When do I need a Release?

[IndyJeff]

After reading thread after thread of people asking if they need a release or not and then, seeing advice which is anything but correct, has promted me to post these simple guidelines.

When do I need a release?

When you take a picture of someone or something and plan on selling it commercially for use in ads, for example, you need a release. It is not your image or property and everyone has a right to control the uses of both.

I want to shoot the local high school and sell to the players and parents. Do I need a release?

Technically, yes you might. However there is a thing called undue burden which could exempt you from getting a signed release from all athletes. In general your selling the images to the people themselves. Very few of these type images are bought by anyone other than the people in them.


What if I am selling photos I took of __________ (fill in the blank). Can I be sued?

Yes but, they must ask you to stop first. This is done in a letter known as a Cease & Desist. If you ignore it and continue to sell, then yes, you may very well be sued, and damn well you should be. They asked you to stop didn't they?

I shot ________ (fill in the blank), which was a public event. Can I sell these photos to the newpaper? I didn't get any signed releases? Can I sell them from my website?

So what if it was public or not, remember in the first answer above, EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR IMAGE.
Yes, you can sell to the newspaper if, and only if, the images will be used in an editorial manner related to an article or as a filler with a caption that relates an accurate and true discription of the image. Doesn't matter if it is Johnny Depp the actor or Johnny Drip from down the street...editorial is fair game, for everyone.
If you had permission of the event organizer then yes, you may make those images available for purchase. However, once again remember, everyone controls the right to their own image and if they request you remove thier image you must.

I have been approached by XYZ company and they want to use one of my photos for an ad. I have no idea of who the people are that are the subject of the photo. Can I still sell this for the ad?

NO, absolutely not. What if the company tells you it will be an ad for fragrances with names which relate to young women. So you sell the image of two girls sitting on a park bench talking with fantastic floral gardens behind them and they are thinking they will use it for the one called "Spring Park". The ad comes out and it is about asking your girlfriend for her personal preference in condoms. Big difference huh? Guess who will probably get sued? Besides the ad company, the company making the fragrences, and you will be very high on the list for providing the image without a release. Now damges from that could be extensive, enough to ruin your life.

I went to the race track Sunday and got some great pictures. One of the sponsors wants to use it in an ad. Can I sell it to them?

Once again the answer is NO. Sure they can probably get a signed relase from the car owner, and the driver but, they will also need a release from the sanctioning body as well. Once they present you with a signed release, or a copy thereof, from the sanctioning body, the driver, and the car owner then, and only then are you in the clear.

I went to _______ pro/college game this weekend and got some great shots from my seats. Can I sell these from my website?

Are you nuts? Heck no you can't sell them, well at least not without getting a C&D letter followed by a lawsuit if you persist in continuing to sell them.

When do I need a release?

Anytime you sell an image which may be used in an ad or other display to attract business, other than editorial use. See undue burden above which may apply here.

Someone lifted one of my shots from my website, and is using it without permission on their website. It says right on my website "all images are the property of Rube Willoughby" or "all images are copyrighted" can I sue them or should I just send them a bill.

Did you register the images with the US Copyright Office? If not, your not standing on very firm ground. While you may own the image, legally, the law only allows for actual damages. Now if they normally pay $25 for a published picture, thats about all your going to get. No lawyer is gong to even consider taking that case.
If they are registered, the law allows for a greater amount of money. including reasonable attorney fees and court costs as well as punitive damages. I this case you will have plenty of attorneys wanting to talk with you.
Never, ever send them a bill without consulting with your attorney first. You are establishing a value to the image. What if they call you up and tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine? You call the attorney and tell him of the invoice and the amount. He may not be willing to take the case now that a value has been established by you which could limit your damage awards.

I need legal advice.

First off, you should never, ever, ever, take legal advice from someone posting on an internet forum. Today I am an attorney, tomorrow I might be a Hollywood producer and the next day a Doctor. Soon I may be a divorce councilor, who knows?
If you are serious about photography and the business side of it, take an afternoon and get an appointment with a local IP attorney, whether you need them now or not. Usually a first consultation is free, between 30-60 minutes. Explain that you need to establish a relationship with an attorney should the need for their services arise but, you do have some questions now.
Get to know this guy/gal. Maybe some company will send you a contract to sign before you do some work for them. It makes about as much sense to you as hyroglyphics (Ancient Egyptian writing) but, it all looks good. Your attorney may take a look and say all is good. No problem, probably cost you $50-75. He may also look and say "Whoooaaaaaa. what is this? Don't sign this under any circumstances. See this phrase, 'XYZ company is released from any and all damages or claims against it or any of it's agents for any reason in regards to images sold by your name here'? Something goes wrong and you just signed away any recourse you have to come back on them in case your sued over that image." Now just think if you were told it was for an ad for a fragrance called Spring Park and was of two girls you shot last spring in the park and the actual ad was for Her Choice Condoms. How much was that $75 consultation fee really worth?

