Comrades:

Brent Mullins put together a wonderful group of hunky guys on the beach - running, playing volleyball and looking great without their shirts on! Thanks, Brent!

However, I have a legal question: Should Brent have obtained model release forms for each person he took pictures (or for each person whose picture shows up on Outsports)?

From the pictures, I can tell that it was a public beach. I wonder how some of the pictured guys feel when they find out that their pictures ended up on a gay website. Would Brent get into trouble?

I am not clear on photography rules. I think I can take pictures of anybody in a public place for my own use at home. If I want to publish some of the pictures, a model release form may be needed.

Is a website (of any kind) like a newspaper or a magazine? Both media are widely distributed to the public.

I am sending this message directly to Brent's email address.

Just curious,

Mikestead

I believe that if the photos are used in a the sense of "these photos were taken at a beach", no releases need to be signed. Newspapers run photos of public places all the time. If the photos were going to be used commercially, like, the photos are used to sell a product, then you run into legal issues. There are special laws regarding the use of people in advertising and promotional materials.

That is my understanding of the rules and while I'm an art director that deals with rights protected imagery all the time, I am NOT a lawyer. So, consulting a friendly, affordable legal eagle may not be a bad idea.

Actually, my first thought was "I hope someone told these guys the pics would be on a gay website." I mean, I'd like to know if my picture were going to be on such a site.... oh wait it is....

but anyway, you get my point. It could be an unhappy surprise for someone.

Trevor

Wish this was my photo...ahh heck, I wish HE were mine!I've had my my pic taken deliberately or incidentally enough times by tourists jsut shooting away that I'm sure it's appeared somewhere on the net. As long as they don't know who I am and don't use my name I don't think I'd have a problem with it.
Isn't Venice Beach all about showing off anyhow? And to think all we saw were a bunch of canals - nice canals! , and a neighborhood of beautiful little houses located on them.

Well, if it's not legal, maybe he can arrest you! wink

Anyway, I don't think these two would mind! :cool:

[ July 24, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]

THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. JUST A QUICK, RESEARCH-FREE ANSWER GIVEN ON THE FLY BY AN ATTORNEY WHO IS NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA.

I assume that the photos were taken in California. And California has some very strict laws governing the commercial use of celebrity likenesses that an attorney would need to research to get a definitive answer.

But, generally, the beach photos - as long as the subjects were over the age of 18* - are fair game. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public beach. If these were nude photos, taken on a public nude beach (e.g., Black's Beach in San Diego), the answer might be different, if California recognizes the tort of "publication of private facts".

I do think it would be prudent to remove the photo of someone (who is not a public figure) who requests that their photo be removed from your website - but common sense prudence is not the same thing as a legal requirement.

__________________

* I added the information about the subjects being over 18 because some perv got into legal trouble here in Las Vegas, a few years ago, photographing (from a distance with a telescope lens) young children in bathing suits at the Wet 'n Wild Water Park on the Strip.

[ July 24, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CITT is right--pictures taken at a public space do not need the subject's OK. That being said, we will gladly remove anyone's photo who requests it. The ones we posted were simple beach shots, not demeaning or purient.

I'm a freelance photographer and basically everytime I take a picture of someone and plan to use it commercially, I need to get a model's release, even when the photo was taken in a public place.

Newspapers and photos taken in the public interest are exempt from this rule. But even though newspaper photographers don't need a written permission, they still give the person the courtesy to let them know that a photo was taken and how it will be used.

I don't know if Outsports would qualify as a new organization. It's a tough call also because Outsports does not require a membership. If it did require membership and they received payment from people, and the photos were highlighted as a benefit of membership, then it would be deemed commercial use.

Another potential problem is not of the rights of photos but what's called "in bad light," or legal terms relating to defamation of character. If someone feels he was placed "in bad light" and his character was defamed, he could sue for defamation of character. If someone in the photo believes he was placed "in bad light" because this is a gay sight and the implication is that he's gay, especially if he has friends who hear about it or if someone at his workplace finds the photos on this site, then he could claim that he was placed in an embarrassing situation and that would constitute personal distress, which could translate to damages.

I have my own Web site and I don't put anyone's photos who can be identified without their permission or a release, even for images that I'm not selling.

Now, to change the subject from the legal questions to a much more serious matter:

Hey Brent! Where are the furry chests you claim to love so much? Or are there no longer any hairy pecs to be found on the beaches of California? This guy looks like he just recently shed his coat , but the rest of the boys look like real smoothies (and not in a good way). Has PETA gone too far with their anti-fur campaign? I want an explanation!

(Btw, thanks for the great pics, Brent.)

This is not necessarily true. At newspapers I've worked at, photogs were regularly sent out to do weather or a day in the community type of photos. Not all the time did they go up to the person and inform them the pic would be running.

Our photos are not commercial; we are a gay sports site that would fall under the broad catagory of news gathering. Again, if anyone complained about a particular shot, we would remove it. We have also added a disclaimer to make things more clear.

[ July 25, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Jim at Outsports ]