Back of the head of one of the volunteers at SXSW. When I asked if I could take a picture (camera phone), he agreed, but only under the proviso that if I posted it, I would do so under a fully open Creative Commons license. So here t’is – republish to your heart’s content.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution2.5 License.
Scot, as I just posted on my site, it was polite of you to comply with the guy’s request, but this is one case where Creative Commons is actually more restrictive than the general law. In fact, you can photograph anyone you want without asking permission, provided they’re in a public place. You can also photograph any building you want, provided you are standing in a public place. Then you own the copyright to your photo. See this PDF:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
“Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.”
Dylan – Interesting point. I’m curious though – what is the relationship between the right to *photograph* anyone and the right to *publish* those same photos? Why, for example, have networks become so relgious about pixelating the faces of people from who they don’t have consent?
I think the right of publication is more restricted than the right of photography. If you’re publishing someone’s photo in a clear effort to make money off of their likeness, then they can probably sue you. But if you’re publishing a snapshot on a relatively noncommercial blog or if you have some clearly journalistic interest (ie the public’s right to know) then you probably have a good case.