The Leica M11 images thread

[tashley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, hmzimelka said:

An early sunrise walk this morning with the Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH II, shot mostly wide open or at f/2. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

Gosh it look beautiful there! Where is it? I WANT!!!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[hmzimelka]

35 minutes ago, tashley said:

Gosh it look beautiful there! Where is it? I WANT!!!

 

It's Swakopmund, Namibia. It has its moments where everything can align and be perfect. At the moment, it's close to perfect weather here 😁

Edited May 4, 2022 by hmzimelka

[hdmesa]

23 hours ago, idusidusi said:

Ah this is what I was getting at, so the operative words are 'in public' and not images then used for 'commercial use'. That seems clear enough and makes sense. So I shall have to start clicking differently! Thanks.

Posting them in this forum is not commercial use, only selling or licensing them for compensation constitutes commercial use. They can also be sold for editorial use on stock photo sites (for use on news sites, etc.). In order to sell for commercial use in the US, you would need a signed model release for every person who is identifiable in the photo, something that's not realistically possible for most street photography.

[idusidusi]

3 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Posting them in this forum is not commercial use, only selling or licensing them for compensation constitutes commercial use. They can also be sold for editorial use on stock photo sites (for use on news sites, etc.). In order to sell for commercial use in the US, you would need a signed model release for every person who is identifiable in the photo, something that's not realistically possible for most street photography.

Thanks for the explanation, which makes sense.

[harmen]

In public

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

28mm summilux with 20mm aperture

[Franka373]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Posting them in this forum is not commercial use, only selling or licensing them for compensation constitutes commercial use. They can also be sold for editorial use on stock photo sites (for use on news sites, etc.). In order to sell for commercial use in the US, you would need a signed model release for every person who is identifiable in the photo, something that's not realistically possible for most street photography.

Confused.  If I took a photo of people in public and want to publish it in a book of the photos that would be commercial use and I need a release?   

[idusidusi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, Franka373 said:

Confused.  If I took a photo of people in public and want to publish it in a book of the photos that would be commercial use and I need a release?   

That is how I understand it, but my confusion is if a person is not recognisable and face in particular is not shown, surely that can be published as you envisage. If the person is recognisable, then it is completely not OK for commercial use. That is how I understand what others have said.

[Eclectic Man]

50 minutes ago, idusidusi said:

That is how I understand it, but my confusion is if a person is not recognisable and face in particular is not shown, surely that can be published as you envisage. If the person is recognisable, then it is completely not OK for commercial use. That is how I understand what others have said.

It may also depend on whether that subject has a distinctive, recognisable style.  In France, I believe that there are laws preventing public photography of such things.  I believe the great Robert Doisneau wanted to photograph a carousel, but the owner would not let him as he had created teh decorations personally.  Also I believe that the lights on the Eiffel Tower are copyright.  You can photograph it in the day, but night time, with the illuminations, any image has to be approved for commercial use.

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, Franka373 said:

Confused.  If I took a photo of people in public and want to publish it in a book of the photos that would be commercial use and I need a release?   

If you sell the book I do believe you need model releases. If you publish it and distribute it for free, that might fall under editorial use. There are also some nuances regarding fine art publication that may differ. Best to consult a lawyer.

[Franka373]

Thanks. Completely new information to me.  I have a library full of books mostly street photos and I doubt releases were ever received, both recent books and past. 

[Dward]

Not an attorney nor an authority by any means but my understanding is that in the US, the picture on the front and back of a book are considered “Commercial” and require a release as they are seen by a prospective buyer and are intended to influence their decision to buy. The ones inside the book are  not considered to be “Commercial”. Made sense at the time I read it, can’t recall where. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Dward
Typo

[adan]

It is complicated - but the rough outlines would be that if the publication (can be magazine, newspaper, or book) is an editorial project, the cover is part of the editorial effort, which is (in the US) protected by the First Amendment.

No one can sue a newspaper for putting their picture on the "cover" (the front page) - whether it "helps sell newspapers" or not. Same for a book that is a work of photography - it is part of the whole work, which is protected by freedom of speech/expression. So long as the picture was made in public (can't be shooting through people's windows or over their privacy fences) and there is not clear malicious intent (or falsification - Photoshoppers take note) in how it is used.

Photo on the cover of a book of fiction, or a political essay, or whatever, for which the picture is just "decoration?" Could well be a problem.

Photo where there is an accompanying title or headline that could be interpreted as applying to the person(s) in the picture? Also a problem.

NYT Magazine got sued for running a stock photo of a generic black man (not a model) in a business suit walking on the streets of NY (isolated and made prominent by using shallow depth of field and a long lens) - WITH a story headline right on top of/beside it, to the effect of whether black executives advancing through the corporate ranks were being successful. The magazine either lost or settled - it was too apparent that the headline could easily be construed as commentary on the particular person in the picture.

A book of street photos that uses one of the project images for the cover is legitimate protected editorial use (in the US at least) - unless the book is titled Stupid Things People Do On The Street or something like that.

In any event, a model release, if possible, will be a significant additional layer of protection.

To keep things legit and get back on track - an actual (if dumb) M11 photo Vignetting courtesy of a 50mm Noctilux f/1.0 at f/4.0.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[erudolph]

What about street photography as fine art.  A diamond merchant in NYC discovered that a photograph of himself, taken on the street and with no signed release, was being sold at a prestigious art gallery for between 20 and 30 thousand dollars.  He sued for invasion of privacy and lost.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, erudolph said:

What about street photography as fine art.  A diamond merchant in NYC discovered that a photograph of himself, taken on the street and with no signed release, was being sold at a prestigious art gallery for between 20 and 30 thousand dollars.  He sued for invasion of privacy and lost.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

I believe fine art is ok, such as selling prints of your photo – just like you can paint a street scene with recognizable people and sell it.

[hdmesa]

Haven't got out much to shoot, but here's a few from around the house with the CV 50 APO at f/2.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[adan]

4 hours ago, adan said:

NYT Magazine got sued for running a stock photo of a generic black man (not a model) in a business suit walking on the streets of NY (isolated and made prominent by using shallow depth of field and a long lens) - WITH a story headline right on top of/beside it, to the effect of whether black executives advancing through the corporate ranks were being successful.

Sorry to go back to this just one more time - but it corrects what I said before. The New York Times WON this 1978 case - based on freedom of expression.

https://casetext.com/case/arrington-v-new-york-times-company

[HansiMustermann]

Berlin Cube

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[HansiMustermann]

The Sky over Berlin.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[HansiMustermann]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[HansiMustermann]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!