[lomond]

I'm no expert but that seems like very good advice.

One point, different countries have different laws so check first.
For example even parents can find it difficult, or even impossible here in the UK, to photograph there own children at a school sports day due to silly laws that imply the photographs may be used for the wrong reasons. :?

[symes]

Indy Jeff,

I hope they make this a sticky. Thank you very much for this...

Your writing is a service to this form...

I have one question remaining. A fellow photographer has taken an image. I really like this image and have gone out and taken a similar photo. The photographer is no longer in the country and I have been asked for prints...Can I sell this?

Cheers,

[sixshot]

Thanks Indy Jeff. Useful info that has arisen a few times.

[IndyJeff]

Indy Jeff,

I hope they make this a sticky. Thank you very much for this...

Your writing is a service to this form...

I have one question remaining. A fellow photographer has taken an image. I really like this image and have gone out and taken a similar photo. The photographer is no longer in the country and I have been asked for prints...Can I sell this?

Cheers,

Hmmmmm, I can't answer that. I would say you could as long as there is no issue of a release hovering over the subject involved. However, if it is something that you flat out copied that is something you should speak with an attorney on.

Interesting question and one I don't really have an answer for.

[pyterps]

IndyJeff,

I've been asked to take pictures at this years Booz Allen Classic Golf Tournament at the Volunteer tent. The pictures will be of the Volunteers which would be great if this is all I had to photograph. They could just buy an image right from me or visit my print room site and order it online. My question comes they the Volunteer will be posing next to a life size cutout of three professional golfers. Do I need some type of release to sell these photos? The volunteer commettee has asked me to take the pictures and I'm really confussed as to what I can and cannot do.

Dave

[Ausdig]

lomond, the situation is exactly the same in Australia re taking photos near, or of schools and pupils. Not that I would ever want to, but parents are virtually having to get police checks to photograph their own children whilst they are at school or any school event such as sports days or plays etc.

[I Simonius]

I'm no expert but that seems like very good advice.

One point, different countries have different laws so check first.
For example even parents can find it difficult, or even impossible here in the UK, to photograph there own children at a school sports day due to silly laws that imply the photographs may be used for the wrong reasons. :?

The model releases in the UK used to be pretty simple (over 20 yrs ago when I used that kind iof thing)

Are UK model releases simple now or have they turned into legal tomes

If they are still reasonably simple could anyone who knows the correct terminology and wording post a UK version here please?

[Trasmc]

IndyJeff:

Thanks for this sticky - makes good sense to me. I do have a quick question about intent. If I had taken a picture of something that is then posted on my site - posted without any intention of selling - and someone has contacted me to see if they can purchase a copy - am I still needing a release? Common sense tells me yes, but just thought I would check.

The subject matter in this case is a ver well known tourist attraction.

From a fellow Indy area resident - thanks in advance!

[thekid24]

great advice.Thanks IndyJeff

[I Simonius]

IndyJeff:

Thanks for this sticky - makes good sense to me. I do have a quick question about intent. If I had taken a picture of something that is then posted on my site - posted without any intention of selling - and someone has contacted me to see if they can purchase a copy - am I still needing a release? Common sense tells me yes, but just thought I would check.

The subject matter in this case is a remarkably well known tourist attraction - in fact the centerpiece - of a pretty famous place in Orlando, FL. Yes - Disneyworld.

From a fellow Indy area resident - thanks in advance!

I would say that as soon as someone asks you to buy it the intent changes ;)

[IndyJeff]

Good news, a real life attorney has registered here and hopefully will post to this thread soon. Some of the things which I had been told may not necessarily be 100% correct. We have been having a discussion thur emails and it is pretty interesting. She hopefully will post in this thread soon. It will make for some interesting discussion and I look forward to her opinions.

[Vinmum]

Thanks for all the great advice. I have a question maybe you pros can answer to help me out. ( I am still learning!) I did a shoot of a girl's birthday party at a store that does such things, and now there is a media company that publishes a local newspaper, that wants to publish the prints as well as the owner of the store wants to use the images for her ads to send out in a flyer and to display in her store. I know I need a model release for all 5 girls, and I am working on getting that from all the parents, my question is - is that sufficient? Can I then, with that one model release to me, use these prints and allow the newspaper, etc. to print them? Or do I need 3 seperate releases from all the parents, which seems like overkill?
Thanks so much for any input you can provide.
P.S. I love the suggestion of meeting with an IP attorney! Great idea - I will be doing that very soon!

