« LibraryThing member home pages | Main | screencast about Google's RSS embedding tool »
July 02, 2008
photo release forms: what's the point?
A while ago, Aaron Schmidt posted a couple of darling photos of kids using a library that he's consulting for. He talked about using these, and other photos, on the site to show the humanity, the "people" connection that is so much of what the public library is about.
I thought about this. And then I thought some more. For one thing, my own library is in the early stages of a website redesign and anything and everything I can read about websites is pouring into my ears and eyes. What it made me think about were the barriers between where my own library and others are now and a site rich with photos of users using our libraries.
The one major goal (and you probably already guessed it) is the requirement to have a signed photo release form from anyone who is identifiable in any photos of using the library's services, in the library, outside the library, anywhere. I know libraries that require releases only for photos with 5 or less people in them. I know libraries that require releases period, for every face, back of the head, profile, anything. I know libraries that only require releases for photos of kids.
Most of these came from our legal departments. And yet, when we are taking these photos people are in public places and have no reasonable right to privacy. So, photos are fair game, right? So I'm left wondering why these lawyers wrote these up. And my guess is distressing: that the library asked for it. That we asked for release forms for something that legally requires no release form.
Why not take photos, as Aaron and others do, and then simply take them down if anyone requests that an image not be used?
What does your library do? What would you like your library to do? Perhaps together we can brainstorm some good ideas of how to approach our administrations and legal departments with a goal of letting us use these images to help show other users and potential users all of the wonderful things we have available!
July 2, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e5539ee6328834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference photo release forms: what's the point?:
Comments
I think that most libraries seem to react in the most risk-averse manner for most legal decisions...but that it is a bad thing for us to do so. This is not only for legal issues where we feel strongly (copyright) but also for these sorts of murkier problems.
The law has said again and again that there is no protection for photography in a public place...the paranoia that runs rampant "for the kids" is reminiscent of the current security decisions that are made because of "the terrorists".
Posted by: Jason Griffey | July30, 2008
I'm determined to research this topic more thoroughly. But in the meantime, from reading lots of policies and lots of PR people's comments about this, I feel pretty confident saying at least this much:
* you definitely need to be more sensative about pics of children than of adults.
* the way you use a pic does make a difference in the need for permission. (for PR or advertising vs. library scrapbook or newsletter)
* at the very least, you should announce that you're going to take photos at an event so people will be aware.
* even if it's true that, legally, people cannot expect a right to privacy in a public place -- it doesn't mean they won't expect it anyway. people are awfully touchy about privacy these days.
* better safe than sorry.
there's a fine line between being paranoid and taking the extra step to avoid any sort of lawsuit or angry, negative publicity. I don't know exactly where that line is, but I know which side of it I'd always want to be on.
Posted by: ~Kathy Dempsey | July 5, 2008
Hi Sarah - this is a great topic. I did a webcast for Infopeople a few years ago called SAY CHEESE! but I don't see it on the Infopeople site now. It explored the legal issues of taking pictures of children and adults and then using them on websites, newsletters etc. As you and others have noted, there is no legally recognized expectation of privacy when one is in a public place. And, as you and others have noted, creepy people out there look for pix of children ... and I might add that if the child is in a small town library or small branch, it may not be difficult for a potential molester to then track the child down.
I personally think it best not to use identifiable children's pictures at all, or to get parents' permission at a minimum. That's not a legal opinion, however.
Posted by: Mary Minow | July 5, 2008
I think that just because putting pictures on flickr is easy and asking for permission is hard doesn't mean the two shouldn't go together.
You say something interesting here though, that often when you ask permission people are confused as to why you are doing it. This reminds me again that privacy is not a neat, contained issue - perhaps, asking someone if you can officially use their photo implies that you are going to do something more with it than put it in your photo album, and without being able to say what that is or might be, you have a trust issue, and that could cause more problems than the potential for invading someone's privacy.
It's like a lot of people have forgotten that public libraries are government agencies and think of us instead as friends - why do we want to bust that bubble?
