Using Wedding Photos for Advertising Purposes

[nicole_wagner]

<p>I was wondering how it works with the model release at weddings. In my contract, it states that I can use their photos for advertising purposes. They sign the contract allowing me to use pictures of them, but what about all of the other guests I take pictures of and want to use for advertising. They don't have any say in the matter. Has anyone had any issues with this or had clients ask them not to use certain pictures? Thanks</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Except under a few distinct circumstances, like parents/guardian signing for a minor child, etc., one person can't sign for another. An individual retains their publicity rights when participating in or as a guest at a wedding or other event unless they have signed a release.</p>

<p>It doesn't seem to be a problem very often though. One could contact the other participants through the B&G if needed, I'd think.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>They don't have any say in the matter.</em> [?]<br>

<br /><br />Could you imagine a scenerio where your likeness could be captured and used for advertising and the like and there would be nothing you could do just because you were invited to some event and the invitor happened to signed some contract you were not a party to? Craig is correct although publicity rights technically could be granted in a verbal arrangement. That would usually be pointless, however, since it would be difficult to prove that the arrangement exists if you were challenged on it.</p>

<p>Some people assert that some jurisdictions, in a misappropriation matter, require that the person shown in an advertisement must be seen as endorsing the product, service or cause involved and that mere portfolio use is disqaulified from misappropriation claims. To the extent that is true, it is unwise to assume that a jury won't think the people shown are not endorsing the service.<br>

<br />Another growing excpetion to these invasion of privacy claims is the 'face in a crowd'. This tends to follow endorsement theory in that people who happen to be one of many in a big crowd cannot be seen as endorsing anything if they happen to be in the shot as part of a big crowd.</p>

<p>Small time uses of someone's likeness in a portfolio example will not expose people to the same level of liability as mass commercial use of the likeness for various reasons. The safe route, however, is to obtain a model release for people whose image you will use for promoting your business.</p>

[nicole_wagner]

<p>When displaying photos from a wedding on your website or in a sample proof book, it is impossible to get everyone's permission to use their pictures. The bride and groom are surrounded by people at the wedding and they are going to get into the shots. Aside from that, it is necessary to show a variety of people in your display materials to properly portray your work to potential customers. I am not talking about bilboards here, just website material and sample proof books.</p>

[aimee_pieters]

<p>This is one of those "theory vs. reality" scenarios. Yes, you should have a release for anyone in an image you're using. If it's on the internet and/or publice places, you're more susceptible to getting caught. If it's in an album that you're showing to a prospective client, you're less likely to get caught. But the law is the law and no one on this forum can give you the advice you really need from an attorney....-Aimee</p>

[steve_carless]

<p>In general, you can use the images for "editorial use" on your website gallery/blog and samples you show to clients as a artist showing their work to potential clients. You cannot sell it or use it in a competition. Using it in printed material like flyers, cards, etc is usually not permitted without a release.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>you can use the images for "editorial use" on your website gallery/blog and samples you show to clients as a artist showing their work to potential clients.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

In states where an apparent endorsement is an element to misappropriation claims this may be so. There is still the potential, even in these states, that a trier of fact (a jury or judge acting as one) could find that a reasonable person will see a particular use as amounting to an endorsement. In states that don't require such the element of endorsement to prove a misappropriation claim, there is significantly more risk. There are arguments on both sides that can be made and the issue is not well settled.<br>

<em></em><br>

<em>You cannot sell it or use it in a competition. </em><br>

Incorrect. Sales and competitions involving images of people are frequently for editorial purposes and are permissable in those instances.<br>

<em></em><br>

<em>Using it in printed material like flyers, cards, etc is usually not permitted without a release.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

This is also incorrect. The physical format the image of a person is shown on is not the issue, its the purpose the image is used for that counts. According to Steve, images can be used to show examples of someone's work. To the extent that is true, it does not matter if it is on a website, card or flyer. Its either a proper use or it isn't. There's no website vs. paper distinction. Its either commercial use or it isn't either way.</p>

