The POTN Photo Book Project - The Callenges of Releases... Help sought

[EOSAddict]

As you may know we are trying to pull together a Photo Book for POTN.

One of the issues exercising our minds is that of releases - both model and property. Especially given the international nature of the forum, and hence both image submissions and sales of the book.

The book will be published in the US using Blurb.com

We have found some very useful background here..

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

But were hoping that you pros might be able to offer some practical advice.

We plan on having images submitted thru a web submission page that details whether the photog submitting has a release or not or whether he feels one is necessary. But clearly as the publishers, the onus falls on us.

What is your experience of what does/does not need releases for publication?

There are various seeming 'get outs' such as non-profit and 'art'.

Does an 'indemnity clause' in the Terms and Conditions help us or would it fail to hold water? Are we worrying about nothing?

All advice gratefully received.

For more info on the book, check out the threads linked in my sig. :lol:

[IndyJeff]

You just can't have a web page where it asks a question of "Does this photo have a release?" If your going to be the publisher then you need to have a physical copy of the release itself.

My suggestion would be to have people scan their release (signed of course) and email it to you along with a brief discription of the photo. Each photo would be assigned a number such as 001, 002, 003. This is the order in which they would apprear in the book. Keep these on file along with the discription,. If someone complains that their image, or that of their property is in your book, you have a signed release on file. If the release has been forged, you would not be held liable for any damages as you acted in good faith and were provided with a forgery.

[EOSAddict]

Jeff,

Thanks

We will certainly be securing releases before we go to print (see the T&Cs), but the submission page will allow us to understand the scope of that problem.

[PhotosGuy]

I wonder if there is wording we could include at the beginning to put the entire work (book) into the editorial category? Would the fact that it's not being sold for profit enter in? Any lawyers out there?

[Scottes]

I'm not so sure that editorial would be right - just calling it editorial doesn't necessarily make all photos editorial. Some could easily be construed otherwise. There appears to be some value in calling it all art, but from what I have read this doesn't necessarily cover us either.

The idea of some wording is a great idea, particularly stating that the book is not for profit, which may make some/many lawyers realize it's not worth a fight because they won't get anything. This isn't total, I would think, since they could still sue and get someone's house. :-(


Since we are publishing this book, the laws are a little different from what I've read. One piece I read stated that people don't sue photographers, they sue publishers. So it's in the publisher's best interests to ensure that they obtain copies of releases for any photo which might require one.


Here's a few sites I found that seemed worth reading - though most have to do with photographing, and not publishing a book of photos.

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
http://www.photosecrets.com/links.law.html
http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html

One of my concerns has to do with property releases. From the last web site I found this paragraph quite important:

Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.

I've also heard rumors about some "public" places requiring permission. Trafalgar Square or Piccadilly Circus or something like one of those two.


So far, everything I've read tells me to play it very very safe, and not publish any photo which might require a release of any kind, unless a copy of such a release is obtained from the photographer.

I would love to hear differently, but I think I would have to pay a lawyer before i would think differently.