Model release needed for posed street?

I'm going to be doing a project where I will be asking people dressed in a

certain type of footwear on the street to pose for a photograph. End result will

be likely be an exhibition, possibly magazine publication.

 

Do I need to ask them to sign a model release (UK)? That would break the flow

and make people less likely to pose but if I have to I will.

I'd say no release necessary.

It isn't a bad idea t oget a release but have an assitant who can work with you to get the release.

This one most basic questions in photography today. It depends on country and state you

live in. One my favorite books for photographers is "The Law (In Plain English) for

Photographers" by Leonard D. Duboff. In the U.S.A. it breaks down to two basic types of

usage, Commercial and Editorial. This is a real fine point. Editorial means you can sell it

for news use such as stories for newspapers and magazines but not for advertisements.

Commercial means selling the image for advertisements, promotions goods or services.

For example I can hang an image in a gallery for display that is considered editorial. To

make matters a little worse if the people are famous then you have to be really careful

about how the image is used. I can sell an image to a magazine but if I sell it as a poster it

is commercial again. Also you have check with the venue you are shooting at. Some real

strict rules as to how images are used. I hope this helps a little. A few months I had a

conversation with Lee Enterprises (one of the nations largest newspaper chains) Attorneys

about selling images online galleries and I can tell you what they stated.

 

That right now selling images online without releases is a grey area in the law, because

there has not been a major challenge legal yet. They believed that selling images online

was covered by the 1st amendment but, selling them online as hats, tee shirts, or mugs

was a bad idea.

 

Turning your images into book and selling them or publishing them online should be no

issue (newspapers do this daily). But entering contests in which the images could be used

for Ads could be consider commercial. When shooting, if I have a doubt about its usage I

get a release.

 

Besides it is always a good idea to talk to subjects after and during a shoot as courtesy.

Most publications want cutlines with their photos anyway.

 

So when in doubt get a release.

You should email <u><A href =

http://www.thesartorialist.blogspot.com/>

The Sartorialist</a></u>.

Hi,

 

In the U.S., you technically don't need a model release for photos used in fine art or in editorial contexts.

 

However, both are more and more frequently asking for a release.

 

Besides, some day you might have an urge or a request to use the images in a more commercial way, that definitely needs a release.

 

So Ralph is right, it's always better to get a release than not.

>>In the U.S., you technically don't need a model release for photos >>used in fine art or in editorial contexts.

 

Maybe so but I would be careful of selling images as fine art where the person is clearly identifiable.

As far as I know, there is absolutely no requirement in the UK for a release, for any purpose whatsoever. The basic principle of law is that people have no rights in their own image at all.

 

The Advertising Standards Authority suggests (it's a 'voluntary' code) that (see section 13 of the CAP code, it's an interesting read) "Prior permission may not be needed when the marketing communication contains nothing that is inconsistent with the position or views of the person featured." If it is inconsistent then you're into defamation territory, from which a relase will protect you.

 

That covers advertising use, in the UK.

 

For editorial or artistic purposes, no, you don't need a release either.

 

There is a provision in the Copyright Designs and Patents act about rights of people who commission an image for private purposes to prevent public exhibition, but if the subject didn't ask to have their picture taken, that won't apply.

 

On the other hand, dealing with people who think that you should have got a release and are prepared to be awkward about can be an unlimited amount of trouble. So no harm will be done by getting one.

 

You could do worse than use the Getty one, which they publish here:

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/Alamy-stock-photography-model-release-form.pdf

 

Don't forget a bag of penny coins, to hand out as "Consideration".

oops... for Getty, read Alamy.

If I took photos of someone getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing

my artistic photography skills (at the top of my website it says "examples of my art"), would I be at any high risk of being

sued? I am advertising my business but also showing my artistic capability and enjoying my right to work. Even the

newspapers have to make a profit. I did not want to bother the couple and ask for a signed waiver. Or ask the building

owners of the buildings in the background. Just using the photos to promote my services as a photographer and since the

couple was there at a public park, could I have taken the photos?

 

Here is what I heard - Nobody's going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to collect a few hundred in

damages. If you use the image and they raise a stink and you don't stop using the image, they will have their lawyer send

you a letter to cease and desist. That's required. If you don't desist, then they can try to sue. I guess if the person ever

noticed themselves, all they could do is ask me to take it off and if I did take if off the website, nothing much more to be

afraid of then, right?

Also, The wedding dresses, tuxedos, rings, chairs, tables, tents... are all someone's intellectual property. Are wedding

dress designers suing photographers who use images of their dresses on their website? How about the chair or table

company? For that matter, architecture is intellectual property. If a photographer takes a photo of a couple and there is a

building in the background, the owner of the building could also sue the photographer then right? The copyright office states

: Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship

immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through

the author can rightfully claim copyright. So therefore "unless there is an agreement to the contrary, every photographer has

copyright and control of the image they take, even if someone already paid them." Right? I heard that in ADVERTISING -

When people are recognizable in public domain photos, the photos cannot

legally be used for commercial purposes. But I also heard that In the U.S., street photographs, taken of people and things

visible on the street, in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, can be published, displayed,

and sold as "art" (as distinct from their use for advertising, promotion, or "commerce") without obtaining permission of the

people photographed. In fact, a New York State Supreme Court judge recently made judgement on a case and said that the

photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit

the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they

do not apply if the likeness is considered art. I would be just using the photos of a bride and groom or people playing

volleyball to show my artistic services as a photographer. What do you think?

"If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit their photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might

appear in those photographs, "then artistic expression in the field of photography would not be protected under the freedom

of speech and freedom to perform art would suffer drastically" right? Most courts have consistently found "art" to be

constitutionally protected free speech. If I show off my artistic ability is it alright? A profit motive in itself does not necessarily

compel a conclusion that art has been used just for trade purposes. Can a photographer therefore be allowed to show one

person's existance to another? It doesn't matter if it's a photo of a war, or whatever......it's a function (and personal freedom)

of photograhers everywhere to show the world, the existance of the rest of the world, even on their website right?.

Can it also be considered news worthy that people get married here at this place for example? I am showing off my art and

telling the news of what is happening at this location (freedom of the press). The public areas of the United

States.....anyhow.....are for everyone's use..........including photographers. Taking a picture of another person in a public

does absolutely nothing to impede that other person of their rights. Stopping the photographer from taking those pictures,

impedes their rights of expression....and again, using those pictures in an artistic pursuit, including selling photographs of art

work from them, and putting them in a book form is an extension of that pursuit of happiness. Once the photographer takes

the picture, it is their picture............not the subjects. People are photographed everyday on buses, at ATM's, at

intersections walking into convenience stores, etc...

In the book: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short

answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo

in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). How about all the artistic “street

photographers out there”? I thought that I could take photos and show off my art work on the web. This is called the "pursuit

of happiness"..doing something you enjoy doing, that doesn’t harm anybody else..and there is a rather famous document

that says you have the right to pursue that in the USA. "As soon as the shutter clicks...." copyright belongs to the

photographer. These photos would be exhibited on my website for my photo business as examples of my 'art'. Just think at

any wedding, you would have to get a “model or other release” from the bride and groom, plus each family member or

guardian, table makers, chair makers, flower arrangement company, wedding dress maker, church owner, silverware

company, any owners of buildings in the background, etc... I could argue that a wedding or volleyball game is publishable in

a newspaper as an event that took place. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would exchange freedom for security

deserve neither'.

So here it is again: If I were to take of photo of people getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my

wedding website showing my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk?

 

Thanks Jenny email farminsarin8@hotmail.com