Amateur photog creating online portfolio - needs permission?

<p>I have a day job, and have done a few wedding for friends. One I was the main shooter, and several I was a just guest, but I took 500-700 shots, and some grooms or brides told me weeks later that the shots I took were better than the paid photog.<br>

So I don't have delusions that this is all it takes, not at all. But I do want to assemble my top 50 shots, and put them online as I build toward showing a possible portfolio to future clients if I elect to go farther in this.<br>

Since for much of this I was attending as a guest ( and obviously dont have legal agreements about the photos), do I need to ask legal permission (written, or other) to put a about a dozen shots of each wedding I shot on an online portfolio? Or because I took the shots, I own copyright, and I can display them as my work, as long as I don't use it for commercial gain (on business card/flyer, on an advertisement for my business, etc)?<br>

Thank you.</p>

<p>I would never display or post anyone's image without a signed release. It's just asking for trouble.<br>

My suggestion to you is that you seek out a local PPA (Professional Photographers of America) chapter or affliliate (<a href="http://www.ppa.com">www.ppa.com</a>). Join, network and learn. You'll be much farther ahead and not only will it be enjoyable, but it's well worth the dues.....-Aimee </p>

<p>A release is required when photographs are used for advertising or trade (to promote business) purposes. You do not need a release to display the photos at a Website. You do need a release to put them in an ad, brochure, or other solicitation of business. If you visit my website (www.weisgrau.com) you will find a Gallery link. The gallery carry no commercial message. I have unreleased and released photos in the gallery. If I had a commercial message in the gallery I would certainly have released photos only. Of course, it is always safer to have a release than to not.</p>

<p>Well, it's a retrospective sort of thing, and since I already have some images in hand, I figure it's easier than beating the bush for more and leave the used ones unleveraged.<br>

I've seen quite a few "street photographer" slideshows and videos where they just snap people on the street, and apparently they don't need any kind of release. And it seems to be an established thing.<br>

So this is why I was ruminating about my own shots-- I certainly had more permission to take them than the street guy, learching up on people with his SLR and flash cord...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I certainly had more permission to take them than the street guy, learching up on people with his SLR and flash cord..."</p>

<p>Ed, permission to shoot a photo isn't a factor for commercial usage issues which you are discussing. Its the use that matters, not the shooting. It matter in instances where someone may make a claim that a shooter intruded on someone's privacy where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and then publishes such images.</p>

<p>Commercial usage issues of photographer examples or work is unsettled. One view, supported in some jurisdictions, is that samples do not amount to commercial usage because it is used as examples and not as an endorsement of the photographer. The opposing view, also supported in some jurisdictions, is more strict and that using one's image to promote a business is commercial in nature. It looks like the trend is heading towards the former. Claims over portfolio example use is rare due to the fairly harmless use, the lack of widespread use and because damages tend to be lower as a result. Websites brought increased usage in this area but it doesn't seem to be changing things much despite the more visable presence of such displays.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would never display or post anyone's image without a signed release. It's just asking for trouble.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you give some examples of the "trouble" that has been caused.</p>

<p>I haven't found any arising from a small time portfolio/sample use other than mere complaints from the people involved. I don't know of any from mass marketing use either where it didn't also appear that someone was endorsing or supporting the photographer or studio. I haven't seen any cases where "trouble" was avoided either. If there are any instances either way that anyone knows about, I would like to see it. </p>

<p>This is another case of "Self Promotion" or at least sounds like it based on the OPs question.</p>

<p>As long as you do NOT <strong>(assign),</strong> <strong>(associate)</strong> or use the photos to <strong>(endorse)</strong> something, you are well within your right to post photos. Essentially all you are saying is <em>"Hey, look how good my work is."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

What you can't do is say <em>"This bride loves my work" </em>, unless you have her permission to do so via a model release, this would be a example of endorsement.<br>

You can't place her photo with a caption that reads <em>"She's been married 10 times."</em> Slander and libel suits can arise from that.<br>

You can't show the person (as example) standing in front of a abortion clinic and say, <em>"This person is pro-life"</em><br>

This would be assigning intent to the image and giving it purpose.<br>

<em></em><br>

In reality, I know of no case where a photog was sued for displaying photos for self promotional purposes.<br>

I know of no attorney who would take such a case unless a nice settlement was evident and assured.</p>

<p>Now, all that being said, if you were PAID to be at the wedding to shoot, you have a entirely different situation on your hands when it comes to displaying images taken. This should never be a problem as it should have been covered in the wedding contract <em>"Photographer reserves all rights to display photographs in any medium, for any purpose w/o restriction"</em> blah..blah..blah.</p>

<p>Take a look at <a href="http://www.danheller.com">www.danheller.com</a><br>

He has a nice section about releases for us lay people.</p>

 

<p><em>What you can't do is say "This bride loves my work" , unless you have her permission to do so via a model release, this would be a example of endorsement.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Not every endorsement comes from worded descriptions. Some displays could imply approval nevertheless such as a large image of a happy bride on a promotional poster or the intro page of a website. Disclaimers can be useful to avoid such situations.</p>

<p>OK, so a nameless gallery, no implied endorsements, maybe having the word portfolio samples.</p>

<p>It isn't the bride's name that is the concern. She is identifiable without a name (if the person can't be identified from the picture, there's no issue). Including her picture in portfolio samples is creating the idea that this is the kind of "work" you do and that she was a customer and the implication, because she is shown, is that she approved the chowing and is happy with your work. While details vary from state to state, a "portfolio" is offered up to showcase one's work to get hired, accepted into a position, to demonstrate to other potential customers the work they could expect.</p>

<p>The separation that one might often see is that the galleries of images from an event that are offered to the participants to view and purchase are segregated from that portion of the website that is selling the photographer. Basically it's recognized that you can use the picture to sell the picture. After all, if you couldn't show the pictures, then you wouldn't sell them. But to drive one's business, one would perhaps show a handful of stunners, highlighted in the "advertising." The other 250-500 (whatever) that everyone picks through could as easily and might be on a protected link or even a different site.</p>

<p>Thanks, Craig. Well, it's not like I have tons of stunners, partly by definition, party by my greenness. </p>

<p>So I'm vacillating now on whether or not it's legit-- creating a small gallery with no release. I'm reading reasons pro and con. This is just an emerging idea for me, and so I don't want to lawyer up and fork money yet if I don't need to, but perhaps there's no other way...</p>

<p>Ed;<br>

You situation begs the obvious question, why not just get these people to sign a release? A quick letter to the people you took photos for, that includes a release and a SASE would likely promptly remove any doubts you have about using them. A letter to this effect;<br>

**<br>

Dear Sarah & John Smith;<br>

I want to thank you for having me as a guest at your wedding. As you know, I took a number of photographs at your wedding. I am currently putting together a personal portfolio of my photograph work. I would love to show off some of your photos in my portfolio, but I don't want to do it without your permission. <br>

If you would be willing to allow me the use of your photos in my portfolio, could you please sign the enclosed release form and return it to me with the enclosed envelope.<br>

Thank you again,<br>

Ed<br>

**<br>

You can offer to give them additional photos also if you have not provided them with all of the photos yet.<br>

Good Luck;<br>

J.</p>