But we are institutions, and we have different responsibilities - and greater ones - than individuals do. We don't always live up to them, especially not corporations, but I think that libraries' actions regarding privacy or any other policy need to be well-thought out and well executed. Our photo albums are not personal, and digital ones are rarely in our control.
So I was thinking about my own practices recording video at conferences we put on, and I have to admit an opt-out notice is appropriate for gropus in public. When recording, I tell people in advance there will be video, the camera operators have instructions not to record people other than the speaker, and people asking questions can sit in the back and fill out cards instead of speaking out on the tape.
Clearly, this is an opt-out policy, but the important thing is that we find ways to let people participate without being recorded.
A friend at ALA asked me what the point of all this, and he called me out on libraries enacting strict policies based on worst-case scenarios. I don't think that's really the point - I am trying to model an ideal privacy behavior that I would expect from any institution. As institutions, we have power as well as responsibility, and cliche cliche, we can't let ourselves abuse it.
Most of all, I want people to be engaged and fully participating in the event we are recording, and I think telling them up front what's going on and what we plan to do helps that to happen. No one is surprised to see the camera or wonders what it's for.
But yeah, it's all happy medium.
Posted by: caleb tr | July 4, 2008
Speaking as a parent (who happens to also be a librarian.) I would be extremely unhappy with any organization who published identifiable pictures of my children on their website without my express permission. And I don't want to have to check your website to see if you posted pictures of that event we went to last week so I can ask you to removed them. I don't put photos of my kids or their friends on the public portions of my flickr account or on my webpage. Sorry to sound extreme but there are too many weirdos out there. Having said that - this is an issue that has come up in our system. The legal people (City Attorney) said - no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place - even for kids. We still went for Opt-in for pictures where there are only a few kids in the picture. Also to be considered - schools, camps and other kid related activites all get releases for every kid before events - just in case. Parents are accustom to that. Why upset someone needlessly.
Posted by: Heather McLeland-Wieser | July 3, 2008
I am very impressed with a lot of the comments here. Some good ideas, a wide breadth of policies, and some suggestions for how to resolve this. And thanks, Scott, for looking up some legal info! A couple of people are reading a lot into this post and seem to think that I think libraries are "idiotic ignorant" institutions. Please re-read the post. It doesn't say that, or anything near that, anywhere. I also think that the "opt in" model probably is best for any use of materials for publicity, but random postings of photos on Flickr to me does not constitute publicity. Requiring every single adult in a large group photo to "opt in" and sign a release, for example, does not seem to me to be a reasonable practice. Nearly every time I've had someone sign a release (now t his is just my own experience) they've expressed disbelief that we're asking. Kind of a "why on earth would you do that?" reaction. The exceptions, where people have nodded and signed or said "thanks for asking" have all been for photos of the adult's children. As with most things, there is a happy medium.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | July 3, 2008
Regarding privacy, law or no law, it behooves us to promote a culture of consent. Opt-in, always.
Posted by: caleb | July 3, 2008
Officially we have a photo release form for children but not adults. You are correct in a public place there is no right to privacy.
Unofficially I always ask or make an announcement..."we will be photographing this event to post on flickr or our web site. If you don't want to be photographed please let a staff person know."
I've never had a patron refuse. I have had one staff member who adamantly refused. I think he is in the witness protection program though ;)
Another tip with this is to have business cards in your pocket with the flickr account so people can go download their photos. Then they are much more excited about it.
Posted by: Lori Reed | July 3, 2008
It may be a regional thing; I know the city where I last worked, you could be arrested for taking pictures of children without their (parents') permission, and everyone had to have written permission to publish photos of other people's children (newspapers did it when snapping cute photos of children playing in sprinklers, etc.). It may be actually complying with a real law, not the idiotic ignorant library paranoia you make it out to be.
Posted by: Adrianne | July 3, 2008
Given a ruling such as Martin v. Penthouse, 12 Med. L. Rptr. 2058 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986), where (to quote from the Photographer's Guide To Privacy website at http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/states/california.html): "a photograph of revelers at an "Exotic Erotic Ball" was not misappropriation because the likenesses of the revelers were not commercially exploitable, and the magazine that published the photograph did not use the revelers likenesses for advertising purposes," (and when the same ruling also denied protection "because the activities were observable by thousands of strangers"), a non-lawyer like myself would think that posting photos of library users would be okay.
