peoples rights - Copyright question

<p>Say I want to upload some images I've taken to a website that can sell them for me. Some of these images may be of people I dont know, objects I dont own..... where do I stand? Can anyone point me to an idiots guide to help me avoid doing anything I shouldn't</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>You don't say where you are and there are different laws in different places, BUT<br>

There is no place any more that I know of where you can get away with <em>selling</em> somebody's picture without a clear and legal "model release" (Google™ that and you will find examples).</p>

<p>There is a great book on this subject by Bert P. Kages, look here: http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm for the Legal Handbook. (US law but probably some good general considerations)</p>

<p>The problem is that, without a release, using an image of someone in advertising is a big no no! This would be an actionable offense and you can easily find yourself in court. Many feel that editorial use is totally ok, and in most cases it probably wont be an issue. But there has been some case law where even in editorial work, where the image or article was not timely (newsworthy) that the image was also deemed to be invading the person's privacy rights.</p>

<p>Generally, there is no issue when using an image as fine art or in a book on your work--as long as you don't artificially cast the person in a photo in a bad light (use an image of an innocent woman walking down the street in a book of your work about prostitution, for instance)</p>

My layman's understanding is that releases are not needed for artistic purposes but are needed for commercial work. Places like iStockphoto require releases (and I think they are special releases that they provide) so users can download the images and do what they want with them.

I think Ed Greenberg and Jack Reznicki do a good job explaining things. Scott Kelby had a blog post about them and a link to a video about the topic (http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1645).

Good luck.

--Wade

<p>Thanks - I'm based in UK but pictures would be taken worldwide.<br>

Comptely understand and applaud the advertising aspect, but even then, where does the line get drawn in say, a street scene. Can any recognisable person object (as in France I believe) or must they be 'featured'</p>

<p>Does 'promotional' count as 'advertising'?<br>

thanks for the link to the book</p>

<p>Tony, sometimes we think because we are in some foreign land, even third world, that somehow it doesn't matter. I know some well known photographers who sold images shot in remote locations only to end up on the wrong side of a law suit. A bakery in some small, remote town in Europe was using a photo of some American Tourists he got a hold of for promotion, and they found out and raised their concerns. The world is much smaller than you think.</p>

<p>The problem with street photos is that sometimes it wont matter as the image will be used so small that no one could be recognized, but the next time it is printed as a mural for some product and all the faces are plain as day.</p>

<p>I did a shot for a client, my train client, that had a family in the foreground crabbing. I shot it so that they were all turned away from the camera--even cloned in one head so it would avoid even a partial profile. I didn't get a release, and could easily have, because I was sure there was no issue. My client cloned out the entire family from the shot when they used it for "promotional" purposes, not advertising, as they believed the people could easily recognize themselves.</p>

<p>It is a dicey issue.</p>

<p>Very tricky issue indeed , most stock agency's will not accept any image with a recognizable face without a signed model release and some agency's will even ask for one when you cant see the face, even if it is a self portrait they will still ask for a model release .</p>

<p>For non advertising or editorial use ( the six o'clock news on the TV ) you generally do not need a model release .</p>

<p>There is no difference between promotional and advertising ,there are both the same thing .</p>

<p>Just because you own the copyright of an image does not mean you have the right to do with it as you please </p>

<p>As has been said, the laws are different in different countries. Added to this, laws governing privacy and data protection are relatively new and are changing (or beig re-interpreted) all the time. For this reason stock agencies are playing very safe and want to see a model release. The model relase is not to protrect you but to protect the company who may use the image - and because neither you nor the agency know how the image will be used (reportage, advertising etc) the agency often plays safe and ask for a model release as a matter or routine.<br>

The only thing I can suggest is speak to the website that you are handing them to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just because you own the copyright of an image does not mean you have the right to do with it as you pleaseJust because you own the copyright of an image does not mean you have the right to do with it as you please</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would question that. There has been a case recently where a photographer took lingerie shots of an aspiring model and a few months later she found the photographer had sold them to advertise a porn site. Apparently there was nothing she could do - I guess until someone successfully sues the photographer they will be free to do this.</p>

<p>Mike ...</p>

<p>If there was nothing she could do then I would think that she had some where signed a model release without really knowing what she was signing , this happens all the time .</p>

<p>I have in my collection hundreds of shots of people in various states of dress , a lot I do not have model releases for even though I certainly own the copyright of these images , there is no way I can use them legally for any kind of advertising and I am sure I could sell a few of them .<br>

My point is , I own the copyright and I also have the most indisputable original ,the negative, but what can I do with the photos without a model release ?, absolutely nothing , well not legally in Australia I cant , in the US I guess anything is possible </p>

<p>Of course you can sell them. The point is that whoever buys them, can only use them for editorial use and not for advertising use. Don't forget, it is the USER who is legally obligated to have a model release, not the photographer. However, since it is the photographers who shoot, it is customary to expect the photographer to have a model release ready IF s/he's intending to sell the photograph for advertising purposes.</p>

<p>But the law is clear - and you will find almost all stock photogrpahy houses will adhere to that - in that a model release is required for ALL images depicting recognizable people, REGARDLESS of where or how they were taken, be that a remote village in Laos or the catwalk of a NY fashion show. It is the law of the buyer's location that matters.</p>

<p>As some have pointed out, the laws vary a great deal from nation to nation. Even with a fair amount of "Common Law" in common as well as language, history, etc., even people in the "English" speaking countries don't have the same rights when it comes to privacy or "publicity." The "right of publicity" is the right of the individual to control the use of their persona (image, etc.,) for commercial purposes. Because the laws do vary so much, a stock agency looking to maximize it's potential sales will try to cover all the potential bases by asking for releases when available, not because it's a blanket universal legal requirement but because a release increases the sales potential. Sales can be made and images used in a variety of ways without having releases available.</p>

<p>There is no centralized location that I'm aware of that compiles the laws for various nations on this and as it does evolve somewhat over time, it might be risky to depend on it in any case (although there is or was a UNESCO site that dealt with copyright laws that I found a while back). One can do a search using a good search engine using the country name and "privacy rights publicity rights" or similar search terms and should get some good hits. I have had very little trouble doing that kind of search and finding good information for a number of countries. Individual photographer's blogs and forums are potentially low on the reliability scale, sites prepared and maintained by large national photographers' organizations or practicing lawyers in the country involved are probably high on the reliability scale. However, you are still on your own when it comes to deciding how competent or accurate the info may be or how directly it applies to the specifics of any given image/use.</p>