Learn from this

[IndyJeff]

legalities of photography (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=816&ncid=816&e=1&u=/ap/20040409/ap_on_fe_st/wedding_photo_flap)


Read that story and then maybe you will see the importance of getting not only a model release but, making sure that you have it on file when you list that photo with a stock agency. I can't believe this photog was dumb enough to put that image out there.

[CoolToolGuy]

I guess great minds think alike - or at least read the news at the same time. I posted a thread about the same issue.

[IndyJeff]

Mine was posted at 16:29, yours at 16:34. Beat ya LOL

[G3]

What was he thinking? This is not something that I would ever consider doing.

As the photographer, you own the rights to the original image unless you sell or otherwise surrender those rights to the client for whom you shot the photos. That does not give you the right to sell those images to someone else for publication, unless the client agrees and signs a model release, for which he or she is entitled to compensation. What you can do is use the images for your own advertising, display, websites, etc. and you can sell reprints to the client. That's about it...

The way I see it, this guy essentially belittled the bride by selling the image the way he did. Apparently he thought he was going to make enough from that image that he wouldn't have to shoot any more weddings...it's doubtful after this that he will land another wedding contract.

[IndyJeff]

I don't think the guy even was shooting a wedding, he just happen to capture the bride in a before the wedding moment. Besides, nobody in their right mond would release a photo to a greeting card company thinking that it is going to make him rich. Greeting cards don't pay that much.

[G3]

I don't think the guy even was shooting a wedding, he just happen to capture the bride in a before the wedding moment. Besides, nobody in their right mond would release a photo to a greeting card company thinking that it is going to make him rich. Greeting cards don't pay that much.

I know...one photo seldom pays enough to cover a car payment, but it can cost you your car, house and everything else if you step out of bounds selling it. He must have not been thinking at all.

[Bruce Hamilton]

I think you guys are bashing the wrong party... He was on assignment for Newsweek when he took it... He sold it to an image company, who sold it to the card company...

And no, I'm not related to the photographer... :lol:

[IndyJeff]

Bruce it doesn't matter who sold it to the gretting card company, he took the picture and put it up for sale in a stock agency who then sold it to the card company. Still he is liable for allowing the image to be used without a release.

Thing that amazes me is the stock company didn't check for a release before they let it go.

[G3]

I thought about that, too. Do you think they were just rolling the dice? Hoping that the woman would never find out that she was on a greeting card? Normally, the stock agencies won't even accept an image like that without a release.

[IndyJeff]

Yeah G3 I kind of wondered myself if Corbis even asked about a release. Now if they did and the guy said he had one, well let's just say he is in for a bad time in the courthouse.
Kind of makes you wonder if Corbis even asked before they sold the image. Also a good lesson in knowing that you will never know what your images will be used for.

[G3]

Yep. This is sort of an odd case. In my experience, stock agencies want copies of the releases to accompany the images before they'll accept them, they normally don't want to just take your word for it. Something a little odd about this one...

[Jemmind]

I understand about getting a model release form, but what if you are tasking a picture of a dog or a car or a barn or a tree, do you have to have a release form from the owner of the thing?
Thanks,
Julie

[Drk Orange]

Yeah, I'm confused with release permissions and stuff as well. That's why I don't take photos of people, just bugs and sunsets and stuff. :)

I take it a candid photograph of a single person needs the subject's permission before I can 'publish'. What's the difference between a photo in a newspaper or magazine and one on a greeting card? (One is 'news' and one is 'art'?)

What about a photograph of a group of people? Or a crowd?

[G3]

Not unless it's an animal that someone or some entity owns the image rights to. For instance, if you took a picture of Lassie (the TV dog), you may have to get permission from her agency to sell her (his) image, or use it in an advertising campain.

[G3]

Yeah, I'm confused with release permissions and stuff as well. That's why I don't take photos of people, just bugs and sunsets and stuff. :)

I take it a candid photograph of a single person needs the subject's permission before I can 'publish'. What's the difference between a photo in a newspaper or magazine and one on a greeting card? (One is 'news' and one is 'art'?)

What about a photograph of a group of people? Or a crowd?

In general, you don't need a model release if you take a picture of a crowd of people in a public place.

[IndyJeff]

Yeah, I'm confused with release permissions and stuff as well. That's why I don't take photos of people, just bugs and sunsets and stuff. :)

I take it a candid photograph of a single person needs the subject's permission before I can 'publish'. What's the difference between a photo in a newspaper or magazine and one on a greeting card? (One is 'news' and one is 'art'?)

What about a photograph of a group of people? Or a crowd?

Ok, very simple here. If you take a picture of someone, it can be published for editorial use, i.e. newspaper, magazine newsletter etc. Now if you take that same picture and sell it to a greeting card company, an advertising agency, or a manufacturer for product advertisments, that is not an editorial use and a release is required.
Drk, one is news but the other is not art, it is a commercial use. Same if you take a picture of a guy and his dog sitting by a stream and sell it as "art". It is still considered a commercial use because you sold it for profit. The same picture could be published in the newspaper with a caption like " John Doe and his dog, Fido, enjoy an early spring fishing trip by Running River." That would be a legal shot.