(Of course, organizations can also come up with their own rules and regulations, and they are often "stricter" than the laws they are reacting to - various regulations on web filtering in libraries being one well-known example. So a city or county might well decide on its own not to allow the use of identifiable photos without permission. In such cases, a waiver might be possible... but knowing how long such waivers often take to get... you might get a law changed faster! :-)
Posted by: Scott | July 2, 2008
Interesting topic Sarah. I can comment on two public libraries I've worked with (one in the U.S. and one in Canada). Both required release forms before they would use identifiable images of patrons or staff (so - we'd need a release for face shots, but not of shots of the back of the head). We would also announce that we were taking pictures of an event to allow people who were uncomfortable with this to stay out of range or to ask the staff photographer to not take their picture.
There were four reasons given (though which reason was most important differed at each library): 1) We were using the pictures for advertising and we didn't feel that it was ethical to do this without permission (I would not like a company to use my image to advertise themselves or their products without at least asking me); 2) Images of children can (unfortunately) be "reused" in disturbing ways and many parents are understandably protective of the images of their children; 3) Adults in domestic violence situations may not want their pictures broadcast for all to see; 4) In some cultures, taking pictures is highly disturbing and we acknowledge the person's right to own their image.
Posted by: Lynn | July 2, 2008
Where I work it's an institution-wide policy. It's folded in under Marketing, and I think that's the key to the question: if you're putting someone's face on a billboard to advertise your institution then it is reasonable, I think, to need their consent. I'm guessing that when the policy was created that kind of posed shot, carefully orchestrated by Marketing, was the main thing that got done with photos, and more informal shots snapped by random library staff members, in an environment where everyone and their cat is putting their cellphone photos up on Flickr, weren't really considered.
Posted by: Deborah Fitchett | July 2, 2008
Our system requires a signed photo release form for anyone we photograph individually (say, for a poster). If we are taking pictures of a library event, we aren't required to get parents to sign a form for their children. There is a notice on the doors to our meeting rooms saying that we will be taking pictures, and that parents who are uncomfortable with their children being photographed should be sure that their children are sitting in the back.
We used to have to be careful to get no faces in a group shot, but our lawyers said that the notice was sufficient.
Posted by: Lynda | July 2, 2008
I'm wondering if you'll get many comments about this. I got some private email relating a discussion happening on a library PR email list about the same topic.
No one has presented any cut and dry case law about this to me, but some people claim that the laws about photography in public, especially when for use in PR materials - are different than general shots of adults.
My take, still, is that if someone were to object, a library could just take the picture down and it would be a bit of a non issue. People could trysk adverse. to take it further, sure, but people can try all sorts of things.
You're right, it would be great to get to the bottom of this. I have a feeling that libraries are perceiving this as a risk because they're quite risk adverse. To be sure, I am not a lawyer but just using a bit of common sense.
Posted by: Aaron | July 2, 2008
While redesigning my previous library's website I brought up this idea to admin. It was shot down because the library's policy was basically "do something until someone complains."
This may sound a bit hypocritical, but I don't think there should be any pictures of kids or teens posted on any library's website without approval of the parent (for the kid) or teen. However, I think it is okay for an adult. Why? I've heard of too many stories of pervs collecting completely innocent pictures of children of Flickr, Orkut, etc. I've seen this firsthand on my own Flickr acct when I publicly posted pictures from a Halloween party with coworkers. Someone brought their daughters dressed as princesses. They were the most viewed and popular photos on my entire Flickr. All photos on my Flickr acct of kids are now private.
I think the library should be looking out for the welfare of the kids and teens instead of exploiting them to make the library appear as a FUN, POPULAR, KID FRIENDLY, and BRING YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY place. I'm not saying there should be no photos at all, I just think there should be some discretion used and permission granted for photos of children and teens.
Posted by: Allison | July 2, 2008