[IndyJeff]

Thanks for all the great advice. I have a question maybe you pros can answer to help me out. ( I am still learning!) I did a shoot of a girl's birthday party at a store that does such things, and now there is a media company that publishes a local newspaper, that wants to publish the prints as well as the owner of the store wants to use the images for her ads to send out in a flyer and to display in her store. I know I need a model release for all 5 girls, and I am working on getting that from all the parents, my question is - is that sufficient? Can I then, with that one model release to me, use these prints and allow the newspaper, etc. to print them? Or do I need 3 seperate releases from all the parents, which seems like overkill?
Thanks so much for any input you can provide.
P.S. I love the suggestion of meeting with an IP attorney! Great idea - I will be doing that very soon!


If the newspaper is running the shots as part of a story then no release is needed, that is editorial. Once you get the releases signed by all the parents you should be free to sell the images for advertising as you see fit.

[Vinmum]

Thanks!
Also, does anyone have a sample model release that they use that they would like to share? I have one of my own but wonder how it compares?

[IndyJeff]

You can buy a standard release form, about 100 in a pack I think, at any decent camrea store. I think I paid $2.50 for the ones I have.

[Kiddo]

When I worked with the football association here this year, I got every parent to sign a release form. I was the "offical" photographer for the association this year which ment that I took game photos, team photos, and other photos through out the year, and I also did all the work on their website..... See where I'm going with this??? I had a master list and there was only 2 parents that didn't sign out of 5-600 kids!! Made my life easy for posting and selling photos.

[BradT0517]

I am thinking about getting a smugmug and some cards printed around july of 07 and taking pictures for my Local Highschool which I go to. Would I have to get a release to sell them considering mainly only the parents and kids would buy them.

[PhotoAttorney]

In general, when people are in public, you may photograph them. The use of the photographs can be restricted due to certain privacy rights. The rights for a person to certain kinds of privacy are recognized in most states, but a bit differently for each one. It is, therefore, tricky to know what you can do. The safest approach is to follow the most restrictive one, hence the often-heard recommendation to obtain model releases for everyone in your pics. It certainly broadens the photographs' potential uses. It reduces the chance of being sued and likely will increase your chance of winning a lawsuit if sued, but nothing is guaranteed.

One of the rights of privacy is known as the right of publicity. It is the commercial appropriation of someone's name or likeness. It happens when someone uses the name or likeness of another without consent to gain some commercial benefit. It usually occurs when a photograph of a person is in an advertisement, so you should get the person's permission to use their likeness in a photo which can be shown by a model release. Permission to use someone's name or likeness is not legally required for an editorial use. The tough thing is determining whether a use is editorial or commercial. But it is not decided by whether the photograph is sold.

Selling prints of kids playing ball to parents, friends, or fans (when there is no endorsement implied, you are not mass producing the photos on a coffee mug, or is not an advertisement for a sporting goods company, for example) generally is considered an editorial use when no model release is required.

Best,
Carolyn

[AdamJT]

The church that I attend is reconstructing their website and would liek to have new photos taken of the church in action. The photos will be used for the website and also possibly for church flyers (advertisements?). They would like me, a church member and photographer, to take some shots on Sunday morning so that they will have some new photos. Will we need to get releases from those in the photos? What about the children in their Sunday School classes. The images will not be sold in any way. They are strictly for use within the church and for church purposes.

[TooManyHobbies]

What if I take pictures of people, lets say at a public sporting event. Can I show them on my webiste portfolio? If I named it something other then portfolio would it be ok?

[PhotoAttorney]

Having a model release is a little safer especially when you are using it to promote something. Generally, displaying your work as an example of what you do as in a portfolio would be considered an editorial use. The church brochure may border on advertising/commercial use.

Best,
Carolyn

[TooManyHobbies]

Having a model release is a little safer especially when you are using it to promote something. Generally, displaying your work as an example of what you do as in a portfolio would be considered an editorial use. The church brochure may border on advertising/commercial use.

Best,
Carolyn

Thanks. I may get your book. I just got one on legal forms, but I'm editing away at those since they don't always fit the situation or put my clients/models at ease. I'm not an attorney, but write contracts regularly as an engineer. All of the books I've seen always take the most conservative approach. I'm always wondering how each state differs. It would be nice if someone summarized that in a book - even if it had some cya language.

I take shots at college sporting events and go through the coaches to sell to the team members, but I'm looking for a way to sell on my website so family and friends can buy directly. Getting a model release from whole team is almost impossible. Especially the way most releases are written. Is there a way to get just one release from the coach or school until someone specificly says don't sell or display?

