model release for wedding guests?

[sam_ellis]

A recent thread that is now closed got me thinking about something that has been in the back of my mind for a

while. My contract states that the bride and groom grant permission for my images to be used for promotional

purposes. If only the bride and groom sign the contract, what about images of the guests? I know you're not lawyers,

I'm just wondering if the contract can be assumed that it applies to all they have invited.

 

Are we getting to the point in this country that we need to have a model release next to the guestbook? LOL

 

Thanks,

 

Sam

[josh_baker]

The bride and groom can't sign away the rights of the other guests for them, but if they are not the subject of the photo then you don't need a release. This means that if there are pics of the bride and groom with guests in the background then you don't need thier release, but if you are using a guest are part of the shot composition (and they can be identified) then you need the guest's release. This is the way it is for street photog. here in Canada as far as I understand.

I haven't heard of it as a problem yet, but I bet someone with too much time on their hands will make it an issue soon.

[Spearhead]

That sure isn't the way it works in the US. If someone is recognizable and you use it for any kind of promotion/advertising, you will need a release. It's interesting, I've heard Canada is actually tougher. I'd like to see some evidence that you can do this there, including for street photography.

[tyler_bertrand]

Since I am relatively new to the business of photography I have had recent talks with my lawyer about these types of situations. One recommendation he made to me was, have some sort of communication to the guests informing them that the event is being photographed, and that if anyone has a problem with the photographer using their likeness to let him/her know. It has to go out to all of the guests (a sign at the event upon walking in, or a mass email, snail mail msg informing them). This saves you from having to get a ton of releases, hunting down names and contact info, etc. The only thing I would still get a release for is if it's a shot of a child. I'm still new but it seemed like a good piece of advice.

[plavchak]

Just shoot the wedding and don't worry about it. No one is going to or be able to get a release for every guest that may show up in a wedding photo. I think anyone over the age of 5 who has ever been to a wedding well knows that it will be photographed. If not they will soon notice the person with the large camera (s) running around the place and figure it out. Post your pictures. If you get a complaint from a guest, ask for a release then or take the photo down. I don't think anyone is going to take the time and money to sue you to win a $50 judgment.

 

Now all bets are off if the person is famous or you do something stupid with the pictures. Other than that don't loose any sleep over it. By the way, for those who will post stories about friends of friends of a third cousin that got sued for this please post your souce of information along with date, location and names of those involoved in the legal action.

[plavchak]

Sorry I should have added that I would make sure you have a release in your wedding contract and that the bride/groom knows what that includes. But this is for the B&G not the guest IMHO.

[craig_gillette]

It's not just $50 in California. Any individual has the right to control the use of their own image commercially (in the US). How that plays out is somewhat different from place to place.

 

The professional and legal approach is to have the releases if required for the uses.

[alec_myers]

"The only thing I would still get a release for is if it's a shot of a child."

 

Why would that make any difference?

[john_h.1]

"I'm just wondering if the contract can be assumed that it applies to all they have invited."

 

Soooooo, can I invite you to my wedding and sign a piece of paper that will let your likeness captured there by some phoptographer to be used in advertising in a studio, online, in television, on billboards, ect. without consequence? Hmm.The ability to sign away someone else's rights to their own likeness. That's an interesting concept.

 

Indeed, some people say (usually there's one in each thread concerning this exact question) the fact that someone knows their picture is likely to be taken at some event allows this. In that situation, no one even needs to sign away someone else's right to likeness for commercial use.

The pro photographer and all the camera wielding guests already own it.

 

Why even bother with model releases? If wedding couples can sign away the publicity rights, heck, anyone can. If the fact that someone's picture is likely to be taken governs, well, everybody gets their picture taken. Model releases Schmodel releases. Who needs em?

[rayt]

Unless the image with the person, even recognizable, implies that the person in the image is promoting a product or a cause, a model release is not required. Using images with people in them to promote your business is OK as long as there is nothing in the image that implies or infers the people in the image are endorsing your business. You are using the photograph as an example of your skills not of people that are endorsing your business.

 

This is no different than shooting street scenes with recognizable people. You do not need a model release. Shoot at a sporting event with recognizable people. You do not need a model releases.

[geoffcauble]

It isn't practical to get releases from guests, I would even say it is insensitive and unprofessional to try. My contract deals with the release from the bride and groom, those are the images I most need for print/web advertising. I will use photos of guests but if I'm asked to remove them I certainly would. I'm in the wedding photography service business and I don't need to fight it out with a guest over something so small, not good PR. I could see carrying model releases and if you take a terrific capture of a guest that you know you want to use you could approach that guest, tell them how wonderfully photogenic and model like they are and ask them if they would mind signing a release so that you could use the incredible photo of them that you just took in future advertising. I'm sure most guests wouldn't hesitate to sign, particularly when they are being told they look like a model.

