Advertising

[tom_johnson2]

 

<p >I was asked to photograph the residents of a house that cares for people with special needs. I did that job, everyone was pleased with the work, and I got a couple more jobs from word of mouth. I enjoyed the work and would like to advertise my services, but I am not sure how to do it in a tasteful way. I wonder if anybody here has any experience, or suggestions they would like to pass along.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Just remember that if you <em>use</em> some of those images in your advertising, you're going to need modeling releases. If the folks with special needs are under the care of a legal guardian, you're likely to need to get that third party involved. Tread carefully, there. If any of this tip-toes into the realm of <em>medical</em> care, you also run the risk of colliding with the privacy rules set out in HIPPA. It's an interesting niche market to explore, but it sounds like it might have some niche landmines to watch out for, too.<br /><br /><em><strong>EDIT:</strong></em> Woops. Did I mention I'm not lawyer? Me caveman. You might very well want to chat with a real legal person on some of the more delicate aspects of this. Forum-based advice is better suited to ISO settings and whatnot!</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<blockquote>

<p>Just remember that if you <em>use</em> some of those images in your advertising, you're going to need modeling releases.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Matt, but that is completely untrue.<br>

I am not a lawyer either but my side of photography deals with this almost every day.<br>

This idea of a model realeas needed for every photo of a person place or thing is simply misunderstanding how the law is written and how the photographer themselves are either protected or not protected.</p>

<p>W/o going into every nuance of business law as it relates the the shooter of the image, the following is the law.</p>

<p>1) You do not need a model release to photograph anything. Period. If we did, our cameras would not function.</p>

<p>2) The (USE) of the image is what detwrmines any violations of either copyright law or licensing requirements.</p>

<p>3) The (photographer) is almost never responsible for infringements unless they assume the role of "Publisher"</p>

<p>Copyright law, licensing, publishing, publisizing, editorial use, advert use etc..etc seem to be well (mis) understood by far too many photographers.</p>

<p>The poster made no information available as to HOW the images are to be used.<br>

This is legally what is known as (use) W/o this info, there is no way anyone can make a determination is a release is needed or not.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Which, Pete, is why I qualified that with the exact words, "if you use some of those images in your advertising" - with "if" being the key word, there. If you use someone's likeness in an advertisement, you certainly want their release to do so. And since the OP specifically mentioned advertising, it seemed appropriate to bring that up, don't you think?</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<blockquote>

<p>If you use someone's likeness in an advertisement, you certainly want their release to do so</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Matt, again, that statement standing on it's own is incorrect.</p>

<p>What is being advertised? Nursing homes? Wheel chairs? Medical care?<br>

Is there a trade marked item anywhere in the photo?..or does the poster want the photos for<br>

"Self Promotion"?</p>

<p>We still have NOT heard what the posters (USE) for the photos will be or under (WHAT) circumstances the photos were taken.<br>

Did the poster sneak the shots? Given permission to shoot them?<br>

Was the shoot controlled as in a studio setting or informal as he walked around?<br>

Private Property or public?<br>

Is there any expectation of privacy?<br>

Did the residents know there photo was being taken and why?</p>

<p>(If) the posters intent is for "Self Promotion" and there is no intent to "associate" or "Advocate" their likenesses to a opinion or endorsement; no release is necessary or required by any law. <br>

There is no gray area here in the above context. The only gray area is the posters (Intent of Use) which I am ASSUMING is "Self Promotion"</p>

<p>I strongly recommend ALL photographers who fear lawsuits study up on Copyright Law, Licensing Law, Model Releases, Trademarks.<br>

Also, google (JAMES BROWN Vs CORBIS) Interesting reading when money (a lot of it) is at risk.</p>

<p>I've heard these arguements over and over. There must be a basis in law for the existance of a model release as well as the question of; is one necessary?<br>

How many times have we heard "You can't take pictures in here" at a shopping mall? An airport? etc..etc..., the mall is probably NOT private property.<br>

Mall security people may say this, yet often there is no basis, legal or otherwise.<br>

Now the question is it worth the aggravation is another story all together.<br>

I wonder how many photogs with releases in hand have compensated the "model" in some way or another. As we all should know, w/o some form of compensation, a model release is useless.</p>

<p> Saying someting does not make it true. Bringing suit is meaningless until a judge decides</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>What is being advertised?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Irrelevant. Advertising, including self-promotion, requires a release. What is being advertised has nothing to do with it.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>What is being advertised?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Irrelevant. Advertising, including self-promotion, requires a release. What is being advertised has nothing to do with it.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Jeff;</p>

<p>Quote me from ANY civil code to back that up.</p>

<p>RE: "ASSOCIATION" ""PHOTOS USED FOR SELF PROMOTION DO NOT REQUIRE A RELEASE AS LONG AS THE PEOPLE IN THEM ARE NOT PERCEIVED TO BE (ADVOCATES) OR (SPONSORS) OF YOUR BUSINESS.<br>

