There will inevitably be people who enthusiastically volunteer their images to promote the library of which they are so proud and others who are uncomfortable, embarrassed, or upset by the very thought that their pictures will appear on the Internet.

Doesn’t it make sense from a customer service standpoint to ask for permission, or at least alert people, before using their likeness to promote our services to others?

Although publicity and privacy are separate legal concepts, it is important to realize that publicity is an outgrowth of privacy. For this purpose, it is instructive to consider the origin of the law of privacy, an 1890 Harvard Law Review article written by Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren. The context was that Brandeis and Warren were upset about photographs that appeared in a “tabloid-type” newspaper. A photographer had taken pictures at the wedding of Warren’s daughter, which was a “high-society” event.

Under the laws of privacy and publicity as they have evolved with regard to the First Amendment, the Warren wedding would in fact be a legitimate news story. However, publishing photographs in a newspaper, newsletter, or blog is fleeting. Certainly they can be found by coming into the library and looking at the paper. But that is very different from having photographs out everywhere, available at any time.

One post suggested that publicity doesn’t apply because libraries are non-profit entities. Unfortunately, this is not correct law. The law applies equally to for-profit, non-profit, and governmental organizations. You need to obtain permission if you want to use pictures for endorsement or promotional purposes. The First Amendment only covers the use of images as news.

If the laws need to be changed, it is up to us to contact our state legislators. However, Kathy Dempsey has a good point that people think they have more rights than they do. Telling people to sit in a particular section is also useful. Is is legally sufficient? No, but you probably won’t get many challenges that way. If someone complains, take down the picture.

The reason I wanted to publish this was to make librarians aware of what the laws were — and that there even ARE laws about how they use photographs. It wasn’t to stop them from taking pictures or using Flickr or any other social networks.

This discussion is great but I think it’s missing a couple important points. I hope that all the commenters went back to the MLS link and read the whole article, but in case not:

* Carson says, “State laws differ about the scope of publicity.” So, to complicate matters, the laws are not exactly the same nationwide. how nice.

* For the folks talking about taking pics of crowds on the street: People think that they are more covered by privacy laws when they’re at small indoor events (ie, not concerts, conventions, etc.). This is one reason why it’s important to tell them that you could be using their pics — they think they have more privacy rights than they really do. These are the people who might come back angry.

* What the law says is that the problem lies with using pics for PROMOTIONAL purposes. This would include using pics in flyers about or ads for upcoming events. (It’s like a company using your likeness in a commercial.) That’s clearly illegal w/o consent. Libraries don’t use pics in that way all that much.

* All of this begs the question: Is Flickr (and its pals) a publicity / promotional tool?? Maybe that’s what any new looks at the old laws need to address.

There are different ways around this that I’ve seen in other discussions on the topic. To avoid all your shots being of the backs of heads, some librarians have announced at the beginning of events, “We’re going to take pics to use for promotional purposes. This could include publishing in our newsletter and posting on our website, which anyone could see. If you’re not willing to give us consent to use your photo like this, please sit in [this] area of the room. We’ll be sure not to include that section in any pictures.”

Keep talking, everyone! Remember, social networking is relatively new in the scheme of things. Maybe we can move toward getting the laws updated to directly address these new uses of photos.

PS: for those seriously interested in the rights of photographers, check out http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm.

As others have mentioned, a photographer has a right to take pictures of people anywhere in public (in other words, where they do not have an expectation of privacy). The photographer can then use those photos as he chooses, more or less. That includes uploading the pictures to Flickr. Once the pictures are ON Flickr, any allowed use of their API to display the pictures is okay.

If this weren’t the case, Flickr itself could not exist. They would be subject to lawsuits from any individual who ever felt that his picture should not have been taken, even if the photog was well within her rights to take the picture.

In practical terms, the solution is to take the “youtube” approach: if any person contacts the library and expresses displeasure, instantly and politely remove that photograph “as a courtesy”. My guess is 9 times in 10 this will resolve the conflict. My other guess is that no one will ever comlain, either, as long as the picture isn’t insulting/embarrassing.

It is very simple to turn a photo op and release signing into an opportunity to sell your library. West Deptford Free Public Library obtains photo release information from each individual (and/or caregiver) who is photographed for public use. Staff members have taken some great photos that did not make it to the web. I recall a touching father and son shot we had to shelve due to mixed feelings expressed by the dad after signing the release form.

I do not agree with the two week posting time frame as there have been folks photographed at WDFPL who expressed disappointment after a photo was retired. One little girl returned to the library with mom to take a second shot “now that she was more grown up.”

I disagree with Carson’s analysis. The rights for a person to control their likeness re: publicity is a right that was codified in order to prevent commercial interests from co-opting a personal image. The need for a library (almost always a non-profit entity) to ask permission to use images that are taken in a public space is not nearly as strong, I think, as he puts it.

Photographers have the right to take pictures of people in public spaces, and use them professionally. If I am standing on a public sidewalk taking pictures of people, I can do so legally, and put those pictures where ever I desire, online or off. The legal issue arises when I use those images in some form of publicity…this is similar to the EU moral copyright issues.