Client privacy

[o._wagner]

For the first time in 3 years of photographing children, I had some parents

disapprove of me posting a preview of their session online. I always post 10

images or so of my client's session on my blog and I had a mother write me and

ask me to take them down. Naturally, I apologized to her profusely and took

them down, but I am just wondering about my right to use them on my website or

in print form for my portfolio? I got some wonderful images of their baby and

would be sad to never be able to use them but I totally respect their privacy.

 

Is this something that I would need to write up in a contract beforehand and

make them sign? I just assumed that when a photographer takes a photo, they

have the rights to use their own work.

[gary_watson]

Commercial use? How can minors contract by signing a release?

[leicaglow]

You really need to learn the law in your area. In the US, you must have the consent of the parent if the subject is under 18, for one, and you should always have a clause in your contracts about ownership, especially in being able to use them in your own marketing, including but not limited to electronic medium.

[john_h.1]

There's irony in your statement that you respect the privacy of your client's children because using the images for your own commercial promotion without consent is a cause of action for a lawsuit of invasion of privacy (There are four invasion of privacy types including appropriation of one's likeness for commercial purposes which is at issue here). In a non-legal sense, its also hard to say your respect children's privacy when you use pictures of them, without even consulting the parents, for your own monetary gain.

 

As to assuming a photographer can use the photo, in most instances the photographer will own the copyright but that doesn't mean you can use someones likeness in any way ole' you want. According to your approach, I could take your picture and plaster it all over billboards and tv commercials simply because i took your picture. Somehow I don't think you would agree if I did that. While your use of these children's likeness is not on billboards and television, its the same thing on a smaller scale.

 

Is there a contratual means to get permission? Of course. Its called a model release which can be in drafted in a way that is, by itself, a contract or part of one or merely as written evidence of the permission you recieved (from a parent or guardian). Some wisely use a format that serves as both in case the contract is unenforcable.

 

Don't use our responses as legal advice however. Consult an attorney for your legal advice.

[michael_blatner]

Without a Minor Model Release signed by a parent or legal guardian you cannot use

someone's likeness for commercial self-promotion or license the photo for stock or

commercial use. Most photographers that intend to use photos of people commercially

have model releases with them when they photograph.

 

If the images are used for art (as a print in a gallery) or editorial purposes (as in a

magazine for an article), your rights are protected by the First Amendment, and you are

allowed to use the images under the freedom of expression, although you may still be

sued since the law is not proscriptive (i.e., each case is open to interpretation by the

courts according to general principles applied to specific situations). This means in

practice that some artists have been sued for putting someone's likeness in an art show

(Philip-Lorca diCorcia) and some publications have been sued for editorial/news usage.

 

So even for editorial/news and artistic purposes it's often better to have a model release

signed, and it is required for any commercial use, including self-promotion, for both

adults and minors.

[o._wagner]

Thanks for the legal aspects, there's obviously things I need to look into.

 

John- Like I said, in 3 years I haven't had this come up. In fact, my clients know that images are posted on my blog and after our session is done they ask me how soon they will get to see them there. Going forward, I will make sure they are okay with it.

[twmeyer]

Use a site/page that you can password protect... t

[fullmetalphotograper]

If you are talking using images to promote your business then you need a model release. I

understand why parent might be concerned in my area we have lots of correctional

officers they, would not want their family photos posted for safety reasons. You can have

release as part of your contract. If you are just putting them just to the client their photos

then Tom is 100% correct.

 

You do have to remember there is a difference between commercial and editorial usage. I

recommend this book "The Law (IN PLAIN ENGLISH) Photographers" by Leonard D. Dubuff.

Another good book is Business and Legal Forms for Photographers.

[katie_siano]

Better safe than sorry! Always obtain a model release for every session you do. You can find many sample release forms online. You should really have a full contract that includes a release. You will find more and more issues as you go along that could become problems without one.

[james nelsen]

Of course, a model release is ideal. And of course, common courtesy demands permission. And of course, shots w/o a release can rarely be sold for commercial purposes including stock, etc. However, I attended a seminar last year; the attorney said that photographs without a contract to the contrary (example given was street shots, but applicable to "portrait") may be hung in a gallery, posted on photo.net, (for example) and on a Web Page (Gallery Section) - without a Model Release assuming the person is not falsely misrepresented or altered. It is simply a display of your work; it is your freedom of expression, your art, your copyrighted photograph. Like a true Art Gallery, the Web, your Web Page Gallery is just one more place to "hang" your work. Is he wrong? Case Law???

[kimberly_welty]

I agree here with finding out the laws for your location and always obtaining a model release. But I believe some of us overlook why a parent may not want a young child's photo shoot posted on the internet. Those pictures are out in the open for every good hearted person to look at and in the same hand are out their for every scum bag with bad intentions to look at. So I can see why a parent may be very hesitant to have their childrens pictures posted on the internet but may be ok with a photographer using in a real album for interested customers to view in person. Of course the same scum could seee the pictures in real life but more unlikely. Just my opinion on the subject matter and issues I myself have delt with in posting pictures.

[james nelsen]

While I agree, and I think probably everyone agrees with Kimberly that pedophile = "scum bad" (I might have used a stronger negative word)I think as photographers we need to be aware and protect our first admendment rights. I am an amateur street shooter; about a year and a half ago I had an encounter in a local public park. I had been shooting different people including one young child. A mother saw me and screamed, stop". I politely did (legally I did not have to stop). The husband then threatened me and demanded my camera. I told him not a chance; it was my camera, my film, and my right to shoot in a public place so bug off. He called the police. Police came and asked for my camera; I very politely said "No"; please call your supervisor. He did, and his supervisor confirmed that I had every right in the world to be taking pictures in a public place (1st Admendment) of whomever and whatever I wanted regardless as to age or permission or lack thereof.

 

Now back to being on point as to the original topic, legally speaking I had every right to post these public street shots on my Web Page in the Gallery Section (if I had a Web page)or for that matter on Photo.net; that again is my 1st Admendment right. It may not be "nice", and I personally would not have done so, however it is my right and we need to protect our rights otherwise they will be eroded - otherwise, one day we will have no rights.