<p>Aimee's practical vs. technical discussion is useful but its good to get the technical stuff correct. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Bottom line is you are in business. You should make decisions that are in the best interests of your business. If you have got an awesome picture of a guest, I would display it as part of your portfolio, unless, for some reason somebody objects. My policy (written) is that I reserve the right to display and sell any image I took (in my contract) but am always willing to respect an individual's privacy rights, and will generally remove a specific photo if someone asks. I've found that most people are quite flattered when they grace the pictures you feel are portfolio worthy...</p>

<p>Legally, you can display the images you took. Regardless of who they are, <em>especially </em> if they were taken in a public place. If they portray the subject in a misleading or 'damaging' context, you DO subject yourself to civil penalties (assuming it wasn't part of a 'modeling' shoot, w/ appropriate release), however, there have to be 'damages' (think of somebody getting fired because of documented 'immoral' conduct), but c'mon if they had ANY legal basis to simply restrict commercial use of such <em>unauthorized</em> images, do you really think thousands of paparazzi would be able to snap at will at celebrities across the world (with all the money they've got, their attorneys could <em>create</em> a loophole if it were possible)? <br>

HOWEVER, obviously, you're not a paparrazi, and if someone objects to how you use pictures of them do you really want to risk your reputation over one or two pics?like I said.... a business.</p>

<p>I won't comment on the 'legal' advice here, but I would recommend consulting an attorney to draw up your contract, that way you are most effectively covered in the widest range of circumstances.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Paparrazzi sell images to media outlets and the media sell papers, TV programs, etc. This is an editorial use of the image. It is protected under the 1st Amendment.</p>

<p>Use of the image to promote a business is "commercial" use and could well be an infringement on the subjects rights. It is not a protected use under the 1st Amendment. The contract signed by a B&G (or parents, whatever) can only "release" the use of images of the people that are parties to the contract. Third parties, like other members of the wedding party, guests, etc., retain all of their own publicity and privacy rights.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>"Regardless of who they are, <em>especially </em>if they were taken in a public place."</p>

<p>Its the use that matters in commercial use cases, not the location of the subject in the image.</p>

[c_smith2]

<p> My contract has a clause that states that the B & G will need to notify guests that they are being photographed and that any guest who may not want their image shown should notify the photographer. So far, I have not had any issues.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>My contract has a clause that states that the B & G will need to notify guests that they are being photographed and that any guest who may not want their image shown should notify the photographer.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

If the B&G follow through. it can prompt anyone who may object to their image being used do so BEFORE the image of them is used and head off problems. To that end, this approach can be helpful.</p>

<p>It has no binding effect whatsoever though. Since the guests are not a party to the contract anything they "allow" you to do is without consideration being offered to them in return. In a scenerio where there is 'permission' to use the likeness that is not based on contractual consideration, the permission can be revoked.</p>

<p>Bottom line, you still can't sign away other's publicity rights.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I guess someone should answer the OP question....</p>

<p>Short answer to the OP's question is (in the US):<br>

No, you don't need a release to use pictures you took of guests at a wedding for advertising and self promotion as part of your portfolio/ gallery (for example on your website).<br>

BTW, stay away from overlaying a quote they didn't make on that pic... that <em>may</em> need a release.</p>

<p>If you want a long answer, email me, and I'll shoot you a link or three so you can read about it for the next week and a half. .... because it's simple, but it's not...</p>

 

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>stay away from overlaying a quote they didn't make on that pic... that <em>may</em> need a release</p>

</blockquote>

<p>er... That should read "stay away from overlaying a quote on that pic... that <em>may</em> need a release"</p>

<p>...this is since they <em>could</em> then be seen to be <em>promoting or advocating</em> your service, which they <em>may</em> have a problem with... see? not so simple.</p>

<p>LOL ... of course I think those are tacky as heck anyway!</p>