[chakalakasp]

One of the interesting tidbits that I recently read in "Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" is that it generally makes more sense to use simpler releases than it does to use big wieldy releases full of lots of legalese. The idea being that the subject is more likely to later say "I didn't know what the hell I was signing!" when presented with a verbose, complicated release, and that the courts would be more likely to accept such a defence.

[thekid24]

Ok since Im in need of some advice I will go ahead and give this thread another breath. I am going to be shooting a girl (my age actually) and was wondering if a release form or waiver is needed? Im not wanting to sell them I simply want to gain experience in portraits. They will not be in studio (garagee hasnt been completely converted yet) and will be done on location. I really just want to put some poses I have had in mind to work and see how they turn out.

[SezzySue]

awesome thread. i still have a question, do you need a release for an opject? I shoot the thunderbirds so can I sell the pics if you can't see the pilot in it?

[TooManyHobbies]

I just ordered your book. Thanks Carolyn.

Here's something else I thought interesting. While at a state park that had some historical buildings, a guide stated that pictures are only allowed outdoors and not indoors on any NC state property with a few location exceptions that I can't remember now. The reasoning was to stop theives from cataloging items. I understand not allowing flash, but wouldn't that violate the Freedom of Information Act"? I'm no expert at legal, but hey -- public property, public information?

[chartbin]

If I take a picture of a homeless individual (say, downtown, etc), do I need a release from him or her,
how do I approach him for a release?
Anyone with similar situation.

[chakalakasp]

If I take a picture of a homeless individual (say, downtown, etc), do I need a release from him or her,
how do I approach him for a release?
Anyone with similar situation.

Try using the search feature or reading the first post in this thread. :)

[chartbin]

I have been approached by XYZ company and they want to use one of my photos for an ad. I have no idea of who the people are that are the subject of the photo. Can I still sell this for the ad?

NO, absolutely not. What if the company tells you it will be an ad for fragrances with names which relate to young women. So you sell the image of two girls sitting on a park bench talking with fantastic floral gardens behind them and they are thinking they will use it for the one called "Spring Park". The ad comes out and it is about asking your girlfriend for her personal preference in condoms. Big difference huh? Guess who will probably get sued? Besides the ad company, the company making the fragrences, and you will be very high on the list for providing the image without a release. Now damges from that could be extensive, enough to ruin your life.

Chalak...
Seems like above quote is the most relevant, which means that I need a signed release.
My predicament is that how do you approach the subject if he/she is either a bystander or "unapproachable due to potential threat to me".

[chakalakasp]

Chalak...
Seems like above quote is the most relevant, which means that I need a signed release.
My predicament is that how do you approach the subject if he/she is either a bystander or "unapproachable due to potential threat to me".

It's been posted a few times before. You do not need releases of photos that you are not going to use commercially. You can take all the pictures of homeless people that you want. You can put them on your website (so long as you're not using them to directly advertise a product.) You can put them in schoolbooks, in newspapers, in magazine stories, and any other artistic or editorial context you can think of. You can not, however, use them in advertisements. That would require a release.

Releases are not about "can I take a picture", but rather "what can I do with a picture".

[chartbin]

Chakal...
Thanks for your response.

Here's my ques,
"what I can do with a picture", does that mean entering photo contest is ok?

Usually, in the "Rules", some kind of release is needed, right???

If needed, how would you handle the situation?

[chakalakasp]

I believe that a photo contest would not require a release, unless the rules of the contest wanted one. (I would think that they would, since most contests will then use the winning pictures in ways that might be considered as advertisement.) If the rules of the contest require a release, then make sure you have some printed out and in your pocket when you go out shooting the homeless. After you get the shot, and assuming you feel safe doing so, approach the person and tell them that you just took their photo and would like to ask them to sign a release. Offer them some money (say, $5), and you'll probably get a signature.

I'm not a lawyer, though, so I could be wrong. :)

[chartbin]

Chakalakasp
I see. I guess I am not a pro so I am not prepared with a release in my pocket.

I am just wondering in the event that the "lucky shot" happens to be a winner, then what?
:)

[TooManyHobbies]

Having a model release is a little safer especially when you are using it to promote something. Generally, displaying your work as an example of what you do as in a portfolio would be considered an editorial use. The church brochure may border on advertising/commercial use.

Best,
Carolyn

I got and read some of your book. I like it, but wanted more in the editoral vs. commercial section. It's not always practical to get a release. Maybe some more examples of what is what. I realize that the law is vague and subject to interpretation. If you do a coffee table book on gymnastics is that editorial? You mentioned putting shots on your website was editorial if you didn't post for sale or pricing. That would have been good info in the book.

