Am I going to get sued for uploading the photographs of my car accident to Flickr?
June 1, 2009 9:36 PM Subscribe
Am I going to get sued for uploading the photographs of my car accident to Flickr?
I have the photos taken by the police of the car accident I was in a few weeks ago. I've made copies that have all faces, t-shirts, license plates, etc. heavily blurred out. My mom is still convinced if I upload them to Flickr, I'm going to get sued for violation of privacy. Is this possible in this day and age of everything going online, and if so, on what grounds (i.e. violation of privacy or some other reason)?
If it is pertinent, the crash never even made the local papers and I have never posted the other person's name or address anywhere online.
I have the photos taken by the police of the car accident I was in a few weeks ago. I've made copies that have all faces, t-shirts, license plates, etc. heavily blurred out. My mom is still convinced if I upload them to Flickr, I'm going to get sued for violation of privacy. Is this possible in this day and age of everything going online, and if so, on what grounds (i.e. violation of privacy or some other reason)?
If it is pertinent, the crash never even made the local papers and I have never posted the other person's name or address anywhere online.
You don't even need to blur anything. It happened in a public place and photographing public places is still legal.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 9:48 PM on June 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 9:48 PM on June 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
This is one of those cases where people who have never been exposed to, or studied the law make false assumptions.
For instance, a phrase like "violation of privacy" has almost zero legal meaning. Indeed, "privacy" in general is very specious and one of those things which people think should be codified in law, but usually isn't.
Presumably this accident happened in public space. Therefore, even if you didn't blur out the faces and license plates (heh, the blurring of license plates, which are by definition state property, has got to be one of the most knee-jerk modern reactions ever to a false sense of privacy) you'd be fine. (With the possible exception of laws governing the transmission of photos of legal minors.)
Adding to the mix is the fact that (unless I'm mis-reading you) these photos were taken by the police, and as such are state property anyway...
In other words, you're fully within the law doing what you're doing, no matter how "wrong" it may feel to some people who wouldn't like their own photo, taken in a similar situation, published.
posted by wfrgms at 9:49 PM on June 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
For instance, a phrase like "violation of privacy" has almost zero legal meaning. Indeed, "privacy" in general is very specious and one of those things which people think should be codified in law, but usually isn't.
Presumably this accident happened in public space. Therefore, even if you didn't blur out the faces and license plates (heh, the blurring of license plates, which are by definition state property, has got to be one of the most knee-jerk modern reactions ever to a false sense of privacy) you'd be fine. (With the possible exception of laws governing the transmission of photos of legal minors.)
Adding to the mix is the fact that (unless I'm mis-reading you) these photos were taken by the police, and as such are state property anyway...
In other words, you're fully within the law doing what you're doing, no matter how "wrong" it may feel to some people who wouldn't like their own photo, taken in a similar situation, published.
posted by wfrgms at 9:49 PM on June 1, 2009 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: It also does not matter that at least 2 of the people in the car, including the driver, are minors, correct?
posted by IndigoRain at 9:55 PM on June 1, 2009
posted by IndigoRain at 9:55 PM on June 1, 2009
Hmmm, I've seen many tv shows blur out the faces of people even when they are standing in a public place - particularly police shows - are they doing that out of courtesy of fear of a lawsuit? Does it make a difference if the pictures are used commercially? I can't imagine that a picture taken of someone in public can be used extensively in an ad campaign without restitution can it? Maybe a crowd picture but a close up of someone's face?
posted by any major dude at 10:14 PM on June 1, 2009
posted by any major dude at 10:14 PM on June 1, 2009
Anyone can try to sue anyone for almost anything.
With all identifying information blurred out, it seems unlikely they would do so, however.
posted by zippy at 10:26 PM on June 1, 2009
With all identifying information blurred out, it seems unlikely they would do so, however.
posted by zippy at 10:26 PM on June 1, 2009
The blurring is extreme overkill. Just post the original photos and relax.
posted by reductiondesign at 10:47 PM on June 1, 2009
posted by reductiondesign at 10:47 PM on June 1, 2009
between lawsuit and take down notice. You're fine.
