial imples that said individuals are advertising a specific product) If you photograph a mother and baby in a local park, for instance, and the image ends up on a Web site selling baby food, then it implies that the people use the product--or at the very least endorse it. And that's the difference between commercial photography and publishing candid photos of strangers in a photo gallery, in a magazine article, or on the Internet. In those cases there's no kind of product endorsement implied. Personal art not depicting any commercial relevance does not require a release for usage.

The bottom line
Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.

Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public — a mall, office¬ building lobby, city street etc. — permission to enter is assumed.

In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person’s privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone’s private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.

Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn’t be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.

The details

Whether or not you can take or publish photographs is a matter of privacy laws.
There are widely recognized to be four “prongs” of those laws — that is, four areas of which you can r can run afoul. Avoid them and you avoid civil and criminal penalties.
Prong 1 (while gathering): Unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion (e.g., trespass)
Prong 2 (if published): Unreasonable revelation of private facts (e.g., medical information)
Prong 3 (if published): Unreasonably placing another person in a false light before the public
Prong 4 (if published): Misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness

So there are two separate questions with regard to publishing photos: 1) Are we allowed to take them? and 2) are we allowed to publish them?

Whether we can take a photograph is determined by whether the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy or seclusion. If not — if he’s visible to the public (even on private property) — photography is legal.

The logic is simple: If you can see it, you can photograph it. If it requires extraordinary means to see (e.g., using a telephoto lens, or trespassing on property not open to the public such as a private office), then you may not be able to photograph it legally.

can run afoul. Avoid them and you avoid civil and criminal penalties.
Prong 1 (while gathering): Unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion (e.g., trespass)
Prong 2 (if published): Unreasonable revelation of private facts (e.g., medical information)
Prong 3 (if published): Unreasonably placing another person in a false light before the public
Prong 4 (if published): Misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness

So there are two separate questions with regard to publishing photos: 1) Are we allowed to take them? and 2) are we allowed to publish them?

Whether we can take a photograph is determined by whether the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy or seclusion. If not — if he’s visible to the public (even on private property) — photography is legal.

The logic is simple: If you can see it, you can photograph it. If it requires extraordinary means to see (e.g., using a telephoto lens, or trespassing on property not open to the public such as a private office), then you may not be able to photograph it legally.

According to the American Law Institute:
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
—Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652B

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Photographers’ Guide to Privacy, “If the subject of the photograph has no reasonable expectation of privacy, then no invasion of privacy is possible. Photographs taken in public places generally are not actionable. Photos of crimes, arrests and accidents usually are considered newsworthy and immune from privacy claims.”

liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
—Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652B

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Photographers’ Guide to Privacy, “If the subject of the photograph has no reasonable expectation of privacy, then no invasion of privacy is possible. Photographs taken in public places generally are not actionable. Photos of crimes, arrests and accidents usually are considered newsworthy and immune from privacy claims.”

Photographers’ Guide to Privacy, from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: www.rcfp.org/photoguide.

Journalists’ Right of Privacy Primer by Mark Sableman of Thompson Coburn in St. Lou Louis: http://www.mobar.org/press/medhnbk3.htm from the Missouri Bar’s Missouri Media Law Handbook.

Interview with Mr. Sableman, December 16, 2005.

Key quote:
I don't see why the act of trespass would turn something that occurs during the trespass into a tort if it wasn't one already. Particularly in the case of a shopping mall, where there is a reasonable basis for someone to believe that he or she has rights to be there like any general business invitee, and that situation doesn't change until an authorized person utters the magic words “get off my property!”, I don't see why things done in the course of leaving the property would take on any special liability.

The Photographer’s Right, by Bert P. Krages, an attorney in Portland, Ore and author of Legal Handbook for Photographers—The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm.

Interview with Mr. Krages, December 16, 2005.

Key quote:
[S]tates generally will treat this issue in one of the following ways (1) making publication a factor that goes into the damages for trespass or (2) not finding liability for the publication aspect.

Louis: http://www.mobar.org/press/medhnbk3.htm from the Missouri Bar’s Missouri Media Law Handbook.

Interview with Mr. Sableman, December 16, 2005.

Key quote:
I don't see why the act of trespass would turn something that occurs during the trespass into a tort if it wasn't one already. Particularly in the case of a shopping mall, where there is a reasonable basis for someone to believe that he or she has rights to be there like any general business invitee, and that situation doesn't change until an authorized person utters the magic words “get off my property!”, I don't see why things done in the course of leaving the property would take on any special liability.

The Photographer’s Right, by Bert P. Krages, an attorney in Portland, Ore and author of Legal Handbook for Photographers—The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm.

Interview with Mr. Krages, December 16, 2005.

Key quote:
[S]tates generally will treat this issue in one of the following ways (1) making publication a factor that goes into the damages for trespass or (2) not finding liability for the publication aspect.