Question about the internet, what is permissable, etc.

[snapppyd]

TWO of us stated describe the photo. That doesn't seem to be enough for you. You want people to agree with you to post the photo.

​

Not enough for me? I asked for opinions. All I did was state her face was not visible in response to some of the answers here. You seem to be the one that can't let it go.

I am erring on the side of caution and not posting it. I described it here, maybe they will see this thread.

As for celebrities that is a whole different scenario. They are known by the public, therefore people will know it is their child, possibly where they live, etc.

Have a nice day!

 

[Imzadi]

So in NYC, when a reporter is on the street and the masses huddle behind him or her, those people have to sign a release?

I don't know. Then why do they have to blur out some faces in other shots?

 

[Allison]

Honestly, it has been 4 years. I wouldn't bother posting it to look for the family.

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

Assuming she's not a public figure, the fact that her face isn't visible should negate any need to have her family sign any sort of legal release.

 

[BadPinkTink]

also just another thought, the parents may not be on Dis or on Facebook. A huge amount of people from all over the world visit Disney, those of us who use Disney Fan sites and Disney Social media groups are a very small minority. And its been 4 years, so really , just no point.

 

[sam_gordon]

Lots of movies & TV shows film here in NYC. When people accidentally or on purpose walk though the area of street they are shooting, the producers have to get the person to sign a release saying that they give permission for their face & likeness to be used. Even the local news has to blur out some people's faces they didn't get permission to use. Doesn't matter if they are shot in a public place.

First, for movies and TV shows, those are going to be used for profit. Therefore you need a release to use the photo/video. News organizations will only blur people's faces if there's some reason not to identify them (ie: undercover police, minor accused of a crime, rape victims, etc).

From a LEGAL standpoint, if you are out in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone can take a picture (or video) of you, and post it online. What they can't do without a release is use it in a money making venture (in an advertisement, movie, tv show, etc).

People should really understand what rights they do have.

 

[snapppyd]

First, for movies and TV shows, those are going to be used for profit. Therefore you need a release to use the photo/video. News organizations will only blur people's faces if there's some reason not to identify them (ie: undercover police, minor accused of a crime, rape victims, etc).

From a LEGAL standpoint, if you are out in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone can take a picture (or video) of you, and post it online. What they can't do without a release is use it in a money making venture (in an advertisement, movie, tv show, etc).

People should really understand what rights they do have.

Please just let it go, lol! Imagine trying to have a discussion on a discussion board! (joking)

 

[Kitty 34]

Honestly, it has been 4 years. I wouldn't bother posting it to look for the family.

True and she's probably changed a tad in those 4 years.

 

[gwynne]

Her face if not visible. i don't think anyone but her parents would know it was "her".

Lots of people aren't FBers. They like their privacy. Also, on the resorts board, this type of post would most likely end up on the resort community thread. That thread doesn't get much traffic at all.
It's been awhile since you took the photo. If it were me, I would let it go. But, that's just one person's opinion.

 

[kdonnel]

I don't know. Then why do they have to blur out some faces in other shots?

Apparently paranoia.

https://photographylife.com/know-your-rights-as-a-photographer

If you are taking a photo of an Occupy Wall Street crowd or a Tea Party rally, you have identifiable people in the photos, and you wish to sell them to Time magazine, you do not need to get the permission of those in the photos. Time may ask for a model release, however, if the photos have only one or two subjects. But this would be more for paranoia rather than strict legal requirements.

 

[wenrob]

First, for movies and TV shows, those are going to be used for profit. Therefore you need a release to use the photo/video. News organizations will only blur people's faces if there's some reason not to identify them (ie: undercover police, minor accused of a crime, rape victims, etc).

From a LEGAL standpoint, if you are out in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone can take a picture (or video) of you, and post it online. What they can't do without a release is use it in a money making venture (in an advertisement, movie, tv show, etc).

People should really understand what rights they do have.

Please just let it go, lol! Imagine trying to have a discussion on a discussion board! (joking)

I know you are just joking because there’s some pushback but sam_gordon is right. People should know their rights about these types of things. This thread will come up in searches so it’s a good thing that he’s provided accurate information.

 

[tvguy]

Again, I agree with you. I'm just trying to inform the OP they may get backlash. I've gotten into arguments here on the Dis that pictures I've taken at youth sporting events in public parts I am allowed to post all I want. People were telling me I need to ask the parents of every kid in the picture. Nope, not gonna happen.

LOL. Since my response I have been in a 2 hour media briefing with CalFire on media covering wildfires and the issue of where we can take pictures was addressed. Short answer, if you don't want your picture out there, don't go in a public place. If you can see if from the public street or sidewalk, it is fair game and there is nothing anyone can say

 

[sam_gordon]

Please just let it go, lol! Imagine trying to have a discussion on a discussion board! (joking)

ummm... I'm trying to have a discussion. I don't understand why you're trying to stop me.

 

[snapppyd]

ummm... I'm trying to have a discussion. I don't understand why you're trying to stop me.

I said I was joking!

 

[Imzadi]

First, for movies and TV shows, those are going to be used for profit. Therefore you need a release to use the photo/video. News organizations will only blur people's faces if there's some reason not to identify them (ie: undercover police, minor accused of a crime, rape victims, etc).

From a LEGAL standpoint, if you are out in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone can take a picture (or video) of you, and post it online. What they can't do without a release is use it in a money making venture (in an advertisement, movie, tv show, etc).

People should really understand what rights they do have.

Apparently paranoia.

https://photographylife.com/know-your-rights-as-a-photographer

I know you are just joking because there’s some pushback but sam_gordon is right. People should know their rights about these types of things. This thread will come up in searches so it’s a good thing that he’s provided accurate information.

Yes, thanks for the clarification.

 

[MrsCobraBubbles]

In your situation, I would keep the photo to myself. It's a treasured memory of your trip; you photographed a scene that you thought was beautiful and made you happy. There's nothing wrong with that! But I would never post it to social media because, as a rule, I never post pictures of my kids (or anyone else's). And although I wouldn't start a social media war with you over you posting a pic of my kid, I would be uncomfortable with it and unhappy. But no one knows how this person would feel about it--they may be happy to have the picture.

 

[disneychrista]

Honestly, the likelihood you will find the parents by posting on here or facebook is unlikely, especially 4 years later.

 

[MillauFr]

I don't understand why people seem to think that the rules change for "public figures" What does that mean anyway? You can ask 100 different people the definition of a public figure and get 200 different answers.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't understand why people seem to think that the rules change for "public figures" What does that mean anyway? You can ask 100 different people the definition of a public figure and get 200 different answers.

There are different rules when it comes to public figures, but I don't know that the rules are different regarding use of their image.

 

[Kellykins1218]

Lots of movies & TV shows film here in NYC. When people accidentally or on purpose walk though the area of street they are shooting, the producers have to get the person to sign a release saying that they give permission for their face & likeness to be used. Even the local news has to blur out some people's faces they didn't get permission to use. Doesn't matter if they are shot in a public place.

When I shoot photos of strangers for work, I always have to tell them that it's only used internally at work and the photos will never be posted on social media of any kind. Many people will not allow me to take their photos if they thought it would go on social media. And I've had people turn me down anyway as they don't believe me.

You have a photo of a minor. The parents may be angry or annoyed that you posted the photos instead of happy to get a copy. Think of all the celeb who are out in public with their kids. They are furious or feel invaded that their kids pics are posted/published everywhere.