Corporate Headshots and Family Portraits. Need Model Release ?

<p>I am sure this is a sticky subject with lots of variant situations. I've done a bit of reading through the forum but I decided to post my case anyway for any insight. I apoligize in advance if this has been recently posted.</p>

<p>I don't own a business myself (not yet) but recently I have done a few jobs on the side where I did get paid. Two different type of jobs. Corporate headshots, and family and also kids. Altough I still remain an amateur photographer for now, they liked my work and this has encourage me to keep on going. I have since then created a small website for my own promotional reasons. In other words, only to show samples of my work where they can see pricing and my information, not other comercial reasons.. I live in the state of Florida.</p>

<p>Do I need model release from every employee that I shot , and from the family, particularly the parents of the kids I have photographed. ? I did not get them when I did take the pictures. Is one release from the company representative enough to allow me to use the employees pictures or do I still need a release from each employee. ? </p>

 

<p>A model release is usually used for images intended for resale / reuse by a third party. A portfolio release is usually used for using images to promote your own business (website, etc).</p>

<p>You <em>always</em> need a release to cover your own interests. There are no exceptions. Just like you always need a contract for every engagement. No exceptions. A quick perusal of this site will illustrate the sorts of problems you can cause yourself when you don't adopt appropriate business practices.</p>

<p>As for the headshots, it depends on whether the employees gave their employer permission to capture and use their image for the business. Most likely they did. You might need, then a release from the company. For the family, yes, you want signed, legal permission to exploit their images for your business.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You <em>always</em> need a release to cover your own interests. There are no exceptions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />No exceptions? The vast majority of images are so called editorial use which requires no permission for the likeness of someone seen in a photo to be used. A release would be needed to avoid liability for portfolio use in jurisdictions that don't recognize work samples as different than promotional/endorsement/commercial use. It is safer to have a release in the event work sample use were deemed commercial use in some particular location. Moreover, if an image containing a likeness is used by a third party, it is the third party is liable for any misappropriation, not the photographer. If the no exceptions comment were true, the photo industry as it exists would be extremely different than it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the headshots, it depends on whether the employees gave their employer permission to capture and use their image for the business. Most likely they did. You might need, then a release from the company.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Giving an employer permission to use one'sown likeness to use "for the business" has nothing to do with whether the photographer can or cannot use the likenesses for the photographer's business. Any such agreement with the company would have to be broad enough to or contain terms consistent with allowing the photographer to use the images for their own promotional purposes. Assuming permission is even needed for sample work in their location.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rcfp.org/photographers-guide-privacy">http://www.rcfp.org/photographers-guide-privacy</a><br>

<br /> </p>

<p>OP may find my comments in this thread regarding friends/family portraits of interest:<br>

http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00c07m</p>

<p>BTW, your PN images are all landscape. I hope that you will find shooting portraits can be challenging and rewarding in different ways, as I did.</p>

<p>When it comes to discussions of model releases, the resulting responses always remind me of the story of the blind men and the elephant (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant">link</a>).<br /> Most lawyers, even, will have touched only a small portion of the total situation. That not the least of the reasons why there are so many court cases involving such matters.</p>

<p>If even specialist lawyers disagree, how much more likely is it that professional photographers have experienced different parts of this "elephant in the dark"?</p>

<p>I think the only safe rule is "cover your ass". You <em>probably</em> don't need a release to show someone in a normal, unembarrassing, public shot here on Photo.net. However, as a close lawyer friend of mine once responded to me when I asked him in effect, "they can't possibly sue me for that?"<br /> He said that anybody can sue anybody about anything whatsoever. They may not be able to win frivolous or stupid cases, but that is little consolation after you've spent thousands defending yourself.</p>

<p>If you can, get the darned release. It may be totally unnecessary, but....</p>

<p>So I am taking from this that we have all concluded that it is better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it. That leaves us photographers with two choices, either not to take the picture or take the picture and not post it.<br>

Thank you everyone. <br>

PS: it is interesting that the subject of posting here in photo.net came up. I was talking about my own personal website. However, I wasn't even thinking about my portofolio in photo.net That is also a public site. uhmm ? I can probably safely bet that 1000's of pictures posted here do not have a release....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No exceptions?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I stand by my assertion that <em>there are no exceptions for covering your own ass</em>. Emphasis on <em>ass</em>.</p>

<p>And, to wit, it is entirely possible that an employer may require an employee to release all rights to any photographs taken of the employee in the execution of their duties, including licensing of rights to third parties for any use, without notice or compensation. This is, in my mind, for the purposes of the business. Apparently I did not elucidate.</p>

<p>In the execution of my work as a portrait photographer I always acquire portfolio releases, with the proviso that if a customer is ever uncomfortable with my use of their images, they have but to ask to be excluded. No problem. Even with a release I would respect their wishes.</p>

<p>As for posting here on PN, that falls under the umbrella of self-promotion for some, which would also be covered by a release.</p>

<p>usually if you credit the Company for instance: Photography for: Debenham's Corporate Brochure 2013... <br>

this is acceptable... and you are not going to sell the picture except for self promotion, you are actually<br>

entitle to use all your images for self promotion only, unless your contract specifies differently ...<br>

for something that is not "personal" like a wedding...boudoir, or ? use self descretion.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That leaves us photographers with two choices, either not to take the picture or take the picture and not post it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you make the same kind of decision about driving a car, or crossing a street?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>usually if you credit the Company for instance: Photography for: Debenham's Corporate Brochure 2013... <br />this is acceptable</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There is no legal basis for this at all.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and you are not going to sell the picture except for self promotion, you are actually<br />entitle to use all your images for self promotion only</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Same with this statement. See the post by John H.</p>

Luis, as you might have gathered by this and other related threads, photo.net is not a particularly good place to

learn about this. Privacy and publicity rights are governed by local laws. The laws in each state can be quite

different. For instance New York's privacy law (§51) explicitly allows photographers to use people's likeness as

examples of their work unless the person opts out. Other states are not as explicit, and still others have no

statutory privacy laws at all but instead rely on common law.

 

Since we don't know where you are from and few are likely to be experts (or even knowledgable) in the nuances

of your local laws, any answer should be regarded with suspicion.

 

In my opinion, the best course of action is to seek permission from the people involved. Not only does this

avoid obvious legal risks, but it respects social norms which are important to understand if you want to keep

working in your community. You can't know the reasons why someone might not want to have their image on

your site and it's hard to predict the damage that can happen if someone objects loudly even if you are legally

within your rights. I've found that in most cases (actually all in my experience) if I tell someone I really like a

particular image and want to use it for promotion, I get no objection. You can avoid a lot of stress by being open

and up front with people.

<blockquote>

<p>He said that anybody can sue anybody about anything whatsoever.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you expect a lawyer, friend or otherwise, to say anything different?</p>

good question never really thought about this as they are commissioning you to do the photos, lots of good information here!