IA *so* NAL but ISP takedowns are for copyright violation issues, and this is clearly different.
posted by @troy at 10:50 PM on June 1, 2009
IA *so* NAL but ISP takedowns are for copyright violation issues, and this is clearly different.
posted by @troy at 10:50 PM on June 1, 2009
Hmmm, I've seen many tv shows blur out the faces of people even when they are standing in a public place - particularly police shows - are they doing that out of courtesy of fear of a lawsuit?
Basically, yes. There are situations where broadcasting video of somebody can result in liability. As a result, the film and TV industries have decided that everybody who appears in a prominent, and not necessarily flattering, way on TV sign a release. I've signed one just for giving a 30 second man-on-the-street blab to the TV crew. On the other hand, I didn't sign anything when the local paper reporter took my picture after an interview.
They blur the girlfriend on COPS so that she has less chance of winning a lawsuit based on a claim of damages related to being publicly associated with a felon.
Does it make a difference if the pictures are used commercially?
No. It doesn't make a difference. The paparazzi are legal.
I can't imagine that a picture taken of someone in public can be used extensively in an ad campaign without restitution can it? Maybe a crowd picture but a close up of someone's face?
That's maybe different. You aren't using a picture of the person simply to depict the person (like in a wikipedia article) or editorialize about the person (like in a Nylon article). If you're using a picture taken of someone in public in such a way that it appears that the person endorses your product, they may well win when they sue you. Not for the picture being used, but for libel--making people think you liked Coke.
But, it's actually fairly common for companies to buy stock photographs and manipulate them prominently into ads. They pay the copyright holder of the image. He may have paid a model, or he may have just taken a picture of a funny-looking dude on the subway.
Now, this doesn't apply in a couple of US states (CA springs to mind). In those states, there are laws protecting use of your likeness. So, in those states, using your likeness without your permission in many situations is grounds for a lawsuit.
Even in California, though, the OP could post his photos to flickr unblurred.
posted by Netzapper at 10:54 PM on June 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Basically, yes. There are situations where broadcasting video of somebody can result in liability. As a result, the film and TV industries have decided that everybody who appears in a prominent, and not necessarily flattering, way on TV sign a release. I've signed one just for giving a 30 second man-on-the-street blab to the TV crew. On the other hand, I didn't sign anything when the local paper reporter took my picture after an interview.
They blur the girlfriend on COPS so that she has less chance of winning a lawsuit based on a claim of damages related to being publicly associated with a felon.
Does it make a difference if the pictures are used commercially?
No. It doesn't make a difference. The paparazzi are legal.
I can't imagine that a picture taken of someone in public can be used extensively in an ad campaign without restitution can it? Maybe a crowd picture but a close up of someone's face?
That's maybe different. You aren't using a picture of the person simply to depict the person (like in a wikipedia article) or editorialize about the person (like in a Nylon article). If you're using a picture taken of someone in public in such a way that it appears that the person endorses your product, they may well win when they sue you. Not for the picture being used, but for libel--making people think you liked Coke.
But, it's actually fairly common for companies to buy stock photographs and manipulate them prominently into ads. They pay the copyright holder of the image. He may have paid a model, or he may have just taken a picture of a funny-looking dude on the subway.
Now, this doesn't apply in a couple of US states (CA springs to mind). In those states, there are laws protecting use of your likeness. So, in those states, using your likeness without your permission in many situations is grounds for a lawsuit.
Even in California, though, the OP could post his photos to flickr unblurred.
posted by Netzapper at 10:54 PM on June 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Hmmm, I've seen many tv shows blur out the faces of people even when they are standing in a public place - particularly police shows - are they doing that out of courtesy of fear of a lawsuit?
Basically, yes.
Yes, but not why you would think so. The claims against a show like COPS is that the network is profiting from on-camera antics. Therefore claimants do arise from such shows. Shows now force "participants" to sign waivers, while blurring the faces of those who don't.
In your particular case, since you're not trying to profit from the photos, you have ample legal space in which to use them as you see fit.
It also does not matter that at least 2 of the people in the car, including the driver, are minors, correct?
Whether it is "correct" or not is moot. The question is whether publishing or transmitting images of minors is illegal in your area. That's a question which will probably require you looking at your own local statutes. In general, however, this isn't an issue, in specific places though, laws do exist prohibiting this. Whether those laws are constitutional or not is another question, as yet undecided.
posted by wfrgms at 11:37 PM on June 1, 2009
Basically, yes.