 

Beyond that, I only use photos for select advertisements and images are listed in galleries on my website only (as stated in my contract). I would never post photos to Flickr, Facebook or any other social site. I have experienced having photos of parties/events I attended posted by friends on these sites and don't like how invasive it feels.

[john_h.1]

Raymond doesn't understand that showing portraits and other significantly displayed likenesses of people as an example of work to promote their photography business can itself amount to an implication that the people shown approve of they way there are displayed and that they endorse their likeness being used to promote the business. He will tell you that a lawyer well experienced in this area told him that its perfectly safe to use such images even on billboards and television commercials and other such displays to promote one's business because it shows an example of their work. Personally, I accept the lawyers well experienced in this area who advise, to the contrary, that it is not a safe course of action.

 

The situation is very similar to displays of people in hair salons with fancy hairdos which many people have seen. Their likeness is being used as examples of the haircuts people can get. Under Raymond's theory, one can go out and get studio shots like those, or even pictures of someone on the street and use them at will to show what kind of haircuts a hair salon chain provides. Of course this will not pass muster. Even in a state that requires an element of at least implied endorsement, it is reasonable for a court to find that such pictures can be reasonably implied as an endorsement by the pictured person even if the likeness happens to be used as an example of someone's work or style they can emulate.You won't see these salon or haircut chains displaying such unreleased images for this reason.

 

A face in the large crowd exception is valid in some states, some exceptions have been carved when an image is shown next to or near and ad but not actually part of it. Even an all out 'endorsement' state, one can MAYBE safely use an image where someone looks very unhappy because it may be difficult for any reasonable person to conclude that they are endorsing something but it depends on the context. Consult with a lawyer in your own state (Maybe one other than Raymond's) for these issues instead of following our advice here.

[craig_gillette]

Given that you probably have an active business connection with the original customer (B&G) it seems that if you find some world-stoppingly wonderful image of a guest, or wedding party members, it can't be that difficult to get back to them and make contact. Of course, that might mean you have to actually negotiate the use of the image instead of just using it for free, but it's worth it or it isn't.

 

While it's likely that most people neither know their "publicity" rights nor care about the use of their image, that's quite different from a professional photographer not knowing the rights of the people in their images and what the risks are if one uses them without permission. It's probably a really good idea to know the differences where you are between privacy rights, publicity rights and editorial uses, etc.

[sam_ellis]

Hmmm, I thought I already posted a reply but it's not here. If this shows up twice, sorry about that.

 

This question was basically posted as a "feeler". With the propogation of Internet photo sharing, I was wondering if there were any instances of guests being offended or photographers being sued because they posted photos of guests online.

 

Thanks for the input. Curiosity appeased.

 

Sam

[john_h.1]

The instances of offence or lawsuits in that particular situation is comparatively low than with others. The use is less

likely to come to the attention of the person shown, cause less offense and less likely to inspire litigation than a

scenerio where their image had been used in other bigger ways. Compensentory damages would likely be low due to

the limited use. That's why some photographers use unreleased images for their own business promotion, they see

the risk and odds of drastic consequences as low.

[Ian Shalapata]

There was a question regarding the law in Canada. The following case has established the rules in the modern (digital) era.

 

According to Krouse v Chrysler Canada, for the tort of misappropriation of personality to be established, 4 elements must be established.

 

1. There is an element of commercial exploitation of a person’s personality.

 

2. The person is clearly identifiable in the medium used and to their respective communities.

 

In the Krouse case the plaintiff was the centre of focus in a photograph although only his number ‘14’ was visible. Conversely La Barca was clearly identifiable. Those on the beach recognized her, proving that she is clearly identifiable to her community. In Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps the plaintiff, an expert water-skier with an international reputation, was photographed by a PR firm and the photograph was used in an advertising campaign. The court held that the commercial use of his representational image by the defendant, without consent, constituted an invasion and impairment of Athan’s exclusive right to market his personality. The court found for Athans despite the fact that the image itself would have been recognisable only to a limited number of people, which might be the case for La Barca also.

 

3. The person does not consent to the use of their personality.

 

4. Damages; either emotional or financial losses are proven.

[Ian Shalapata]

I should have provided the reference for that.

 

http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:sudOEg93C8wJ:users.ox.ac.uk/~ejip/Tottenham%2520Submission%25201.doc+misappropriation+of+personality+canada&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

[Ian Shalapata]

You may want to check out the free legal advice at this link as well.

 

http://www.zvulony.com/publicity_rights_lawyer.html