small military event, releases

[eileen3]

My husband volunteered my services for free to a young airman's small promotion ceremony in his

squadron. By no means am I a professional so I don't mind the "practice." I am willing to give him the

photos in a high res. cd (all edited of course). Since there will be serveral people in the ceremony (family

and squadron/flight commanders) would I have to get releases signed by all of them or only the airman

receiving the promotion?

[adw]

You don't need releases for any of them unless you intend to sell the images as stock photography to be used in advertising.

 

Politely asking (verbally) for permission is a lot more effective...

[eileen3]

I don't intend on selling the photos but any images that I think is portfolio worthy will end

posted on a site such as this. won't i still need some sort of release form signed?

[picturesque]

For events such as weddings, the release is usually included in the contract, and the only signatures gotten are from the bride and groom (or whomever is doing the contracting). However, since this is a military event, I would take the extra step to get releases from any recognizable people in the images you intend to use for promotional purposes.

[andykowalczyk]

If this is at a military facility it is likely that you can not bring a camera - you need to check with the appropriate Public Affairs officer for permission.

[sublimeimages]

2nd what Andrew said. There should be PAO at the event you should ask them if its alright to take some photos and use them in your port. Then everyone you photograph should know that you are not PAO staff and ask them if they'd like to be photographed.

[john_h.1]

"You don't need releases for any of them unless you intend to sell the images as stock photography to be used in advertising."

 

This is incomplete. The issue is if the images will be used in advertising at all, not just if it is SOLD for use in advertising. Also, self business promotional uses amount to commercial use as well.

 

"For events such as weddings, the release is usually included in the contract, and the only signatures gotten are from the bride and groom (or whomever is doing the contracting)."

 

The contracting party(s) DO NOT have authority to release liability for anyone else. If you display someone's for advertising purposes, only that person can give permission. In the case of a minor, their parent or legal gurdian's permission is required. In some narrow situations, inapplicable here, someone may grant autority to an employer to release liability.

[craig_gillette]

We took pictures all the time. Your sponsor can determine if pictures are possible and let you know before arranging visit passes. Otherwise, treat it just as you would any other cookie dip/grip and grin type photo op. Get releases if you want to use them promotionally.

[Jerry_]

"If this is at a military facility it is likely that you can not bring a camera - you need to check with the appropriate Public Affairs officer for permission."

 

 

 

The only place a camera is not allowed is the flight line area or in a building where classified work/material is out in the open. Done 24 years in the military....never been "busted" yet for having a camera on a base.

 

 

 

The trick is to be low-key in gaining business on base: anyone with a higher rank (in the U.S. Air Force anyhow) is discouraged from having business on a regular basis with persons of a lower rank. One-time business deals _ like selling a used car is OK; but going through the barracks trying to hustle the younger troops is not a keen idea.

[eileen3]

This is actually a low key promotional ceremony within the flight. My husband is the flight

commander and offered to the airman, who wanted photos taken, my service free of charge

(which I don't mind cause I want to practice and trying to build a portfolio). As far as access

to the facility I have no problem with that, I have taken my camera in the shop several times.

Since I do plan on using photo(s) that may be portfolio worthy and may possibly be used in a

website or a hard copy portfolio (to promote myself later on down the line), I still need to get

release forms signed from everyone in the photo, is that correct? Also, thank you for the

responses.

[fotografz]

"The issue is if the images will be used in advertising at all, not just if it is SOLD for use in

advertising. Also, self business promotional uses amount to commercial use as well."

 

Huh, not exactly true. Showing samples of your work to get more work generally falls

under the domain of "right to work" that most, if not all, states recognize.

 

Since getting releases from everyone at a wedding is generally accepted as being

impossible, and it is generally known that photographs WILL be taken at wedding, and

those photographs WILL be used as samples to get more wedding photography work,

attendance as a guest is generally accepted as being a defacto release for those uses. If

the subject objects to being photographed at this private party, they can opt out of

attending.

 

If "for profit" were the iron clad "release" rule, then no one could take any photo at any

wedding of anyone who had not signed a release, because the wedding photographer is

working for profit.

[jbrizendine]

I have 18 years experience in the military and I am my unit?s photographer. This is my day job. It is my understanding that including the photos taken in your portfolio and showing them in a one on one forum will not be a problem. However, you must get permission from the Public Affairs Officer to use any images of service members in uniform in advertising campaigns. It is unlikely this permission will be given due to recent changes in security protocols and the fact that it may imply government endorsement of your business.

[picturesque]

I'd say it would be "prudent" to get releases from any recognizable person in the images you intend to use for promotional purposes.

