Street Release Form?

Did people like Henri Cartier-Bresson have their subjects sign model

release forms? I have a hard time believing that it would be

possible all of the time, or if they even did have their subjects

sign a release. But then that was a whole 'nuther era wasn't it?

no, it would be a drag and defeat the purpose of sp imo.

even if it were today, what would he need a release for? art prints? editorial? he wouldn't need one today either.

It's difficult enough just explaining what your business is photographing strangers. A 'release' would only confuse/complicate matters, and be very impractical as well. Most shots are meaningless, anyway. Even the meaningful ones.

I think by handling the form to your subject will only cause more cautious on his/her side. I mean come on, by just reading the form you can see all the possible use such as selling, publishing and so on (even we know we are not going to in most cases). Certainly you are tipping them off and they might get really serious with you. Besides it's silly to pack a pile of forms and get everyone on the street to sign on them. On the other hand if you don't have them singed, in todays world, esp there are so many lawyers in this country, I am very sure even HCB would be sued after ppl find out his fame. <br><br>

Friendly time no more. Maybe travel to other countries is safer. I don't know if I take a picture with someone's building in it is going to be a problem or not in the near future.

<i>Most shots are meaningless, anyway. Even the meaningful ones.</i><p>

To be carved on stone.

I discard most of my shots. When I get a good one, I go back to the location where I took the shot, and wait for the person(s) to show up again.

..and then you....???

 

You have hundreds of excellent-to-brilliant street shots on your site, John. All sellable. Do you try to get your subjects to sign a release?

You don't need a release for works of "art" (e.g. street photography) taken in public, only commercial stuff. You are free to post on the net, publish a book and make a profit (hah!), or sell them at an art show. Search for Bert Krages on amazon and buy his handbook:

 

"Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images"

 

Thanks for the compliment. I don't know that you can make money at street photography. But I'd like to make a book some day. A good book is a lot of work.

With so many people willing to sue at the drop of a hat many places want a release even if it isn't required. I was recently asked to enter one of my street shots in a photography contest but when I read the fine print and discovered that I need the names and adresses of all people in the photograph, well, there went that idea. There are times where I choose to approach people and ask for a photograph. I must say my success rate is pretty high! I always offer to send a print. I may start enclosing a release form and a self addressed stamped envelope too just in case.

Great idea!!! I was thinking of that too.

Marc Todd: It's true you can ask, and I've even done so on occasion. However, if you want to capture candid images of people going about their lives on the street, the likelihood someone you ask can then pretend convincingly they are not being photographed is vanishingly small. Basically, it is not in general practical to get releases; thankfully it is not required in these situations (in the US).

 

As far as sueing goes, you can bring suit for practically anything. But that also costs time, money and trouble, with no hope of winning.

 

Read the book - there's great advice about avoiding conflicts too.

(My earlier post seems to have been deleted - hmmm)

 

You only need releases if you are going to use the iamges in a commerical context. Especially so if you want to sell them to a (non-editorial) stock agency.

 

HCB was part owner of his own agency, so presumably he slackened the rules for himself :?)

hiya

 

cartier-bresson likely barely got noticed enough as he was so fly on wall stealth to blend in. if you can't go un-noticed, as others have said, public property generally doesn't really require you to have an 8 page contract or three line model release -- unless you do intend to submit and hopefully publish it in a local magazine.

 

so photograph away. it's frustrating/frightening to get yelled "don't take my dam photo or i'll punch out your lights..." but 95% of time, most reasonable people won't object too much. whether it's completely true or not, i think the most likely reason people get offended is if they think they look bad or are in an potentially embarrassing pose.

 

if they ask, just explain that you're an art photographer and it's purely for art's sake, practice or a particular theme. one of my camera-shy friends said to me it's easier to just let a photographer take his two photos and then he'll go away. in other words, they'll put up with you for three seconds or minutes if you are quick. HCB had a super quick focusing rangefinding Leica, so keep short and to the point.

 

good hunting

I recently did a project of photographing people at a state fair.

