Photos and amtgard

General information, announcements, and discussions about Westmarch, Amtgard, and the LARPing life

Photos and amtgard

Postby Collin the Red » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:23 pm

We play in public parks. We want (on the most part) to be an inviting group, welcoming outsiders to join us. Most photographers ask us to pose or check with us to take our pictures. At events and at park days we (members of amtgard) take pictures of each other and post them in public places. i.e. Meetup, Facebook, MySpace, and other more ancient web sites.

My question is, should we add to the general waiver, "8. I give my permission to the Releasees to use my image for Amtgard promotional purposes." or does the first paragraph:
I, in consideration for myself ____________________________, receiving permission to participate in Amtgard,
hereby release, waive and discharge all people involved with or associated with Amtgard (hereinafter referred to
as RELEASEES) from any and all liability, claims, demands, actions, and causes of action whatsoever arising
out of or related to any loss, damage, or injury that may be sustained by myself or to any property in the
possession of myself, while participating in Amtgard, or while in, on, upon, or traveling to or from any program
activity where Amtgard is being conducted.

cover this issue?

Or should we make our photographers get permission of every person (both foreground and background) in every shot prior to posting?
Baron Collin MacAbee current King of Westmarch
Squire to Sir Smiley
User avatar
Collin the Red
 
Posts: 2359
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:11 pm
Location: Thor's Refuge

Re: Photos and amtgard

Postby Fiks » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:08 am

Did some quick Google research. Thankfully this is a hotly debated subject, so there were plenty of helpful results. Unfortunately, it's a hotly debated subject, so there's no clear answers. As far as I understand, this issue comes out with two important factors:

1. Any photography at a public space or private space open to the public is lawful and protected within the United States. So if you're out playing at the park, you're accepting a reasonable risk of being photographed by either a fellow Amtgarder or a passerby. Don't like it? You can ask not to be photographed, but up to the point where the photographer is obviously continuing to photograph you in order to harass/stalk/inflame, they don't necessarily have to comply. Unless you go to the restroom or inside a private residence or build a fort with "keep out" written on it. Then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That means basically anything actually Amtgard related at public parks is open to photography. The only time Amtgard happenings are not gonna be open to public scrutiny and photography is when we're at a rented private hall or land, in which case the landlord can make the rules.

2. This is where it gets sticky and is what Collin is asking about, I think. The intent and final disposition of the photographs is where the law gets sticky. If they're just for private use (which should include sharing among friends, even on Facebook, but even there there is some stickiness, which is why Facebook almost always deletes something when someone protests regardless of law and circumstance surrounding the taking of the photograph) then no permission need be sought if the subjects are in a public space. If you take a group photo at Times Square and catch a hundred other people in the background, then share it around as part of your trip album, you're fine and don't need a release from every single person. You should still be fine if you wanted to take that photo and sell fine art prints of it on stretched canvas to New York styled coffee houses (wow that scenario got weirdly specific). It gets stickier if you take a photo of 300 people, most of whom are recognizable in the photograph, and try to use it for an ad campaign. Strictly speaking, you would have to get a release from everyone recognizable in the photograph.

The main difference between the two examples above in number two is the intent to make money off of the photograph. With that in mind, is that what we're attempting to do with our flyers, business cards, etc.? I don't know. I want to say no, as we're a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, but that's more a question for a lawyer, I'm afraid. I don't know if our waivers would exempt us from releases if we fell into the second scenario's sphere of influence... And judging based on what I've found as far as model releases go, the suggested one-line amendment would be insufficient. But again, those releases are for for-profit commercial use, so I don't know if they're the kind of thing we'd have to concern ourselves with.

If this is something that Westmarch really wants to concern ourselves with, we'd have to get in touch and get an opinion from a lawyer, I feel.

Some websites I read doing my quick research:
ByPeople: "Photographers rights, learn everything"
American Society of Media Publishers: "Business and Legal FAQ
American Civil Liberties Union: "Photographers - What To Do If You Are Stopped Or Detained For Taking Photographs"
NY Times Lens Blog: "Can You Take a Photograph Anywhere?"
Photojojo: "Photography and The Law: Know Your Rights"
"How harmful overspecialization is. It cuts knowledge at a million points and leaves it bleeding."—Hari Seldon
Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and brotha', I hurt people. Bonk!
User avatar
Fiks
 
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Wavehaven

Re: Photos and amtgard

Postby Elysia_Tilde » Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:52 pm

Fiks is right.

Mostly it has to do with what the pictures will be used for. Private use, like a personal collection, does not need consent from every person. If a person requests that their picture not be taken, then their picture cannot be taken. If a person requests that a photo of them be taken down, their picture must be taken down.

If the photos are used for something other than personal use, the consent of the use of the photo and the people within the photo need to be obtained. So let's say you're using the photo for promotional flyers for the park, the permission of the photographer and the models within the photo must be obtained prior to use.

So facebook galleries posted, or the photographer's own collection on their own site, does not need individual consent. If the photo is to be used for something other than their own collection, the USE of the photo needs consent from the model and the photographer. The only time consent for pictures to be taken is gather before photography is when the photographer knows the photos will be used for something other than their own collection.

(I've worked with a bunch of convention photographers while I was still working in a law firm. I've questioned this before too.)
User avatar
Elysia_Tilde
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:45 am

Re: Photos and amtgard

Postby Clenawe » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:55 am

Releases in public places are actually a hot topic among photographers, especially street photographers.

One solution that some have used is a business-card release like this one to have a convenient release for random people on the street. Others argue that the release doesn't tick enough legal boxes, especially as relates to sensitive uses or digital manipulation. They suggest a more expansive minimal release.

The issue with a model release is that it is a contract. To be enforceable, both sides need to benefit. Typically this is done by the photog providing a token compensation to the model--frequently $1, though there is a tradition going back a couple hundred years of using a single peppercorn as token payment.
Clenawe
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:56 pm


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests