Model-release guidelines needed

[Stan35mm]

I plan on selling my photographs, and I'm new to this aspect of photography (i.e. selling). Some of my pictures contain people. Examples:
1. Two Harley bikes riding on a desert highway. It's not a close-up, but the face of one of them is/might be recognizable.
2. A nature shot with bypassers in it. Taken in a state park (Colorado).
I don't have model releases. What are the rules when I can sell a photo without having a model release? Any guides on www?
Thanks.

[radar-eclipse]

Public area, public domain. I don't see any issues. Do some web searches on the topic on google or yahoo.

[Longwatcher]

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer....take my advice at your own risk....

For the bike shots,
I highly recommend you either get a model release or distort (which does not necessarily mean blur them out*) the faces. If they see themselves in a print somewhere that you are selling, you are opening yourself up for a potential lawsuit. Especially these days. Also consider cloning out the harley logos if present (unless you have permission from Harley). The odds are good you are safe with Harley pictures, but consider it if you can do it without destroying the look of the picture.

For the nature shots in a state park, you are actually probably safer. But still recommend the same.

These days if you take a picture of a person and intend to sell it, unless it is newsworthy; then you should always get a model release.

Just my opinion,

*= note you can distort the face by changing eye color, hair style, smoothing out blimishes and wrinkles and maybe streching some features to the point where it no longer looks like the same person. A bit of extra work, but might be worth it.

[Stan35mm]

Thanks guys.
I'm glad you think I can only slightly modify them to secure myself from legal actions (getting the model release now would be impossible). I'll try distorting the faces as advised. Bikes themselves are no issue here as the logo doesn't show.

Even more important to me is "Public area, public domain" statement. I understand I can extrapolate this statement to all my pictures showing a road, highway etc.? Please confirm.

Is it the same story with shots from national parks?, or I need a permit? I tried web searches, but wasn't successful: only found a filming permit ($100) to be obtained before doing filming. It's not exactly my case.

I apologize to bore you with such questions, as I realize this is not a new topic, but it's hard to find the exact answer using the "search" buton.

Anyway, where did you guys learn these legal issues? I want to buy a book that covers this and similar problems. Has anybody read the following:
Leonard D. DuBoff, "The Law (In Plane English) for Photographers", 2002.
Is it good?

Thanks.

[Longwatcher]

Except for corporate/private buildings (which may be covered by copyright).

If you are on public property, you can shoot away and it is all yours. Unless the park has a posted fee for photography (and most, but not all state you only need a fee if doing commercial photography) you are good to go. It is only if you are setting up a whole crew thing that could impact other patrons of the park that you need to contact the park and confirm.

Remember earlier posted disclaimer.

[vwpilot]

If you truly plan on selling the images for profit, your best bet would be to consult a IP lawyer and get it straight from someone that actually knows what he is talking about.

I would highly suggest not listening to the first response, public area therefore you are ok arguments do not hold water these days.

If you sold that Harley photo to Harley to use in an ad and that person sees themselves and recognizes themselves and their bike, you could be in for a world of hurt my friend, regardless of whether or not you may have blurred the faces. If there is something recognizable, you need to be careful.

There is a good, if not brief, article in the latest Digital Photo Pro magazine regarding releases. Here is a quote from the article.

"According to Jane Kinne, a longtime professional consultant in the photo industry, the issue of model releases stems from a concept in the US law that a person has the right to privacy. In order to use a person's image under certain circumstances, he or she must consent to give up that privacy or the photograher is at risk of being sued.

Without a signed model release, photographers can be sued for violating a person's privacy, for portraying someone in a negative manner and causing them harm, or for exploiting someones image for their own commercial gain. The last circumstance is the most relevant for professional photographers today, who often use their images in advertising or marketing campaigns."

I, of course, added the bold in the statement to emphasize that this is what you are doing and without a release you can open yourself up for trouble. Just the fact that someone is out in public, does not waive their right to privacy as described in the law.

I am not a lawyer, but I would urge you to speak with one. What it might cost you would be a small piece of what it could cost you if you dont.

Of course none of this pertains to editorial usage. If its going into the news or on a news website or something like that, you can sell the image till your hearts content. That is how mags like the Enquirer get away with posting images of celebs without permission, under the guise of news.

Good luck.

[Stan35mm]

If you are on public property, you can shoot away and it is all yours. Unless the park has a posted fee for photography (and most, but not all state you only need a fee if doing commercial photography) you are good to go. It is only if you are setting up a whole crew thing that could impact other patrons of the park that you need to contact the park and confirm.
OK, sounds like I don't have to worry about shots taken within national parks, and that's a large fraction of my collection. On the other hand, I don't remember if there was any posts ragarding commercial photography at the entrance (e.g. North Cascades, WA, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, WY, etc)...
Actually, who owns National Parks in US? Is it government owned? If I wanted to be absolutely sure whether I need a permit to sell these shots, what organization do I contact? I'm afraid that talking to a park ranger over the phone wouldn't be legally binding. Besides it's not his/her area of expertise.
Please don't consider this repeated question as lack of trust in the answers above. It's more that North America is full of people who want to make easy money from a lawsuit!, and one can't be too cautios.

I probably will consult a lawyer eventually, but I'd like to educate myself as much as possible before doing it.

[vwpilot]

Only a lawyer is going to be able to answer those questions with perfect reliability. Educating yourself is always good, but if you want to be sure about what you can and cant sell, only an IP lawyer is going to be the word to go by.

[robertwgross]

OK, sounds like I don't have to worry about shots taken within national parks, and that's a large fraction of my collection. On the other hand, I don't remember if there was any posts ragarding commercial photography at the entrance (e.g. North Cascades, WA, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, WY, etc)...
Actually, who owns National Parks in US? Is it government owned? If I wanted to be absolutely sure whether I need a permit to sell these shots, what organization do I contact? I'm afraid that talking to a park ranger over the phone wouldn't be legally binding. Besides it's not his/her area of expertise.
Please don't consider this repeated question as lack of trust in the answers above. It's more that North America is full of people who want to make easy money from a lawsuit!, and one can't be too cautios.

I probably will consult a lawyer eventually, but I'd like to educate myself as much as possible before doing it.

In the United States, national parks are owned by the federal government and managed by the National Park Service, which is under the U.S. Department of the Interior. For many of the larger national parks, they have a whole fee structure for "commercial photography." Basically, a professional photographer has to apply for a permit of sorts to shoot X, Y, or Z there. However, this seems to apply to what I would call a large scale shoot with a crew that might get in the way of other park visitors. Nearly all of the professional photographers that just want to set up and shoot some scenery do so without benefit of any such permit. There may be some exceptions to this, perhaps around Washington DC, because of the sensitivity of the government offices there, threats to homeland security, yada, yada. However, I believe that the NPS might try to enforce their rules if you were trying to lead a guided photo hike or otherwise dealing with other visitors in a commercial way. More information can be found at the official web site for a particular national park.

Also note that National Forests are completely different. They are managed by the National Forest Service, which is under the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

NFS and NPS are two radically different entities.

---Bob Gross---

[Stan35mm]

I bough this book: Leonard D. DuBoff, "The Law (In Plane English) for Photographers", 2002,
and started reading.
Regarding national parks, it agrees with Bob G. and Longwatcher (good for me!), i.e. it's allowed in general.
The book is helpful, but contains lots of statemets "IN GENERAL, this and that is allowed". The more I read it, the more I realize that the law is not exact science, and in many cases there is no direct answer, and related circumstances need to be considered (which actually might make a huge difference in terms of the outcome of a potential lawsuit).

[Bruce Hamilton]

Public area, public domain. I don't see any issues.

That depends on what is being photographed... If I'm walking down the main street in my town, which is definitely a public area, and someone shoots my photograph, he can't sell it without either distorting my face sufficiently to avoid my recognizing myself, or getting a signed release from me. If he does neither and sells it, he'll be getting a letter from my attorney.