model release for fine art

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>since the European convention on human rights gives a right for the private lives of individuals</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In the U.S we have similar laws; how similar to the EU I have no idea.</p>

<p>We have a television program here called "Cops." Essentially it is real life as it happens video journalism where a camera crew rides along with law enforcement officers as they handle day to day situations. (arrests, DUI traffic stops, serving warrants etc...)</p>

<p>It is interesting to note much of the raw video is edited prior to public broadcast; such as faces being blurred out, numerical addresses blurred out, minors faces blurred out, the alleged criminal's faces blurred out, license plates etc..etc...</p>

<p>Sometimes the faces of the alleged criminals are <strong>not</strong> blurred out. This seems to go to privacy issues as well as releases.</p>

<p>So this begs the question; did these people who <strong>ARE</strong> recognizable sign releases? The answer is yes.</p>

<p>I had the opportunity to speak briefly with one of the programs producers; so naturally I had to ask why these people would sign a release?</p>

<p>The answer I received was interesting to say the least.</p>

<p><em>"Because people are stupid."</em></p>

<p>On another note, and one I think is somewhat pertinent to this entire discussion as a whole is what I will refer to as "Ambush photo journalism." Essentially laying in wait until you get some shot that is often quite uncomplimentary of a person.</p>

<p>Several news rags over here like to stalk people of fame..movie stars, sports figures.<br>

They get the photo and then CAPTION it with some statement that is quite often entirely untrue...total fabrication.</p>

<p>My feeling, though I can not prove this, is that these publications are probably sued often; but their profit margins no doubt, far exceed the out of court settlements.</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>Sometimes the faces of the alleged criminals are <strong>not</strong> blurred out. This seems to go to privacy issues as well as releases.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Releases are there to release the publisher from liabilities including responsibility for breach of privacy; I think it's the same issue. In the case of alleged criminals whose faces are not blurred one might guess they were convicted, and it cannot thereafter be a libel to them to associate them with the offence. Similarly the occupier of the house above at the time of the bust might not have a case against Mikael (or photo.net) for publishing the photo and caption, but the current occupier unconnected with previous events might.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>He wouldn't. He lives in a house where something happened. It's a matter of historical public record. It's still not intrusion, it's still not appropriation it's still not revealing private facts, it's still not false light - it's not false and it's not highly offensive.</p>

<p>If it's a particularly historically important an event, they might even put a historical marker out front! Then every tourist who comes to town takes a picture of the place where ABC happened.</p>

<p>You could put to rest some of this idle speculation of what "might" be possible if you spent some added time getting into the legal discussions from competent sources and even looked at some of the Wikipedia articles which compare and contrast different nations' laws - not that it's necessarily a completely reliable source, but schools and lawyers, etc., in other English speaking countries do discuss their legal matters just like American sources do. "Privacy" and "publicity" issues do get a fair amount of discussion because there are some notable differences from place to place.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Alec:<br /> <br /> The reason some faces are blurred out on "Cops" is that those individuals didn't sign a model release. No houses are ever blurred out...</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>Houses no. Numerical addresses?... Often.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>It sure happens Kevin but it isn't a requirement I have ever heard anything about. In my images I'm guessing publishers clone out the street numbers maybe 10 to 20 percent of the time - at least in images I've seen published. Most of the stuff I never see in published form so I can't say for sure.</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>You could put to rest some of this idle speculation of what "might" be possible if you spent some added time getting into the legal discussions from competent sources and even looked at some of the Wikipedia articles which compare and contrast different nations' laws...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Craig, If you want to have a dig at me that's fine - I don't object at all. But as a matter of fact I quite enjoy idle speculation so I don't especially want to put it to rest. I would however be interested if you have some links to legal discussions on comparisons of privacy laws in various jurisdictions (not the Wikipedia one, I think I can find that, unaided!)</p>

<p> </p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>It sure happens Kevin but it isn't a requirement I have ever heard anything about.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>True. If we think hard enough about this, there are no requirements..period!<br>

I don't need a release for anything! LOL I may get dragged into court, but model and property releases are not requirements to take the shot. That statement may be a little tongue in cheek, yet is quite true as evidenced by the paparazzi (sp)</p>

<p>I'm a firm believer in following the law as it pertains to releases and privacy issues; but not to a degree that I suffer paralysis analysis before taking the shot. If I did; 1/3 of my stock would still be occupying zeros and one's on my HD, not making a few buck as they were intended.<br>

This is the reason much of my stock library is sold with wording that protects me 10 ways from Sunday.</p>

<p> "<em>The photographer makes no representations concerning the existence of model/property releases</em> " etc...etc.</p>

<p>Some would argue this precludes me from more sales. Perhaps.</p>

<p>Assignment shoots are another matter entirely. Usually the photos will run associated with a manuscript; never written by me. In this case, model/property releases are mandated by the publisher. No sweat, since I usually defer to them to acquire the necessary releases. Usually. ;)</p>

[perry_lee]

<p>I am following this discussion very carefully. I am an outdoor photographer who is starting to get into more street-oriented shooting. When I was in Los Angeles a while ago, I did a lot of shooting in the LACMA Sculpture Garden; specifically the stabile piece <em>Extended Forms </em>by Richard Hunt. I shot it from all angles; inside and out, upside down, every shot that excited me when I saw it through the view finder. When I got them up on the computer, I realized I had a very good series exploring the sculptor's definition of space, and many of them stand on their own as abstract images.<br>

I'm 99% sure I can't sell these, as Mr. Hunt or LACMA retains the rights to the sculpture, but can I put them up in my gallery as NFS? I think a master shot of the sculpture followed by six of the abstracts would make a great wall.<br>

In the meantime, I haven't even put them on my website until I find out what my rights are. I tried finding out who to contact at LACMA, to no avail.</p>