[splitfyre]

There is a small ebook that my photography friend recommended to me, however I have yet to buy it. I've found with the photography that I do, I always get a release form done.

[EnronRocks]

Follow this like the bible, it is the best advice one can get on this topic.

[cassiar]

Just a little more clarification... I read the beginning of the posts and very helpful - Thanks! In the initial post it states "a picture of someone or something"... So we are putting together a coffee table book on some unique tress in the area and if I am reading this correctly we will need to get a release from homeowners to take pictures of their tree(s) if we want to use them?

When do I need a release?

When you take a picture of someone or something and plan on selling it commercially for use in ads, for example, you need a release. It is not your image or property and everyone has a right to control the uses of both.

[ssim]

I certainly don't think that you would need a release for the use of a picture of a tree as long as there are not identifiable things in the background, like a business name. If it was only a house, I don't think that you would need one. This is just my opinion though.

You would need to request permission to go on their property if you want to shoot from there otherwise you have to shoot from public property.

[JDB]

Right now I'm having a hard time figuring out where editorial use ends and commercial use begins.

Let's say I'm displaying photos on my website. I go to many events (some public, some for my school), and the photos I take get posted online. I also use my SmugMug site as a proofing system for portraits, and will password-protect a gallery when it's requested. Here's where I'm having some trouble understanding things. In my mind, I see these photos as being editorial - they certainly aren't being sold or used to advertise anything; they're just there for people to see. However, I can see the argument that these photos are, in fact, being used to promote something: me and my photography. Legally, how well does this argument hold up?

One teacher at my school is an amateur photographer, and he just recently saw my website. He complimemented me on my photos, then quickly told me that he was concerned that I don't have any model releases. I told him that I felt that he was incorrect because just publishing photos online does not require a release, but he insisted that I was wrong. If anybody would care to take a minute or two to take a glance at my website, I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments on that. My website is: www.jbphotography.smugmug.com.

I was thinking, though, that if that's concidered commercial use, then shouldn't any use where photo credit is given be considered commercial? i.e., a photo in a newspaper doesn't require a model release, but if photo credit is given, couldn't you argue that the photo is technically promoting the photographer?

What about an online portfolio? My online "portolio" is www.flickr.com/photos/jasonboulanger (and yes, I know this isn't the most professional approach, but for right now, it's working fine). I would say that my smugmug account is meant more for sharing photos, whereas my flickr account is just to display my better photos, thus promoting myself and my photography service. Is this commercial use?

Sorry for the long post, but what I was told today got me thinking. I'm not too worried though, as I figure that if I was going to get any complaints, I would have gotten them long ago. I do plan on getting releases in the future where I think it is necessary, but for the time being I think I'm OK. But let's say somebody did have a problem; would they be required to send a Cease and Desist letter before filing a lawsuit?

[TooManyHobbies]

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is....

Posting on your webiste is editorial if you don't offer them for sale on the site. This assumes that they were taken in public with no expectations of privacy. You also should remove them if requested. I put a note on my online albums of events saying such. It's not an advertisement if they are not shown endorsing you or your sevices; it is instead an editorial of events your attended and the pictures you've taken.

I often end of selling these photos to the subjects of them after they email me.

I have model releases too with automatic online purchasing, but those albums in my gallery are hidden from public view even though I could show them. Those I also use within my portfolio and plan on using in my webistes front end when I get around to working on it.

[KAINAM13]

I have been approached to shoot parties and events at local clubs and bars. The images would be posted on their respective websites under an "event photos" section. The images would be captured in public domains and would not be sold. Would a release be required? Thanks!

[TooManyHobbies]

I have been approached to shoot parties and events at local clubs and bars. The images would be posted on their respective websites under an "event photos" section. The images would be captured in public domains and would not be sold. Would a release be required? Thanks!

It depends on how it is put on the site. If a gallery or pictures of events, I would say ok (editorial), but if it is the home page logo or picutre with text on it, show that person endorsing the bar then I would say you need a release. Again, I no expert, just read some stuff.

[peter graham]

Would anyone know if a faxed model release would be considered legal? I didn't have a model release on hand when I took some photos and my friend is now back in another country after a short visit. I'm sure he could mail an original signed form but it would be more convenient to fax it over.

