Model release?

[JDocPony]

What are the rules on a model release? If you shoot the picture in a public venue? If you want to sell the image... IF this topic is somewhere else covered and someone wants to send me to that thread feel free...lol... I just am curious.... and I want to be legal!

[fx101]

I think this is somewhere else on several other threads, but I'll answer it anyways. Some state laws deal with this, so check MI laws just in case. Generally, you are free to shoot in a public venue. By default, if you are in a public venue you have the right to take pictures of just about anything. This being said, there is something called courtesy. If you wish to sell images, and specific people are clearly identifiable (you took a street portrait of someone), then it's preferable to ask permission. You are not paying that person so that person is NOT a model and a release is not appropriate. Think paparazzi... they don't need a model release to take and sell pictures of celeb's.

[SmartWombat]

It varies by country, and sometimes by state.

What are the rules on a model release?

If it's used for commercial purposes, you need a release.

You are not paying that person so that person is NOT a model

I don't think that is true.

paparazzi... they don't need a model release to take and sell pictures of celeb's

That's a different case, as it's editorial (news/magazine) use I think.

[Kajuah]

Do yourself a favor and don't shoot kids - you can get some very nasty feedback from a lot of people, especially even for editorial or journalism UNLESS you get permission first. A model release is very straightforward, formatted much the same way a bill of sale is. A legal document, but not necessarily one that requires a 10 page contract.

The rule is in photojournalism that if you shoot someone during an event (parade for example) you do not need a model release. If you shoot someone walking down the street, you may be able to get away with calling it a candid shot If they are not the focal subject of the scene. Also: If there are more than 3 people in the shot, it doesn't qualify to get the model release from an editorial perspective.


This is a good example of what a form may look like.

http://www.primaveraphoto.com/model_...e_may_2008.pdf

It's best to check your local laws, as sometimes the format of a model release can differ by subject (commercial pornography for example opposed to contestant pictures at a show)

[fx101]

It varies by country, and sometimes by state.


If it's used for commercial purposes, you need a release.


I don't think that is true.


That's a different case, as it's editorial (news/magazine) use I think.

In New York, for a person to be considered a model, they have to have established some sort of contract, by which there shall be some exchange or none, as is stipulated by the terms of the contract, but without such a contract the person being photographed may not claim the status of a "model". This being said, you have to remember that your local laws may vary. I remember that in the UK there are very specific laws as to what constitutes a model shoot and what constitutes public shooting. Even then, shooting children (photographically of course ) is prohibited under some acts (the thinking being that this helps to reduce potential pedophælia).

As for paparazzi's, in California this is perfectly permissible. The person is in a public place and so images can be taken of them with no "model release" necessary. Again, YMMV so check with your attorney to see how the laws in your area affect you.

[another view]

You'll probably find a couple of threads in the Business forum on this site. My understanding (and I'm not a lawyer so you're getting what you pay for) is that usage has as much to do with it as anything.

Let's say you have a shot of a building on fire. Someone standing relatively close to the camera is recognizable. If you sell that shot to the company that made the t-shirt the person is wearing, then that person is a model and endorsing the product and you better have a release. Chances are they won't even talk to you about it if you don't have a release. If you sell the shot to the newspaper to run it based on the story of the building on fire, then it's editorial and a release wouldn't be needed. Same shot, two very different useages. If you made a fine-art print of the shot to sell in a gallery, it might be a gray area.

Best case is to always get one if you're doing something you intend to sell for any reason. CYA, as they say.

[freygr]

For NEWS coverage you just have to get the salable photo. Art photography is different, with model release being the norm. Commercial photography you will need model releases and site release also unless you are in a city, state, other public park or area then you my need permits depending on the size of the production.

[GB1]

Hate to say it but based on what I've seen and read the answer isn't clear cut. There's different extremes and the conservative one says that if the person (or place) is recognizable than it might need a release. For example, if you are walking down the street and someone snaps your photo w/o permission, can they use it on a Prozac advertisement? (how about a billboards sized one to boot!) I would think you would be filling a lawsuit eh? I've heard the same for places, people not wanting their house photographed and used. Even the Eiffel Tower cannot be photographed and commercially used if it is a night shot.

Good luck figuring this one out .....!!

G

[Franglais]

Even the Eiffel Tower cannot be photographed and commercially used if it is a night shot.

Good luck figuring this one out .....!!

G

The restriction is not on the Eiffel Tower, it's on the twinkling lights that come on for 10 minutes every hour. This is a recent Work of Art and the company that runs the Eiffel Tower wants to get their money back.

It's very effective, actually. For the Year 2000 celebrations the old tower was fitted out with giant spotlights at the top that beam out into the light like a lighthouse. And it was covered all over with fairy lights that twinkle like a giant Christmas tree.

[Asylum Steve]

For example, if you are walking down the street and someone snaps your photo w/o permission, can they use it on a Prozac advertisement?

Hmmm, has my doctor been shooting off his mouth again? It was suppose to be our little sercet...

Actually, I understand your point, but the pharm industry would be the last ones to ever use street grab shots in ads. Think HUGE budgets, well paid models...

In theory it's pretty simple: creative use of photos (ads, marketing, etc.) almost always require releases. Editorial use (news, magazine features, etc.) rarely does...

BTW, artistic use (gallery) usually dose not require one either...

[Wyshes]

I would suggest that you check local and state laws about a release. As already mentioned, CYA.

[Franglais]

In theory it's pretty simple: creative use of photos (ads, marketing, etc.) almost always require releases. Editorial use (news, magazine features, etc.) rarely does...

BTW, artistic use (gallery) usually dose not require one either...

The photojournalist has a duty to inform the public. The photographer covering a bomb explosion is not going to get model releases from hundreds of people, that would stop him doing the job.

However the photojournalist has to be careful not to do extra harm. A photographer in a bombing in the Paris subway a few years ago published pictures of identifiable bodies which causes great distress to the families, who sued for damages and won.

Commercial (advertising) photography is not doing any sort of public service. I would expect not only a model release but also a contract and payment for anyone identifiable that appeared on an ad.

[another view]

However the photojournalist has to be careful not to do extra harm. A photographer in a bombing in the Paris subway a few years ago published pictures of identifiable bodies which causes great distress to the families, who sued for damages and won.

Curious what the editor's role in this would be - it wouldn't be (in my basic understanding) the PJ's choice in what shots are used. I see shooting as one thing, running it in a paper as something completely different.

I had one person who wanted a contract when I shot their wedding, so I used one with a Model Release clause. If I have to go thru that, I'm getting something out of it! (Background is that I shot about a half-dozen before I decided that it would slowly kill me. Generally, if someone wanted a contract, it would be someone I really wouldn't want to deal with anyway and since it was weekend work for me I could pick and choose.)

Back on track, if you have a chance to get a release and think you might ever have a need for it - then by all means get it.

[Wild Wassa]

If Aussies are reading, this is what I would recommend.

Anyone seeking advice or information on copyright should visit the Australian Copyright Council website www.copyright.org.au

Photographers seeking copyright advice should also contact Viscopy via their website www.viscopy.com

I've recently posted two images of children on the 'Photograph a Stranger' thread, I had the parents sign model release forms. It is no big deal, but it could be.

Model release forms are signed by parents and guardians if the model is under 21 years of age ... not just for models under 18 years of age. Don't overlook this.

Also if you have your own Model Release forms, make sure you refer to the current Copyright Act.

Warren.