Yes, but not why you would think so. The claims against a show like COPS is that the network is profiting from on-camera antics. Therefore claimants do arise from such shows. Shows now force "participants" to sign waivers, while blurring the faces of those who don't.
In your particular case, since you're not trying to profit from the photos, you have ample legal space in which to use them as you see fit.
It also does not matter that at least 2 of the people in the car, including the driver, are minors, correct?
Whether it is "correct" or not is moot. The question is whether publishing or transmitting images of minors is illegal in your area. That's a question which will probably require you looking at your own local statutes. In general, however, this isn't an issue, in specific places though, laws do exist prohibiting this. Whether those laws are constitutional or not is another question, as yet undecided.
posted by wfrgms at 11:37 PM on June 1, 2009
Regardless of the law, I think blurring the faces of the kids was the right thing to do.
posted by bluedaisy at 1:22 AM on June 2, 2009
posted by bluedaisy at 1:22 AM on June 2, 2009
This is overly paranoid. I wouldn't even blur out the kids' faces- doing so contributes to this rather nasty culture where we don't dare photograph kids at all.
posted by dunkadunc at 4:35 AM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by dunkadunc at 4:35 AM on June 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
In addition to the foregoing, photos taken by the police are public property. Anyone can secure copies with a Freedom of Information request.
posted by megatherium at 4:50 AM on June 2, 2009
posted by megatherium at 4:50 AM on June 2, 2009
Personally? Do not blur. Do not distort. Do not modify. Do not enhance. Treat it like a negative, a straight-from-the-camera document of the incident.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:09 AM on June 2, 2009
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:09 AM on June 2, 2009
Things may have changed slightly in the past 20 or so years but I recall the rule of thumb being "if you can see it from public property, you can take pictures of it." Think of all those crazy telephoto shots the paparazzi used to (still?) take.
My most memorable moment was taking a picture of a house here in Buffalo that had four or five different kinds of siding. There was a woman in one of the windows and she yelled at me while I was taking the photo. She was under the impression that she was protected while hanging out her window. I politely disagreed and took my photo.
And, more to your point, my father and I were in an accident when I was 7 or 8. A press photographer took some photos of me, my father, and the other driver. One of the photos was in the local paper and the photographer sent us a print. I'm pretty sure no one signed a model release (this was the mid 70s).
posted by jdfan at 6:18 AM on June 2, 2009
My most memorable moment was taking a picture of a house here in Buffalo that had four or five different kinds of siding. There was a woman in one of the windows and she yelled at me while I was taking the photo. She was under the impression that she was protected while hanging out her window. I politely disagreed and took my photo.
And, more to your point, my father and I were in an accident when I was 7 or 8. A press photographer took some photos of me, my father, and the other driver. One of the photos was in the local paper and the photographer sent us a print. I'm pretty sure no one signed a model release (this was the mid 70s).
posted by jdfan at 6:18 AM on June 2, 2009
I posted an accident I wasn't even in. I got an email for the insurance adjustor asking if I;d actually witnessed it (I hadn't).
I also called the company of the parked van and said, "Just letting you know your parked van got hit."
I also got the email addresses of those involved and sent them a link to the set for insurance purposes.
I didn't worry about getting sued, but I generally don't live my life that way.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:04 AM on June 2, 2009
I also called the company of the parked van and said, "Just letting you know your parked van got hit."
I also got the email addresses of those involved and sent them a link to the set for insurance purposes.
I didn't worry about getting sued, but I generally don't live my life that way.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:04 AM on June 2, 2009
You won't get sued before seeing a ceases and desist letter, but do you really need your personal business all over flickr?
posted by WeekendJen at 9:14 AM on June 2, 2009
posted by WeekendJen at 9:14 AM on June 2, 2009
You can get sued at any time for any reason. However, they would have no legal standing and would get tossed out of court (assuming you are in America). Check out The Photographer's Bill of Rights.
posted by chairface at 10:22 AM on June 2, 2009
posted by chairface at 10:22 AM on June 2, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Jimbob at 9:40 PM on June 1, 2009 [1 favorite]