[percepto]

Wow! What a minefield! I work for a holiday company in a resort in Italy and have been asked to shoot the photos for the company website and in house publicity. If I shoot say, the restaurant full of people, do I need to get a release from every person if the photos will end up in a brochure or web page? I will be paid to shoot the photos but I'm not actually selling any prints. After I am paid do I still own the rights to the photos?
Thanks for any help

[bungee]

Shouldn't this thread be called "When do I need a release - US version" While this is all good info the laws are not the same in all countries and the information here could be misleading.

[picturepages]

I was told that as long as I was on public property taking an image ...and the event was a public event..I didnt need a release form.
I have taken barn and scenic shots...as long as Im not on the barn owners property.. would I really need a release for that image?
Also I plan to take some powow images...a public event..on public property. Am I understanding that I will still need a release of all the dancers in the shot to sell them?
I could understand the need if I personally asked them to pose for me. But if they put themselves into the public eye arn't they fair game to capture and sell as a Western art image? such as rodeo events as well.

[TooManyHobbies]

I was told that as long as I was on public property taking an image ...and the event was a public event..I didnt need a release form. Depends on use. You could use them for non-advertising shots until someone asks you not too. News/Fine Art
I have taken barn and scenic shots...as long as Im not on the barn owners property.. would I really need a release for that image? No.
Also I plan to take some powow images...a public event..on public property. Am I understanding that I will still need a release of all the dancers in the shot to sell them? Yes, but I think you wouldn't have too if for editorial use such as newsprint or a book on dancing events. As long as it is represented exactly as it is. If dancers were in a fine art book or a book on dancing lessons then yes. Some public property requires a release too, i.e. historical places, colleges, etc.
I could understand the need if I personally asked them to pose for me. But if they put themselves into the public eye arn't they fair game to capture and sell as a Western art image? No. such as rodeo events as well.

Again, I'm no expert, but my answers would be

[ANGUS]

I havent read in close detail all of this thread so im sorry if this has been asked before.

I have previously beleived that in Australia any photo taken on your land or public land is free to be used however you like, Obviously there are overriding laws in relation to Children etc but am i correct in saying in Australia if you take an image it is instantly copyrighted to you and no release is needed???

[bungee]

Here are some useful references. For Australia (NSW in particular) see http://4020.net/words/photorights.php and http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php#infosheet. For the UK see http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf and for the US see http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf (not sure if this link is still active)

In NSW Australia children actually have no special rights aside from specific provisions in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 which relate maily to child protection orders and custody issues.

You cannot, under Australian law use someone's picture without consent for commercial use. It's the definition of commercial use that is confusing as you can see in this abstract from the article below....

What is "commercial use"?

The relevant legal terminology here is Passing Off and Misleading Conduct. In a photographic context, "commercial use" does not mean the sale a picture, but rather the use of a person's likeness to endorse some product or service, or to entice you to buy it.

A few examples to make this clear:

A photographer hosts photos on their website and offers prints for sale. Non-Commercial — they are merely selling individual photographs, not using the people in them to endorse or sell any product or service.

A wedding photographer hosts samples of their work on their website. Commercial — they are using images of people to endorse or sell their wedding photography services.

Fizzy drink manufacturer runs a magazine-ad featuring a candid photo of someone drinking a can of their product. Commercial Use — they are trying to sell a beverage. Requires a signed Model Release.

Telephone company "re-purposes" editorial photographs of an Olympic swimmer or people being rescued from floods, for use in ad-campaigns. Ditto — they are trying to sell phone services.

National Tourist body holds a competition to solicit photographs of people enjoying Australian scenery, for use in an ad-campaign. Despite carefully worded indemnities in the competition rules, this is still Commercial Use — they are trying to sell tourism services.

Art exhibition sells prints or posters or postcards. Non-Commercial — they aren't selling anything other than the photo itself. (However it will become a "commercial use" if the posters are used to entice people to visit the show.)

Photographs are sold for publication inside a book or magazine, but not as part of an ad. — eg. monographs, editorial illustration, celebrity gossip, tutorials, how-to articles etc. Non-Commercial.

A photograph is published on a book or magazine cover. Commercial. (Again the image is used to entice people to buy something, in this case the book or mag. This is why you almost never see candid-people photos used as cover illustrations, and partly why Gilbert Duclos got into trouble in Quebec — see below.)

Remember, the mere sale of a picture itself does not make its use "commercial". A person's likeness has to be used in such a way that it appears they endorse some product or are trying to entice you to buy something. Which ultimately makes sense, as photographers legitimately sell thousands of people-images to newspapers and magazines every day!

[ANGUS]

Thanks very much for this info, However there is one bit i had issues with:

...Fizzy drink manufacturer runs a magazine-ad featuring a candid photo of someone drinking a can of their product. Commercial Use — they are trying to sell a beverage. Requires a signed Model Release...