[craig_gillette]

Nadine is right. Publicity laws vary from state to state and one would be foolish (as in "not prudent") to accept casual and unreferenced comments as authoritative legal advice. Especially when fogged up by discussing "taking" a picture as opposed to "using" it - which is the issue.

[fotografz]

No one here appears to be a contract lawyer, so I guess no one one's advice is

authoritative legal advice is it Graig? Including yours.

 

My OPINION is based on consulting the contract lawyer that advises my ad agency on

contract law concerning the use of talent in advertising, promotion and electronic media.

This is national wide advice because our ad clients are national advertisers.

 

The fact that you get a release doesn't mean that it is a blanket endorsement of use. Legal

releases have to spell out the use in detail, and the time period for that use has to be

spelled out.

 

The comment about the difference between taking and using images is irrelevant since it's

general knowledge that photos taken at a wedding will be used and sold for profit, and

says so in the contract between the wedding client and the photographer before hand.

 

If it is necessary and prudent to get releases for event work, than those prudent folks

better take 250 releases with them to each wedding they photograph for money and/or

want to use for promotional applications.

 

I won't be doing that because I did consult a lawyer ... which I suggest others also do.

[craig_gillette]

"Since getting releases from everyone at a wedding is generally accepted as being impossible, and it is generally known that photographs WILL be taken at wedding, and those photographs WILL be used as samples to get more wedding photography work, attendance as a guest is generally accepted as being a defacto release for those uses. If the subject objects to being photographed at this private party, they can opt out of attending."

 

Remains irrelevant. The OP isn't shooting a wedding. She's shooting a military promotion ceremony. Those people almost certainly don't have the luxury, or for that matter, the desire, to opt out of participating. One might suggest that they are forced to participate.

 

Even if (wedding) guests are aware of cameras and pictures to be taken, I doubt it's sustainable that the average guest even has a clue that attendance at a wedding also means supposedly they have given tacit permission to be photographed for promotional purposes.

 

The common discussed use of model releases to document a business arrangement between pro and model, even to the extent of the "street" shooter expecting some sort of later use, is presented as having a basis in contract law. Not the pro's "right to work." Much of the law of contract is concerned with seeing that agreements are arrived at in a way that meets at least minimum standards respecting both parties' understanding of, and freedom to decide whether to enter into, the transactions. Hmmh. But here, we don't need any contract and one party assumes the other party is fine with it.

 

And makes one wonder if the case was simply that knowing about cameras being present and advertising being common = permission, why so many venues, parks, businesses, etc., make such distinct efforts to get pro forma notifications in place on signs, in programs, on web-sites, etc. So an "informed" opt-out is needed for those places but at a wedding, it's assumed?

 

 

"If "for profit" were the iron clad "release" rule, then no one could take any photo at any wedding of anyone who had not signed a release, because the wedding photographer is working for profit."

 

You're kidding, right? Profit and/or pay is not the issue, nor was it offered up as an issue. Promotional use and/or advertising was mentioned. And one could easily take all the pictures they wanted and be paid for all of them with no hint of a release. The releases used in wedding contracts don't authorize the taking of the pictures. Oh sure, the contract hires the shoot but that's not the "release." The "release" is a quick paragraph or so that says "Joe Pro can use my pictures for his advertising." That can be and is often simply dropped. It's not needed to take the pictures.

 

The issue remains the use of an individual's image without permission to promote someone else's business. And how that fits with individual state pulicity law (like this little chunk of code: "Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof..."

[fotografz]

As I said, seek your own REAL legal council concerning what is and isn't rquired in terms of

subject releases when working for profit or for use in self-promotion.

[john_h.1]

"No one here appears to be a contract lawyer"

 

I am. Having said that, my comments are not legal advice but mere conversation. Now, to the comment that I find so interesting.

 

"Showing samples of your work to get more work generally falls under the domain of "right to work" that most, if not all, states recognize."

 

"Right to work" waives invasion of privacy protections? Never heard of that one. I suppose it could exist on some level but I would have to research it to believe it.

 

First showing samples of work' is uncertain language. Showing someone a picture of a deck you built is one thing but we are talking about using someone's likeness for business promotion. That carries protections that the deck does not.

 

A photographer has implied permission to use wedding quests likeness for self advertsing purposes? To follow that logic, a photographer could show an image they took of a guest and display it on a huge billboard advertisement for their wedding business and the guest has no right to control use of the image because the phtographer has a "right to work" by showing examples? It doesn't pass the laugh test. If there is any right to use the likeness, it would likely be very narrow in its use.