Read Calif Code 3344 (e)</p>

<p>Paid wedding photographers are one of the rare exceptions to this law. For the wedding photographer to use the photos they shot as "self promotion" only, requires a release from each person identifiable in the photos. Why? Because the photographer is advertising and "associating" the photos with what they do for profit and benefit in some monetary form.<br>

This release should be included by all wedding shooters if they publically display the photos for anything other than editorial use. Even Editorial Use may not fly since the photographer was there for a specific reason. This is constantly being flirted with prior to political elections...Mudslinging..bordering on libel..yet it is allowed and ruled "In the publics best interest" and for the dissemination of the greater good. These less than complimentary images of candidates hide under the gray area of "Editorial Use."<br>

It is not a requirement to have this release if you are a wedding shooter, but heaven help you if a identifiable person is in the background of a photo who is let's say having a trist with his mistress. You, the weddng photographer w/o a release from Mr. Cheater can be sued for a variety of reasons. The photo was posted to a web site and his wife sees it..he loses everything in the divorce. The judge easily finds the photo itself caused the damage...and on and on and on..the wedding shooter is up the creek, and deeply!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What is being advertised has nothing to do with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I am sued, (WHAT) is being advertised, endorsed, has associaion with, has <strong>EVERYTHING</strong> to do with weather I will prevail or not.<br>

Have a look around at many stock agencies that have photos of PEOPLE without releases. These agencies (Licensee) <strong>MAY</strong> require a model release <strong>AFTER</strong> determining (<strong>USE</strong>) . Until that is determined, a photographer is well within the law to license his/her images without a release. Now the better agencies usually demand the release from the photographer only to protect themselves and place the responsibility right back on the photographer.<br>

If the photog is truly worried, I suggest the following be included in all submissions to any and all who may buy your work<br>

<em>"I make no representations concerning the existance of a model release in the following images"</em><br>

You probably won't sell as many images, but you will be safe from a law suit.<br>

I'm not the bad guy here my friends, just someone well versed in business law as it pertains to photography be it copyright, licensing, model releases, trade marks.</p>

<p>Irrelevent? Tell that to the estate of James Brown..who by the way lost their claim against Corbis.</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_johnson2]

<p>Thank you all for your responses, but I don't plan to use any of the photos I have for advertising. I am just trying to think of a way to reach interested people, and tell them what I can do for them. Are there orginizations I can contact, should I even us the term, "people with special needs"? How do I approach the subject? Has anybody here targeted this specific market? I would like to here your experiances.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<blockquote>

<p>I enjoyed the work and would like to advertise my services, but I am not sure how to do it in a tasteful way.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses, but I don't plan to use any of the photos I have for advertising.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe this is what threw me off topic? Hmmmm?</p>

<p>Tom, what is it you want to advertise or not advertise?<br>

Are you seeking other places to photograph special needs people?<br>

To what end? Sell photos?</p>

<p>I'm missing something here, but that's pretty normal after a 16 hour day. ;)</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[tom_johnson2]

<p>Yes, I am a portrate photographer and am looking to offer my services as a portrate photographer, to the families, or institutions that care for special needs people. The jobs I mentioned above were taken at group homes, of about seven to ten people. I shot each person, and a group shot. The house hung portrates on the wall, and the families purchaced some. I would like to do more group jobs like that, and for individual families. Some of the individuals require a lot of patiants, time, and a lot of shots. All of which I am willing to provide.<br>

<br />My concern is how to word the advertisments, and where to place them.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Ok..I think I see what you're after..and yes, it can be a delicate subject.<br>

I have no real advice how to contact the people you need.</p>

<p>As far as wording?...I would advertise my portraiture services and word it the same regardless of who I am photographing in a formal or semi-formal setting.<br>

They're people; right?<br>

They or their families either want some nice portraits or they don't.</p>

[davey morgan photography]

<p>I know for a fact that if you are trying to use the image in a contest or competition you absolutely must have model release forms from EVERYONE in the picture. (My husband won first place in a Nikon contest, and we had to track one of the guys down in Africa to get his form before we could receive the prize!) That being said, its always advisable just in case to get a model release form, but I'm not sure if it is necessary...when we do jobs we go ahead and make it part of the contract that we reserve the right to use the images online, in ads, etc. And ALWAYS get a contract before you do a job! Or they have no legal reason to pay you (made that mistake once too!) We have a lot of precautions in our contract, from "acts of God" to rescheduling fees, nonrefundable deposits, etc.</p>

[davey morgan photography]

<p>I agree with Pete, its not necessary to draw attention to the fact that they are special needs. The images will speak for themselves. If you want to do more special needs then simply advertise at their locations (like a wedding photographer advertises at bridal shops) Otherwise, it almost would seem rude to say "Special Needs Portrait Photographer" they're people too, and they're not stupid, they know what that means it screams "you're different, not normal" and that's not a feeling you want potential clients to have.</p>