Jump to content

Release to use photos on my website


skymike15

Recommended Posts

I shoot all kinds of portraits, children and adults, is there a release form I

should have them sign so that I can put something up on the web? If so is there

one online that I could print out and file for my records? Also whats the rules

on me posting my photos, if I am in a public location am I able to do whatever I

like with my photos? (website, sell, etc.) Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

 

I found about 5.6 million references to "model release" online with Google. So, yeah, there's some info and forms online. I've been compiling about a dozen I thought were pretty good into one that will serve my purposes. I got them from a variety of sources, including stock photo agencies who can be pretty picky about releases.

 

In essence, you need a release for any commercial usage of the photos. That includes advertising and a court might interpret the display of photos on a website as such.

 

On the other hand, they might also interpret some web usage as editorial, which does not require a release. It doesn't matter where the photos are taken, public or private property, it's the recognizable person in the image whom you need the release on, in order to use images of them commercially.

 

But, in certain instances you might also need a property release to use photos of a property in a similar manner.

 

You may also need permission from the owner to photograph on private property.

 

If you ever think you might want to sell a photo for use in an ad, or put it in an ad of your own, or use it in any commercial way, better get that model/property release. It's easier than not getting it and getting sued later.

 

Regarding children, an adult or guardian must sign a release for anyone under the age of 18 in most places, if the photos are to be used commercially.

 

Google for "portrait" "model release" and "property release". I bet you'll find tons of info. Or, go to Amazon.com and buy a book or two on legal issues and forms for photographers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends.

 

A release is needed if your use infringes (or could be seen as infringing) on any of the subjects' rights. The rights the subjects have vary somewhat from state to state. Generally, if the use infringes on the individual's privacy, might be considered defamatory, or infringes on their publicity rights, a release shows that you have their permission for that use.

 

A release doesn't mean you can't or won't be sued. It might make it more difficult for the other party to prevail.

 

Now if you are out and about in public, shooting traditional sorts of studio sessions, there aren't much in the way of privacy concerns. That isn't to say there are none, just that there isn't too much to be concerned about.

 

Likely the biggest concern would be if you use the image "commercially" and that doesn't mean simply selling it, it means use to advance or promote a business or other interest, the individual's publicity rights could be infringed. So if you post them in a way that might be seen as an endorsement or promotion of a business, including your own photography business, if you have one, you should have a release.

 

As noted, there are tons of "releases" out there. Some too simple, some too complicated and too broad. I'd suggest finding one from a competent, qualified source that fits the uses that you have. There are some which are set up for a professional model in the expectations that any (any!) kind of uses, modifications, textual annotations, context, "stories" or other applications are possible and no recourse would be allowed. While you'd find people signing them, many people wouldn't. OTOH, some have been so closely tailored to aparticular use that they don't offer much flexibility to you for other uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

> In essence, you need a release for any commercial usage of the photos.

 

Not quite so simple to say that, especially given the circumstances here.

The quick and short answer to your question is that you probably need a

release simply because you photographed these people under circumstances

where a publication of those photos could be a breach of privacy. What

isn't known is what the conditions were when you photographed these

people, and those conditions have a big effect on whether a release would be required.

 

> That includes advertising and a court might interpret the display of photos on a website as such.

 

No, they don't. this has been established many times, but the most

precedent-setting case (also the most recent) is Corbis vs. James

Brown. From my book:

 

The estate of James Brown sued Corbis for selling unreleased photos of

him to licensees that used the pictures in commercial ways. The uses

of the photos required a release, but the question is whether Corbis

was permitted to sell such unreleased photos as well. The trial court

held that Corbis's action as a stock photo agency does not require

a model release, since the site's use of the photos is merely a

"vehicle of information", therefore being noncommercial and therefore

Brown has no actionable right of publicity either under common law

or the Publicity Act. It's legal to sell unreleased photos to others

to use, and it's incumbent on licensees to obtain permission before use

(if such use requires permission).

 

You can read the court opinion here:

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2007/1stDistrict/August/1060870.pdf

 

> [a court] might also interpret some web usage as editorial,

 

The fact that it's a "web use" is irrelevant. The test to determine

whether a release is required is whether the depiction of the photo

would imply a form of advocacy or endorsement by the subject to the

publisher of the photo. Simply displaying a photo alongside other

photos on a website has (again) always been upheld as a "vehicle of information" (editorial use), unless the photo stood out in some way as implying the subjects were sponsors or advocates for the site's owner.

 

> It doesn't matter where the photos

> are taken, public or private property, it's the recognizable person

> in the image whom you need the release on, in order to use images of

> them commercially.

 

The fact that the person is recognizable does not itself trigger the

need for a release, since such a feature does not itself imply any

support or advocacy. As for public vs. private property, see the link

on "privacy" that I cited earlier for that discussion.

 

> But, in certain instances you might also need a property release to use

> photos of a property in a similar manner.

 

This is not what property releases are for. Property releases are only

necessary by publishers if the photos they are using are published in a

way that violate copyright or trademark protection. The fact that a

property is private does not satisfy that need, and you cannot register

"land" or any other natural object with the copyright office.

 

> You may also need permission from the owner to photograph on private

> property.

 

This is true, but has nothing to do with model releases. You merely

need permission to photograph. However, note that permission to

photograph is not the same as permission to publish. While you may

take all the pictures you like, and you may SELL those pictures, the

publication of those pictures may require releases if the photos

contain people and/or copyrighted items AND those items can be implied

to support or advocate the publisher. (There are some other details

as well, which can be found on my page on copyrights, cited above.)

 

> If you ever think you might want to sell a photo for use in an ad, or

> put it in an ad of your own, or use it in any commercial way, better

> get that model/property release. It's easier than not getting it and

> getting sued later.

 

Photographers are perfectly within their rights to license any photograph

that is theirs and in which privacy laws were not violated in the act of

taking the picture. Only the publisher is liable for being sued if the

use would require a release. Yes, it's true that getting a release is a

good idea, but only because it expands the marketability of your photos.

That is, publishers want to buy photos that have been released because

this is what protects them from being sued. You don't get releases to

protect yourself; you get them to increase the potential market for

your photos.

This is the most basic fundamental fact about model releases that all photographers should be clear on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...