 

There are some limited instances where someone can give consent for others. For example, parents and legal guardian may do so. Employers can in very limited ways. In these scenerios, the party that did not give express consent is subordinated to the other party. Wedding guests are just guests. They are not the servants or agents of the people who hire the photographer. They may not even know the person who signed the contract and we are to presume they are inferior to them so that their legal rights can be waived? Not buying it.

 

Craig raises good arguments. Just because guests may know there is a pro photographer is hardly notice that they are advertising fodder. Should they realize their image will be taken, displayed and sold elsewhere? Of course. Should they expect to have their face displayed at the photographers booth at the bridal expo? That's a stretch. When people's behavior is implied to mean something, its usually because the behavior should reasonably be expected to mean that consequence. It seems unreasonable that guests mere presence at a wedding should them part of a photographer's ad campaign.

 

Craig also correctly distinguishes for profit use which, by itself, requires no permission from commercial use (which includes self business promotion) which does. I can't figure out why the whole for profit discussion would be relevent anyway.

 

I also agree with Craig that the scenerio in the original post is far removed from a wedding. Even if wedding guest's imagery can be used in promotion, the reception scenerio is even more distant in terms of photographed parties expectations about advertising use.

 

As a practical matter, wedding guests images are shown to prospective clients all the time withtout consent. Nothing usually comes of it because they don't know. The photographer just shows the images to people. When the images are online or in promotioanl advertisements, thats when the people in the image will find out and the trouble starts.

 

Again, this isn't legal advice and don't accpet it as such. Consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction for reliable advice. The whole guest impled consent assumption has come up before. Maybe I have something to learn, or others do. I plan to research this and discuss it later on. Maybe in a couple weeks. Maybe one of the other attorneys who visit here has actual knowledge about the topic and can weigh in.

[fotografz]

So, if all that is true John, then every single wedding photographer is in violation of

invasion of privacy against all the people in the samples they show, and are potential

targets for lawsuits unless they have signed releases for all recognizable people in their

pictures.

 

 

That would include more than just a wedding prints at an Bridal expo, but all images on

the web ... including all the images on photo.net wedding galleries that do not have

releases for every recognizable person in the photo ... since those galleries have been

touted as a place to send potential clients.

 

It also would mean that providing venues with images to sell their establishment to other

Brides is a violation on the part of the venue also.

 

Etc., etc.

 

And if it is true, and people get wind of it in this litigious country, we can kiss this

industry goodby.

[john_h.1]

I don't see that happening. Some of those examples are not exactly advertisements and others don't get much attention. Examples I gave are at the extremes which are likely to cause notice and problems. Also, like I suggested, there may, indeed, be some level of exception or wiggle room. We'll get more answers soon. As you reccomended, no one should take our word for it here. I, myself, wouldn't count on anyone being able to waive other's arms length third party rights.

 

The industry will continue. It is surviving another kind of problem. Rampant copyright infringement. The industry survives nevertheless.

[always improving]

Eileen,

I am a military spouse who has taken many pictures for my husband's shop. The one thing that I know for sure is that you must speak with the Publice Affairs office at the base. This is to make sure that you can use any photos you like from the shoot with out getting in trouble with the military. I have done this and have been told that when a (Marine) signs the contract he agrees to have his picture taken. As far as I know this is the same for all branches of the service. But as I said before I would speak with Public Affairs first and for most.

 

Kathryn Stapelman

[craig_gillette]

I think the biggest issue here is the potential for an appearance of conflicts if the C.O.'s wife use's pictures from "his" unit members commercially - that is promotionally, even if OK'd by the PAO for distribution and consistency with regs, etc.

 

There's plenty of information readily available on the net, in forums, etc., discussing "publicity." A person has the right to control commercial use of their own image. This isn't new. It isn't necessarily consistent from state to state. Wedding photographers slide under the radar because most people don't care about being included peripherally in the wedding products. But inclusionm in the albums, etc., isn't a "publicity" issue nor likely to be even a "privacy" issue. But when you slap their face on your advertising, why not know what the legal issues are where you advertise. I hardly find that the world will come to an end if a photographer trying to take advantage of another's wonderful image/presence at an event can't get a release. Get another picture or call the bride/whoever and try to get permission. If it's worth doing, it'w worth doing right. Heck, you'd find them in a heartbeat if their check bounced.

[eileen3]

Thank you all for the responses. Hopefully I can actually do this shoot cause now my entire

family has fallen ill and I have two days to recover. Jonathan and Katherine, thank you for

reminding me about PA. Besides going through PA, I think I will just play it safe by getting

releases from everyone in the photo. Like I said, it is a very small, small ceremony (max of 30

and not everyone will be front and center during ceremony). But again thank your for the

response, it did stir up lots of questions and some answers in my head.