It is my understanding ( not a lawyer ) that the issue of releases is a function if identifiability and usage.
If the usage is commercial ( i.e., for advertising in it's many forms ), then a release is likely to be required.
If the usage is editorial ( i.e., in a book, at an exhibit and not for sale, in a newspaper, etc. and will not be used to advertise one of the preceding ) then a release is generally not required.
If the usage could be construed as being detrimental to the person, then a release is definitely required.
OTOH
If the person is identifiable by a third party, then see the usage rules but a release is a really good idea.
If the person is not identifiable by a third party, then no release is required.
BTW these rules apply to objects as well. If it's private property (or a private person), and you could make any money from the image, then get a release.
The usual caveats about consulting with legal authorities before acting on this information applies. <grin> - that means don't cite this post as part of your defense.,
Cheers,
James
At 06:19 AM 12/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
I have a question that seems strange in a way but I am coming to the experts :)
Ok, if you take pictures of people you need permission to use them, but if you take pictures of 'body parts' do you still need permission? I mean, who is to say who owns the hands you are shooting? Or does it matter where you take them? If you take them in public is it alright to use? But then again if say, you are at a wedding and shoot just hands, are they not in public domain? Just wondering (well, not just, but wondering). Thanks to anyone who can help. Linda
