Do I need a model release for Celebrities at public functions?

Hi,

 

If a Celebrity is giving a public speech and allows photography, would

I require the expressed permission of the Celeb to post the photo on

Photo.net or to sell it for stock?

 

So far I have kept my photos secret and would not publish without

permission. It seems morally correct for me to do this.

 

Thanks,

Phil

something tells me the "papparazzi" get very few releases from celebs... I think public domain is kinda up for grabs, but I've never really looked into it.

The answer doesn't depend on whether your subject is a celebrity or not. The answer depends on the usage of the photo.

 

For editorial usage (e.g. publishing in books, magazines, blogs, etc.) you do NOT need explicit permission from your subjects. It doesn't matter whether they are famous or not.

 

For commercial usage (e.g. in advertising) you DO need explicit permission, again, regardless of the celebrity status.

KAA is mistaken.

 

In some very limited instances, a photograph of a public figure may be used without permission. If the person is a public figure (including celebrities) or is a private figure but is involved in a matter of public concern like a news story and the use of the photograph is directly related to the person?s public status, then the courts have said that in those instances, the right of the person to his or her privacy gives way to the public?s right to get the public information. This is related to the editorial purpose rule.

 

This is not legal advice and you should not accept anyones posts online as such.

<p><i>KAA is mistaken.</i>

 

<p>John Henneberger is mistaken when he says KAA is mistaken, though he's apparently at least substantially correct, if somewhat obscure, when he goes on to contradict himself in the following several sentences. In any case, KAA is correct with respect to the broad strokes - it is the <b>nature of publication</b> and in some cases the <b>circumstances under which the photograph was made</b> which will dictate whether a release is prudent or required.

 

<p>Please spend ten minutes with a lawyer to confirm this is so and make a determination relevant to your particular case. If you wish to educate yourself beforehand, I recommend you read "Legal Handbook for Photographers" by Bert Krages, or the "ASMP Professional Business Practices in Photography." Going in with some of this under your belt will allow you to ask intelligent questions and perhaps greatly reduce the amount of time you have to spend with your attorney (which in turn frequently saves you legal costs).

It depends where you are.

 

Under British law there is no requirement to get a model release for anything (though it is still good practice to get one for non-news usage).

 

Depending exactly where you are in the world the law WILL vary. A test for "can I put it on P.n" would be 'could a newspaper run this picture', stock photo agencies will have tougher requirements, but if you have pictures you think they might want, talk to them - they should know the legal position.

There is more than one issue:<p>

<i>If a Celebrity is giving a public speech </i><p>

 

Where is the "public" speech given? If it is on private propery, at least in the US, this can cause complications.<p>

 

Also, Phil appears to be in Canada and I don't think any of the responders are. I would recommend finding an attorney if you want to sell it.

The answer depends on your country and jurisdiction. Do not ask such questions on the internet, you'll be misinformed.

I live in the USA and I worked as a celeb photographer for a few years in Hollywood. I was not a guy who would hide in bush but yes, I did photograph them out in public, on a movie set, at a club. Most magazines would never ask for a release. If the magazine used my picture for a story (a true story) like so and so filming a movie or so and so giving a speech no celeb in there right mind would give that magazine a hard time. It's magazines that take a picture and make up a story that can hurt the persons reputation. They could end up in court. As long as you did not give that story to the magazine, your ok. Any celeb (or other person) in a public place is fair game for what you are asking. I am speaking about posting it on Photo.net or giving to a magazine for news purposes. I am not sure about the stock thing.

I'm guessing that because the socializers, the celebrities, etc., live for and by "attention," attacking a source of attention doesn't usually help. While there is a saying that "any publicity is good publicity," that isn't necessarily so, ultimately being a jerk to the public still gains you that reputation. When the "grip and grin" is a part of your life, there is an expectation that the pictures will be taken. And shared.

 

Qualified local legal advice is needed to tell you just where the line is drawn when you move into commercial or perhaps "privacy" related areas.

My answer is accurate and certainly not obscure. This issue has been well settled. The public figure status of the subject sometimes lead the photograph to become a matter of public concern. It happens every day. KAA said it doesn't matter if the subject is a public figure. Yet it often does.

<p><i>My answer is accurate and certainly not obscure.</i>

 

<p>Your contradiction of KAA is not accurate, it is incomplete or in error in a way such as to mislead. The public figure status of a celebrity does not give one the right to publish a photo of that person in, for example, an advertisement. So it <i>is</i>, at times, the nature of publication, in the context of the OP's circumstance, that determines publishability, and KAA was quite right to say so.

 

<p>What I find obscure is that after flatly and without qualification contradicting KAA, you go on to describe a situation in which the nature of publication is important to determining publishability (the editorial purpose rule). This is, of course, pretty much what KAA said. So if you have a difference of opinion with KAA, that difference of opinion is obscure.

"would I require the expressed permission of the Celeb to post the photo on Photo.net or to sell it for stock?"

 

You guys are missing the point. Phil is asking about selling the photo for stock.

 

And the answer is yes and no. Almost any stock agency will accept the photo without a release, but that limits where they can sell it. No advertising. Only editorial markets.

 

With a release, they are free to offer it for advertising, editorial, whatever.

the answer is no if its reportage. If its for a profit making venture, such as a calendar or book or even a T-shirt, that is another issue. In this case the answer would be yes.