If this Candid image of a person clearly drinking a drink does not have enough detail to reckognise the person in the image, Do you need a release??

[bungee]

If this Candid image of a person clearly drinking a drink does not have enough detail to reckognise the person in the image, Do you need a release??

No. If a person cannot be recognised you shouldn't need a model release.

BTW, take a look at http://blogs.smh.com.au/photographers/archives/2007/02/photography_is_not_a_crime.html

[kja]

Timely, thank you, bungee..maybe you can help me get my head around:
A wedding photographer hosts samples of their work on their website. Commercial — they are using images of people to endorse or sell their wedding photography services.

I will be with our local photog here for the first time this month. The first thing we are doing is a wedding and I was intending to use images in my own portfolio (as discussed with the main photog). I think that his arrangement with the b/g covers second shooter's images to be used just like his own images - for ads, portolios etc of his/my photo services. His arrangement with the b/g should cover the releases of the guests? Or does each individual guest need one?

Also, I have been asked (and have done already a couple) to shoot some local things like our small markets etc so they can use the images for their ads/promotions and I also can use the images for promotion/ads etc of my photography. Do I need a release from the individuals or just the market coordinator or no one?

I'm just not quite getting the whole ''commercial" aspect - if I display them as prints for sale, it's not; but if I display them just to show them, it is? If that is true, all one needs to do it make the prints of the displayed images for sale?

[bungee]

The issue as I understand it (and I'm NO expert at all) is that you cannot use the images where the person portrayed in the image is seen to promote a particular product or service - eg, in the form of an endorsement - nor can you use the image in any way that may be considered defamatory to the subject.

I don't agree that hosting samples of your work is a commercial use of the subjects. If you were selling wedding apparel it would be different but the subject of a photo cannot reasonably be said to be promoting the photograph or the photographer.

The same would apply to photographs of people in a market that were used purely to promote your photographic skills on a website.

In general I try to get a release if I can, if not I ask myself ....

i) am I using the people in the image to endorse a product or service ?
ii) am I defaming these people in some way ?
iii) are the images taken of people place where they could normally expect privacy ?

If the answer is no in all cases then you are generally OK. In the worst case someone might ask you to remove an image, and it would be polite to do so.

Alternatively ask yourself "Could a newspaper publish this image ?" - assuming it was newsworthy.

I hope this helps

[Mr. Clean]

I know you should have legal release if you're taking a photo of a person, but supposedly I need legal release from a property owner for a picture I want to enter into a contest of my brother and his daughter while they were on private property for a wedding. Is this true? State of Washington if that helps. I'm think no, since it won't be sold? Thanks in advance!

[bungee]

I know you should have legal release if you're taking a photo of a person, but supposedly I need legal release from a property owner for a picture I want to enter into a contest of my brother and his daughter while they were on private property for a wedding. Is this true? State of Washington if that helps. I'm think no, since it won't be sold? Thanks in advance!

Whoa. If you needed a legal release to take a photo of a person then newspapers would cease to exist. :) It's the commercial use of images that (may) need a release. Thus the arguments are usually based around what constitutes commercial usage.

That said I suspect that unless the property owners expressly forbid photography you would have no issues with your proposed use.

Hope this helps

[New Hobby]

I thought this was interesting...

"Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Judith J. Gische ruled that the photo of Nussenzweig—a head shot showing him sporting a scraggly white beard, a black hat and a black coat—was art, even though the photographer sold 10 prints of it at $20,000 to $30,000 each. The judge ruled that New York courts have "recognized that art can be sold, at least in limited editions, and still retain its artistic character. . . . First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment) protection of art is not limited to only starving artists. A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used for trade purposes." See Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip-Lorca_diCorcia

[Raymond Lin]

read the whole thread and still confused, i know you said i would need a release if i intend to sell the photo, then how do we get all these tabloid paper shots of celeb topless? surely there are no release form there and the photographer has sold the photo. and what if i take a photo of the crowd in a street festival and put it on sale. it would be impossible to get 50,000 release forms signed.

[Raymond Lin]

just to add. the photo is not and ad for anything, basically selling purely on it's own merit.

[The Outlaw]

read the whole thread and still confused, i know you said i would need a release if i intend to sell the photo, then how do we get all these tabloid paper shots of celeb topless? surely there are no release form there and the photographer has sold the photo. and what if i take a photo of the crowd in a street festival and put it on sale. it would be impossible to get 50,000 release forms signed. because it doesnt matter if the photographer sells the picture its weather the picture sells anything else that matters. (only a guess) either that or they use the editorial loophole thing

[Raymond Lin]

so selling a photo of the new york marathon to a newspaper is ok, sell the same pic to a private buyer to hang it up in his front room i'll need 50 thousand release forms signed when it was taken in public?

