Images of people on Stock Photo sites

[Pete W]

Hi all can you help.

A friend has started up a Stock Photo site and I posed the question about images of people in public and whether or not they can be used on a stock site without a model release..... His current stance is all images where you can see the persons face require a model release..... Is this right???


Stock photo site = http://photostore.snapt.org

[Pete]

As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong here), if you take a photo of someone with the intent of making money out of that photo, you need a model release.

The same goes for some buildings as well.

[TheHoff]

It varies by country but in most cases, yes, you definitely need a release. I can't think of a country where you don't but of course different laws and penalties would apply. You do not need a release if the photo is displayed as art or depicts a newsworthy event and you do not editorialize or imply that the person endorses a product or idea. Stock photography is usually sold so that the person will appear to endorse a product or idea, hence the need for a release.

[basroil]

Hi all can you help.

A friend has started up a Stock Photo site and I posed the question about images of people in public and whether or not they can be used on a stock site without a model release..... His current stance is all images where you can see the persons face require a model release..... Is this right???


Stock photo site = http://photostore.snapt.org

Looks like a really bad microstock agency to me.... If you are going through the trouble of getting releases, then at least go with a better service.

[Pete W]

Looks like a really bad microstock agency to me.... If you are going through the trouble of getting releases, then at least go with a better service.

This is a new site I was just asking the question here as the owner said you would need a model release, it was I that was questioning their policy, which looks to be correct...

How can you tell it is bad, the site has only been up a week... no cost to join and the commission is 30%, seems OK to me

I am happy to see where this site goes :)

[madhatter04]

Alamy requires a model release and property release when you use ANY likeliness of a person, including certain body parts, silhouttes, etc.

[basroil]

This is a new site I was just asking the question here as the owner said you would need a model release, it was I that was questioning their policy, which looks to be correct...

How can you tell it is bad, the site has only been up a week... no cost to join and the commission is 30%, seems OK to me

I am happy to see where this site goes :)

Most agencies are free to join and just have a portfolio process to go through. The main reason it is a bad site though isn't because it's microstock or there are webpage problems (which both are true), but because it's an unknown, has almost no photos, and the license terms are bad at best. The entire point of a stock agency is that your photos don't sit there doing nothing, rather you're actually having people look at the photos.

Also, microstock is a horrible idea for any halfway decent photographer, as you can make 100 to 1000 times as much money with a good photo.

Since you are required to have a model release, you might as well go with a real stock agency where you know that the terms of use are better. Model releases are needed for any person that is identifiable, unless used strictly for editorial purposes about that individual. Property releases are needed for anything that is privately owned and is identifiable, when taken on private property. There are exceptions for and against a release when property is involved, so check all local, state, and federal laws for conflicts and exceptions.

[Pete W]

Most agencies are free to join and just have a portfolio process to go through. The main reason it is a bad site though isn't because it's microstock or there are webpage problems (which both are true), but because it's an unknown, has almost no photos, and the license terms are bad at best. The entire point of a stock agency is that your photos don't sit there doing nothing, rather you're actually having people look at the photos.

Also, microstock is a horrible idea for any halfway decent photographer, as you can make 100 to 1000 times as much money with a good photo.

Since you are required to have a model release, you might as well go with a real stock agency where you know that the terms of use are better. Model releases are needed for any person that is identifiable, unless used strictly for editorial purposes about that individual. Property releases are needed for anything that is privately owned and is identifiable, when taken on private property. There are exceptions for and against a release when property is involved, so check all local, state, and federal laws for conflicts and exceptions.

Thanks for the info :)