work-for-hire, public institution/event

[chris_coffin3]

So, if I'm hired by a public library (work for hire) to shoot an event that is

open to the public (an opening of a new facility) that is being presented by the

library, for the library, on library property and they want to use said photos

for future outreach for the library, are model releases needed? Similar question

would be: no event taking place, just folks using the library. Again, work for

hire, all images would only be used for promoting the library, either services

or fund raising, that sort of thing.

I don't mind asking for releases in the latter situation, but the former event

may be somewhat chaotic.

Thanks all!

[dave_hoffmann]

If you are WFH, don't you just give them the images? Why would you need to get model releases?

[Matt Laur]

Lucky you! It's their problem. Unless, as part of your work-for-hire-as-a-photographer gig, you're also being paid to be legal counsel for the local government. Which I doubt. My non-legal advice suggests that your first use would be release-not-required if the images are used in an editorial capacity (say, supplied to newspapers reporting on the fact that the event happened), but might require a release if the attendee's likeness is used as a tacit endorsement of the library's services... essentially, as an ad. Just because it's a local library, under the auspices of the local governemnt, doesn't mean that promotional use isn't promotional use in the same way it would be for the local private golf course or day care center.

<br><br>

But the real answer is: make a call to the lawyers that the local government keeps on retainer or has in their employ. They're there for exactly this sort of reason. They'd go crazy if they thought that you were coming to your own conclusions on this topic, or thought that the library's management/PR people were doing so without actual, for-real legal advice. Have fun shooting, and leave that ugly stuff to the people who actually wake up in the morning <i>wanting</i> to do it!

[Matt Laur]

As for Dave's question, I presume the answer is that Chris will be the one walking around taking the pictures and interacting with his subjects. Unless the library also has someone else assigned to run around next to him with a clipboard to get name/signatures on releases (should it be determined that it's necessary in this context), then it could reasonably be considered Chris's chore to collect the info. But not to determine if, ultimately, releases are required for the intended use. I get why he's asking the question - he's covering the event, and it's on him to connect names to faces as he shoots.

[chris_coffin3]

Exactly what Matt says (2nd post). It's likely I'd be collecting the info. But of course I'll also be a bit busy shooting.

 

I will be asking their counsel but I would imagine that photography/model releases is probably not their specialty so I thought I'd throw it out to the list. It's the publicly/privately funded facility that made me question the absolute need for the release. Especially since these won't end up in a stock house (not legally anyway).

Thanks for all your input!

c

[chris_coffin3]

In the past in public areas I've seen situations where you can have a big sign saying that the environment you are entering is being photographed for promotional/commercial purposes and by entering the area you are in effect granting permission for the use of your likeness. Anyone have any experience with that kind of option?

[Matt Laur]

If you used an image of someone at that event in advertising (again, the fact that the event or beneficiary of the promotional material happens to be a public or semi-public entity doesn't change this), and they consider that to be an inappropriate use of their likeness, you'd have to be able to PROVE that they saw and understood, legally, what that sign at the door means. I expect that their lawyer could make short work of demonstrating that that's not adequate insulation against a lawsuit, and that reasonable people might agree that someone's attention could have been on something else as they walked past that sign. Maybe they didn't have their glasses on?

<br><br>

That's the whole point of getting them to SIGN a release. There's no way they can pretend they didn't see it. Stock sales aren't the issue, here. It's ANY entity using someone's likeness in a promotional capacity without their explicit permission. A signed release clarifies things for everyone involved.

[chris_coffin3]

I guess it just depends on the size of your legal budget.

Thanks.

c

[Matt Laur]

<i>I guess it just depends on the size of your legal budget.</i>

<BR><BR>

Actually, it doesn't. Your liability is your liability, regardless. The only variable here is your willingness to tolerate the risk of a lawsuit. And some people perceive their local or state governments to be a fine target for a lawsuit of this type. A signed release is pretty cheap insurance.

[argv]

The fact that the gig is work-for-hire means one and only one thing: that the client owns the copyrights to the photos. But even if you owned the copyrights to the photos, *they* are still the one publishing the photos, which means *they* are on the hook as to whether the proposed use may need releases. This is why the fact that it's a work-for-hire agreement is irrelevant.

 

Photographers do not need model releases to protect themselves. They need model releases only as a convenience for their clients who publish the photos because THEY need model releases. Photographers should get model releases because it makes the photos they sell more marketable because the scope of buyers is much, much bigger. Please familiarize yourself with the very basic fundamentals of model releases: who is responsible, and who is liable?

 

As it pertains to this situation here: the client's intended use of the photos may or may not require releases, and it's their responsibility to know. Some clients request that you obtain releases when you can, in which case, you would do so and pass them along to the client. If they didn't ask for it, you don't need to worry about it. Although, what I often do, is remind the client that they need to think about how they intend to use the photos, that they are on the hook if the use would require a release, and to consider whether they would like me to try to obtain releases on their behalf. I do this whether or not it's a WFH contract.

[mahonri_moriancumer]

Work for hire or not, if the subject in one of the photos decides to sue for having thelr likeness used in an ad they will name EVERYONE involved in the process. You, the photographer, are on that list.

Doesn't matter who you worked for or what you liability is you will still have to defend yourself or at the least file motions/negotiate to get yourself off the suit.

A hold harmless agreement should be in the work for hire agreement for your protection.

[argv]

> Work for hire or not, if the subject in one of the photos decides to sue for having thelr likeness used in an ad they will name EVERYONE involved in the process.

 

Of course the photographer will get called. Everyone does. No plaintiff would file a suit and no name every person possible. That's not the part that matters. When the case is filed, the lawyers representing the plaintiff know that the judge will instantly dismiss you because you've done nothing wrong. So, if the lawyers know this, why name the photographer? To get him on the side of the plaintiff. Because the photographer is basically untouchable, they want to use that person to their advantage by getting him to disclose information about the licensee that might not be very easily obtained otherwise, like what discussions were had, who was involved, etc. The photographer's testimony, which can only be favorable to the plaintiff's case, is critical. and if you don't name him in the suit, he's not obligated to participate in any way. You can't ask him to be a witness--he could decline. His testimony is best obtained through a very traditional legal process of naming him in the suit to get him involved, then persuade him to move over to your court.

[Spearhead]

<i>Work for hire or not, if the subject in one of the photos decides to sue for having thelr likeness used in an ad they will name EVERYONE involved in the process.</i><p>This is an absolute? Well, I must be missing something. This just happened with one of my photographs, and nobody bothered to name me. In fact, when I found out about it, I became instantly aware that my contract with the company had been violated also. But nobody named me. Funny thing, those absolute statement, they're easy to contradict.