Photographer looking for trucks

nikondvr:

Commercial photography is photographic work done for commercial purposes, such as for magazine advertising, corporate publications, brochures, restaurant menus, etc. On a basic level, commercial photography involves a client that wants to sell or promote something for which they need photographs taken.

If I take photos of people in my local downtown city I can publish a book of those photos with out a release from anybody.

And before you ask ,yes I have an attorney the specializes in photography and video on retainer.

Mark

 

Publishing a book of photos turns that work into commercial work. I'd hire a new lawyer.

 

Right...........................................

 

As long as I do not sell a product or service with the photo I don't need a release.

Mark

 

That clarifies things better. If you would not be selling the book, then it won't matter.

 

Selling the book of my photographs is not commercial photography!!!!!

Commercial photography is using the photograph to sell a product. If I took a photograph of a woman walking down the street in public and I wanted to use it to advertise my photography services I would need a release. To put the same photograph in a book of my photography would not require a release.

In the first part, I'm using the woman to sell my product. That is commercial use.

There is a style of photography called street photography, it's taking photos of people in public places. Producing a book of your own street photography does not require a release from anyone in the photos.

The local camera club I belong to has monthly themed model shoots, I do not need a release from any of the models to put my work on my flicker page. But, if a company contacted me about purchasing the rights to a photo on my flicker page, I would need a model release to sell the rights.

Mark

 

Mark,
You touched on two things that while they sound similar are different. "Commercial photography" is considered as such things as product photography, or shooting a woman's lips that have lipstick applied to make an ad for say Revlon. "Commercial use" can be a photo of anything used in a way as to generate income. That can be taking photos for use in a book, brochure, calender, etc. Also the photo would have to be of something recognizable as that of a particular item, building, person, etc. I couldn't file a claim against you if you took a picture of my property if said property is just a lake and trees. If I have a distinctive building on that property and that is what the photo is of then I have a case. For me to have a case it would have to meet both criteria. My having a distinctive property and you using it to generate income or promote a business etc.

 

Originally posted by Mark:

Selling the book of my photographs is not commercial photography!!!!!
No, but it is commercial use.

Commercial photography is using the photograph to sell a product. If I took a photograph of a woman walking down the street in public and I wanted to use it to advertise my photography services I would need a release.This is commercial use. To put the same photograph in a book of my photography would not require a release. This also is commercial use.

In the first part, I'm using the woman to sell my product. That is commercial use.
You are using the terms "commercial photography" and "commercial use" as if they are interchangeable. They are not. While commercial photography is intended for commercial use it does not have to be an example of commercial photography to be used commercially (commercial use).
There is a style of photography called street photography, it's taking photos of people in public places. Producing a book of your own street photography does not require a release from anyone in the photos.If it's a shot of a crowd of people for example I believe you are correct. If it's a shot focusing on an individual you would be better off getting a release from that individual. A persons "reasonable expectation of privacy" can be construed to protect them from having their photo displayed in a book just because they ventured outside of their home. Remember, there is a difference between shooting "John or Joan Q. Public" and a movie star or other public figure. This also carries into what you say about someone as it pertains to libel laws. I can't make any remark I want to about you without committing libel but I could say the same thing about a political figure and they have no recourse because they are a public figure.

The local camera club I belong to has monthly themed model shoots, I do not need a release from any of the models to put my work on my flicker page. Putting it on your flicker page is not commercial use so you are correct. Additionally, I would bet these models have signed a release for the club to cover the shoot for that day if there is any expectation to use the shots commercially. If you put these same shots into a calender and market it you'd better have a release. But, if a company contacted me about purchasing the rights to a photo on my flicker page, I would need a model release to sell the rights.Yes, you are correct.

And no, I myself am not an attorney but I have had all of this explained to me by one after a few times of being questioned by property owners that noticed me shooting their property and I sought out clarification. I also laughed in the face of a security guard at the Alamo that told my brother and I that we couldn't shoot the Alamo even though we were on the public street and it is a publicly owned building.