[Pelayo]

Does anyone what the legal implications are if someone takes a picture of my baby and Instagram sells it to somebody for an ad? Would they need some sort of release?

Because I can delete my own photos but what what happens with other people's?

[georgemcbay]

Having it be a baby confuses the issue because babies can't give consent, but if someone took a picture of you and you're not an instagram user and thus never agreed to their TOS and that photo is used for commercial advertising you'd have a very strong case to sue in many places of the world.

Using the identifiable image of a person (even a private non-celebrity) in a non-editorial commercial manner is not permitted in most places, especially (bur not only) if the photo was taken in a place where there is an implied right to privacy (someone's home, etc, rather than outside in public). This is why photographers are anal about making sure all people who are identifiable in their photos sign a model release form if they plan to sell the photo for non-editorial uses.

If instagram ran this idea by their lawyers I'm sure they've been informed that they should absolutely never use any of these images for advertising if there is an identifiable person in it because otherwise the risk of being sued for it eventually is far too great.

[thelibrarian]

I was wondering exactly the same thing, because you do need a model release from all identifiable people in a photo if you wish to use it for non-editorial commercial purposes. Courts have ruled that "identifiable" does not necessarily mean "can see their face" - if you can see any significant part of a person, you need to get a model release before it can be used commercially (e.g. in an ad).

You do not need a model release if the photo is taken for artistic/personal reasons (even if prints of the photo are sold as artistic items).

[dfxm12]

There are none. They probably wouldn't. You can certainly try and fight it though!

Food for thought: http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-peo...

[antiterra]

How can you say there are none when the very link you provide mentions a release can be required for commercial use? You cannot imply that another person endorses your product or service without permission, and I've never seen an exclusion for babies. One may exist, but that FAQ doesn't say anything about it.