Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. In case you didn't notice, he only posted so he could chastise us. He offered nothing in the way of an answer to the original question. That would require a retainer, I guess.
While you may own the photos, you don't own the likeness of the people in them. They mst definitely have rights related to the exhibition of their likeness. While the are certain fair use exceptions that allow some types of exhibition and even sale of photos of recognizable people without the need for a release, it's far too easy to find yourself on the wrong or expensive side of a lawsuit to make it worthwhile to play fast and loose with a situation like this. Poor judgment can be costly.
Sorry, bud, but freedom of expression does not relate to a situation like this. You can't just use other people's likeness as you see fit. We are a people governed by the rule of law. Freedom does not mean free to do as you please. Look it up. There's a few books available on the subject.
he's jsut posting them to a camera site, not selling them, using to promote run for office, defaming them, etc.
And you assail me for being too generic? How rich.
It wasn't my question, it was someone elses blanket statement. I merely suggested military installations as a counterpoint to his assertion.
Again, I was rebutting a generalized statement about shooting people on private property from public property. I made no statement about commercial usage. I think everybody in this thread understands that commercial use is a completely different animal.
Agreed, but even a release won't protect you if you violate a person in other ways not covered by a release.
I didn't say he was, but given the circumstances he described I think it better he err on the side of caustion and not post them. There's plenty of other ways to take legal photos of people in public. To risk using these particular photos in any way would be foolhardy even if the worst that happens is the people in them end up getting mad at the photog who let this guy into their wedding to take pics without their permission.
I never said that. My comments were specifically related to the circumstances of the photos in the OP's original scenario. Period.
Those people knew you were taking their photos and then knew you had posted them online, right? That is not the case here. This guy took surreptitious photos of a wedding he wasn't invited to and wasn't hired to shoot. Regardless of the legality I think it is best to not post such photos without permission of the subjects. A wedding is a solemn, personal event and using it for your own purposes without permission is just wrong, maybe not legally, but certainly morally.
you make it sound like he snuck into some wedding and took pictures hiding behing the altar.
--
--
Did you read the original post? He wasn't hired by the couple. He was tagging along with a friend. He even wrote that he was "assisting" in quotes as though he was aware that he was there without permission, probably just looking to mooch a free meal. He might as well have been hiding behind the altar, he had no valid reason for being there and no right to be taking photos. This isn't the Brad and Jennifer wedding we're talking about, this was a private ceremony. If he didn't have permission to photograph the couple then he shouldn't be doing anything with the photos he took beyond viewing them in the privacy of his own home.
You keep operating under that assumption and you will one day find out just how wrong you are. You'll either get sued, arrested or some disgruntled photo subject is going to punch your lights out. There are restrictions as to who, what, when, how and where you can photograph and there are even more restrictions on how you can use photos once you've taken them. Ignore that at your own peril.
--
Certainly, what CAN I do and what SHOULD I do are very different questions. But everyone else appears to have read this as the former, not the latter.
Sure sounded like a legal question to me. Sounded like a legal response too, frankly. "Treading on thin ice" suggests consequences, not just something you shouldn't do because it isn't nice. Requests for legal advice come up on dpreview all the time, and I've certainly seen you in some of those threads. After all, we're free, and worth every penny of it...
