Street/Model Release

[gamitch]

<p>I was wondering if it was necessary to get a model release from people during street photography. Occasionally I take a look at the photos from the street photography category and I always wonder if it is necessary to obtain model relaeses from each individual in the photos.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>Short ansswer is no in the USA!</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>Its a matter of usage. For "commercial" use you'll need the release. For editorial use you are good to go.</p>

[gamitch]

<p>Walter, what if it's for posting on Photo.net, which is neither commercial or editorial. Does the same rules apply for Canada John?</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>If your subjects happen to be included in images shot in public areas in the US, you should be good to go. Nevertheless, I heard there're law in Europe that require photographers to get model releases for all individuals recognizable in their images.</p>

<p>Do a search on this topic via google might help...</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>I live and work in Europe and I don't (have to) bother</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>In the USA, it comes down to usage. If you are planning to use the image for commercial use (advertising, promoting goods and services) then you need a model release. When you shoot editorial (newspapers, gallery or online in photo.net). My personal rule is if I plan to sell the image for anything other than editorial I get a release.<br>

For Canadian Law you may want to check these threads<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00QMy6">http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00QMy6</a><br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00Knab">http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00Knab</a><br /></p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>what if it's for posting on Photo.net, which is neither commercial or editorial.</em></p>

<p>Posting on Photo.net IS editorial.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>If your subjects happen to be included in images shot in public areas in the US, you should be good to go.</em></p>

<p>The physical location of the subject is irrelevent except for the rare Invasion of Privacy tort claim of Intrusion and the uber extremely rare instance of false light if the location is somehow used to falsely present someone as in a negative manner.</p>

<p>The vast majority of model releases are intended for use by those who display images for commercial/promotional use as a defense to misappropriation claims. If all that mattered was if the subject be on public property, I could take a picture of Shuo and use the image in all manner of advertising and there would be nothing he could do about it. Of course that has no merit. That's because its the use that matters, not the place (except as mentioned above).</p>

[jaybee]

<p>Check This: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia</a></p>

<p>The actual court ruling can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50171.htm">http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50171.htm</a></p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>So, do paparazzi get release forms from the celebreties they shoot ? I am guessing that the unflattering photos of stars and starlets one sees at the grocery store checkout were not "released" and they are certainly for money.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Occasionally I take a look at the photos from the street photography category and I always wonder if it is necessary to obtain model relaeses from each individual in the photos.</p>

<p>Not needed because the use is not commercial - and usage is what matters. Put someone's image on (for example) billboard advertising, products such as a cereal box, a company's promotional material, etc, then a release would be needed.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Stephen,

 

Those photos you see at the checkout tabloids are editorial, freedom of the press, not commercial. It doesn't matter if the tabloids are sold for money and the photographer is paid big bucks for the photo. It is still considered editorial not commercial use.

[mpblaze]

<p>Also, if you sell the prints, thats legal... you cannot use it for commercial use. Commercial means like in a ad on tv or an ad in a magazine</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>So, showing street photos in a gallery and selling them is legal, but using candid photos of people on the street in toothpaste ads is not legal. Is that a reasonable summation?</p>

[akajohndoe]

Public is public. No release needed in USA.

[Ian Taylor]

<p>If you get a model release it ain't "street".</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>Public is public. No release needed in USA.</em></p>

<p>It depends on the use as discussed above.</p>

[michael j hoffman]

<p>"<em>So, showing street photos in a gallery and selling them is legal, but using candid photos of people on the street in toothpaste ads is not legal. Is that a reasonable summation?</em>"</p>

<p>Reasonable? Probably not, but it is accurate and correct.</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

[kevin_oconnell1664880348]

<p>What ever you come up with try not to exploit them. you can get just as good or better shots with their consent. Don't be one of those cowards that shoot from a block away with a tele-photo lens shooting street people in bad situations.<br>

Good luck</p>

[lapsze_leung]

<p>What if I were to sell the street photographs as a print for display (in someone's home or office) and does not promote any goods or services? </p>