Out here in middle America I've never had an actual performer in the 3D world object to my taking still pictures. Some big venues, like Starplex in Dallas, prohibit photography and others prohibit professional photography, but most venues don't seem to care. Recording sound, with or without video, is frequently prohibited and I have had my photo kit checked to see if I was carrying recording equipment -- in Winfield for example.

I'm no lawyer, but here is how the legalities have been explained to me for Texas.

Your right to privacy is protected, which means that if I take pictures of you through the windows of your home or in the men's room or your hotel room or any other place you can reasonably expect to be private then you can sue me for taking your picture.

I can take photos in public places. If you try to sue me for taking photos in a public place, the suit will be thrown out of court. If you are politician or performer who actively seeks public attention the suit will be laughed out of court. I generally ask before pictures, but asking is a courtesy not a legal obligation.

A venue, like Starplex, can prohibit photography and toss folks out the door if they catch them taking pictures. If you really don't want your picture taken then ask the venue to prohibit it.

That's about it for taking pictures.

How the pictures are used is a whole different kettle of fish. Let's say I take a picture of you performing on stage at a local bar.

-- If someone publishes my picture along with false information about you ("GUEST, the noted plagiarist, shown here after his arrest for child molestation, has resumed his attacks on gay whales using nuclear weapons"), then you *can* sue the publisher.

-- If someone publishes my picture as editorial content ("GUEST, shown here, recently played a set Uncle Phil's bar"), then you *can't* sue the publisher and win. The same is true of me posting photos to share with family and friends.

-- If someone uses the photo for commercial purposes ("GUEST, shown here, endorses Rustbucket guitar strings"), then you *can* sue the publisher, unless the publisher can show a release, signed by you, saying it was ok to use the photo for that purpose.

The photographer normally is the one who gets the release signed, but that's just a matter of convenience because the photographer is always there when the photo is taken. The release itself actually protects of the user of the photo from being sued. The photographer also needs a signed release to sell pictures to a stock photography company or exhibit some pictures in a gallery. But again, the release is to keep the stock photo company or gallery from being sued, not the photographer. The photographer should have no further legal involvement except in the perverse case of a photographer who lies to the user about having a release.

Where the lawyers get rich is haggling about what is editorial use versus commercial use, ("GUEST, shown here playing on his beloved Rustbucket strings, recently performed Uncle Phil's Bar"); what is libelous and what isn't; does the release actually cover the way the publisher used the photograph, etc, etc, etc.
- Phil