Guide Through the Legal Jungle

Is it Legal to Photograph Police Activity?

Yes, it is legal to photograph police activity.

Both media and citizens have a constitutional right to photograph and record police officers conducting police business in public places. Unfortunately, throughout the country, some camera-shy and aggressive police have stopped people from recording public police action, confiscated their photography equipment, and even arrested them. Such police responses to citizen photographers have been condemned as unconstitutional by courts and public advocacy groups.

One result of such opposition, for example, is last year’s issuance by the DC Police Department of an order acknowledging that people have a First Amendment right to photograph and record police officers acting in an official capacity in any public space, as long as the photography doesn’t interfere with police activity.

Some Photo Law 101 Tips: Taking Photos in Public Places

Photographers have wide latitude to take photos in public. They can even use a device such as a zoom lens to photograph action within public view or photograph private property viewable from public property. One situation in which taking photos in public might become problematic is if the photographer uses aggression or harassment to get photos of celebrities. Such paparazzi behavior can lead to criminal and civil charges of assault and false imprisonment against the photographer.

When Do Photographers Need a Film Permit?

Setting up a professional, commercial photo shoot on public property may require a permit from the city or municipality. Each local jurisdiction has its own process for issuing permits so start your permit quest by contacting the city or municipality’s film office. One potential stumbling block for some photographers to getting the permit is the requirement to have insurance.

How Can a Professional Photographer Use Photos of People?

The permissibility of publishing photos of other people depends on whose photo you have and how you want to use the photo. Here are some very general guidelines.

• Taking and then publishing your photo of a person when the photo is directly related to a report on a newsworthy item is usually permissible. Publication does not violate the person’s privacy or publicity rights.

• You need the person’s consent prior to publishing the person’s photo in a commercial or advertising context. Otherwise, you violate that person’s publicity rights.

• You cannot surreptitiously photograph a person when the person reasonably believes he has privacy. Such photographing is a violation of the person’s privacy rights.

• It is never a bad idea to have a signed release from the person whose photo you want to publish.

Got Milk? Versus GotSourMilk.com Matter Illustrates PR Risk of Cease and Desist Letters

I just saw this local news segment about a trademark scuffle between two Maryland adolescents and the California Milk Processor Board.

 

What Happened?

Two Potomac, Maryland boys are working on a science project developing a testing strip to identify sour milk. As part of the science project, the boys began the website gotsourmilk.com. The website name yielded a cease and desist letter from the California Milk Processor Board which owns the trademarked phrase “got milk?”

I wasn’t able to find a copy of the Board’s letter. According to the news report, the Board threatened a lawsuit if the name was not changed. The boys have changed the name to whybeasourpuss.com

Should the Board Have Objected to the www.gotsourmilk.com Website?

Absolutely, yes. The website name is potentially infringing on the “got milk?” trademark. If trademark owners don’t object to infringing uses, they risk diminishing or even losing the value of the trademark. However, there are adept and inept ways for a trademark owner to approach someone misusing its mark.

Cease and desist letters that are not well-thought-out can produce public relations backlash. While the Board’s approach was not as bad as the cease and desist letter I discuss here, the Board could have handled the situation by offering some trademark education to this family rather than by threatening a lawsuit. Although the Board obtained the result it wanted – the boys have changed the website name – the California Milk Processor Board certainly does come off as the bad guy in the news coverage.

PRWeek Offers Ebook on Social Media Contests and Sweepstakes

PRWeek just released a 9-page ebook, “Eye on the Prize: How Brands are Winning with Social Media Contests and Sweepstakes” by Tanya Lewis. The ebook includes a legal tips sidebar with quotes from my work on my forthcoming book on contests and sweepstakes law.

You can download a free copy of the PRWeek ebook here.

The ebook covers several topics of interest to companies considering promotional contests such as the importance of selecting the right prize, popularity of available social media outlets, and methods for deepening engagement and measuring success. Some of the ebook discussion points that really captured my attention include the following:

Fantasy Prizes. I often recommend that sponsors consider non-monetary fantasy prizes. Fantasy prizes can achieve three valuable objectives:

• provide a prize that contest winners value highly,

• avoid the negative tax consequences (for the winner) that can come from winning an expensive prize such as a car, and

• lower - or even eliminate - the cost to the sponsor for acquiring the prize to be offered.

The PRWeek ebook interviewees had some excellent fantasy prize examples. My favorite was the opportunity to deliver on-stage an Oscar statue during the 2013 Oscars award program. That was the fantasy prize for a video-submission contest targeting aspiring filmmakers and sponsored by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Publicity Releases. While talking about a photo submission promotion, a marketing director commented that the sponsor does not make any external use of entrant’s photos without the entrant’s permission. Getting appropriate releases and permissions is crucial! Otherwise, a winner might have a privacy or right of publicity claim against the sponsor. I talked about such a scenario in a recent blog post, “A Cautionary Tale: Contest Sponsor Loses Avoidable Lawsuit”.