 

I checked with several photojournalists and others, all whom said I did not need a model

release if I am not making fun of or being slanderous in anyway.

 

Therefore the man with the very silly hat who agreed to let me take his photo has no right

to sue since he was standing in a public place and was not "forced" to do anything.

<i>I checked with several photojournalists and others, all whom said I did not need a model release if I am not making fun of or being slanderous in anyway.</i><p>

 

Were any of them lawyers also? Did any of them talk about what constitutes non-commercial use in your state? If not, I'd go find a lawyer if you're looking at publishing.

One of the photojournalists that I consulted with, has done 3 books. He doesn't have one

model release. And, the books were published by a major art book publisher.

It's very easy and inexpensive getting some legal advice - I recommend it so you can evaluate

and manage the risks.

I shoot street/PJ/whatever you wish to call it, in a small town, in middle Earth, surrounded by suspicious & paranoid types, and I rarely get told "don't point that at me", I never carry releases, I never worry about all the crap getting in the way of working the area.

 

Get out and shoot.

 

What I DO do is give MY contact info to certain individuals who provide strong compositions for me, and I offer to send them prints if they will contact me about same. Recently, I shot a motorbike rally and offered these terms to several - one caught up with me, and yesterday 5 4-by-6s and 1 8-by-10 went out in the post.

 

That image is shown below.<div></div>

Here's another:<div></div>

Brad wrote:<p><p>

 

<< It's very easy and inexpensive getting some legal advice - I recommend it so you can evaluate and manage the risks. >><p><p>

 

There's a corollary to this (and to what Jeff said): Legal assistance *after* one finds himself involved in a lawsuit is not inexpensive. Quite the contrary. <p><p>

 

In the US, defense of a civil lawsuit for which you have no insurance coverage -- even a suit that lacks merit, as many do -- is typically charged on an hourly basis. Rates vary dramatically, both geographically and from lawyer to lawyer within a given area. But take my word for it: lawyers aint cheap.<p><p>

 

I agree generally with what has been said here about street photography (in the US): as long as it's non-commercial in nature, releases are generally neither requested nor provided nor required.<p><p>

 

But for moment's worth of amusement or horror, take a look at <a href=http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/06/26/photographer_sued_for_taking_portrait.php>this article about the diCorcia litigation</a>.

like anything else, even an identifiable building, if its used for profit a release is necessary.

 

However, on the street no one in their right mind will sign off.

fight for your rights for sure! that is horrifying for any photographer and i commend that guy for hopefully winning and setting a standard of how people cannot sue photographers. i do find the amusement in this privacy-loving "private" citizen who would sue the sun for giving him risk of skin cancer. his lawyer openly admitted the photos are beautiful. then why is he defending the guy? the photo wasn't in bad taste.

 

another era indeed -- before people got paranoid that big brother is watching. i'd as soon as deal with aborigial tribes who think i'm stealing souls... rather then people who sue for hot coffee spilling on their lap and try to say they weren't warned.

 

it brings up a very good point... why shouldn't we profit from our photographs? do people not realize this is a professional trade? it'd be grand if i could always repay in photographs as an artistic gift to those who lend me their time. but to me, street photography purely is a means of expression for reflecting social culture. unfortunately despite artistic merit, that does not pay for my equipment

 

i know this is a slightly different angle to the topic but where is the line of which to divide commercial stock photography from street art? isn't a model release so that we (the photographers) can publish (and supposedly make rent money) cartier-bresson didn't ask for model releases coz that might just ruin the defining moment. life gives no warning, why should a photographer?

if you don't want your photo taken, it's a free country... i liked what the person beside them was wearing but i cropped in the photo to this wonderful example of avoiding the photographer and a long legal battle. it's a little blurry because i took it on the fly in HCB's style.<div></div>

it wasn't my best composition or anything, as i was a little sleepy but is proof that nobody sued me (that i know of yet : ) and i didn't have anyone scream at me to rip the film out of the camera<div></div>