[bungee]

so selling a photo of the new york marathon to a newspaper is ok, sell the same pic to a private buyer to hang it up in his front room i'll need 50 thousand release forms signed when it was taken in public?

Nyet. You can sell a pic of the NY marathon to a private buyer without any releases. What you can't do is use it to make a big banner saying "These runners go faster with Coke" (the fizzy kind or otherwise) as you would then be using their images to promote a product. Mind you using the image to promote the NY marathon might be OK as clearly they did all compete in it.

On the issue of tabloids they are indeed allowed to publish a picture of a celebrity breast if it pops out in view of the general public but would not be able to publish one taken in a department store change room - an area where the celebrity should reasonably expect privacy. The only exception would be where the celebrity invites them into the change room to take a pic :lol:

Summary - generally images taken in public (or images taken in private but with permission) can be sold or used for non-commercial purposes without a release. That said you would find many publishers will seek a release to cover themselves.

[ANGUS]

However with the marathon pic... I doubt you could recognise everyone in the shot so just distort the faces of those you can clearly see and you are fine to use it in an add right??

[KJCSPhoto]

For a first post in this forum this is a big one. Boy oh Boy, All of this can make ones head spin. I am a photographer, who mainly shoots landscapes and the like, but this past summer I was asked to shoot images for a local political campaign, and this really wetted my appetite for portrait and other “street” photography. Within the past month I have taken photos at parades, Powwows and other various events to help me gain experience, and also possibly some exposure in the area. I have taken many so so shots, but I also have a bunch of good ones that I would like to include in my portfolios, and possibly sell. I did not have any one sign releases, because I thought I did not really need one because it was a public space / event. After reading all of your posts it is my understanding that as long as I am not using my photos for advertising purposes I am alright, but it is always a good idea to have a release signed, and I have just picked up some. Thanks for any info that you can Pass along,
Thanks Kevin

[ANGUS]

I beleive a Portfolio is advertising?

[salexande867]

I normally shoot landscape and animals,so I haven't had much experience with releases.
If I take photos at a college sporting event, can the college use those photos on their website without getting a release from those in the photos?

If I were shooting freelance at the event, can I sell the photos to the college without getting a release, assuming the photos would be used on their website?

Thanks!

[Sisters_photography]

I have a question that i hope is not stupid.

if i have a picture of a family and the parents paid for the session and the pictures, however there are children that are over the age of 18 do all of them need to sign and release form.

[jpon2]

I understand getting releases for buildings, people and specific private properties. What if I take a picture of a landscape and I took it from a public road and I want to sell it. Who do I ask for release or do I need one?
I have a shot that includes trees, small stone bridge and a public road (railing and a little surface is showing). If I sell it, someone might be able to recognize this spot so how do I protect myself?
What if I want to take a picture of a grand canyon, a national treasure owned by all, who would I need to get a release from if any?

[afrothang]

I've read all the postings in this thread. Lots of great information thanks to all of you, however there are many redundant questions and answers that have now clouded my mind. I understand the general rules of model releases:

Used for identifiable persons/objects for commercial gain( selling for profit, or selling with the intent to/for advertising purposes, i.e. for a businesses to advertise their company/name/product).

On/at public property/events a release is not required unless identifiable person/object is used for commercial profit(again, selling someones image for profit , or selling with the intent to/for advertising purposes, i.e. for a business to advertise their company/name/product).

For editorial i.e. newspapers, magazines, and other informational outlets, a release is not required because editorial isnt usually to advertise for profit but more of an actual account of something...

With this understanding, my situation and questions are:

I want to publish and sell a photobook with or without editorial. I shoot a martial art (Capoeira) and have amassed an extensive collection of photos from around the world. These photos are from both public(open outdoors) and private(entity controlled indoors) events, with identifiable persons ranging from 1-1000 ppl. Both spaces (public and private) were given to me expressed permission(by way of not stopping me when they could very well have) by the governing body to take photos. I have only recently started collecting releases and do not have them for the majority of the people represented, some have even passed away....

Question 1: Obviously selling the books is for my profit, but does it fit in the category of "Commercial Use" if it is in no way promoting/advertising/or in anyway increasing revenue for a product/company?

Question 2: Is a book considered editorial, since it is not a piece of advertising?

Also with my understanding of the info above, I cannot sell a photo taken in public that has an identifiable face without a release, as stock photo, because someone may purchase that photo for commercial(advertising) use that my be harmful/slanderous of the person Can this circumstance be labeled as an exception to the "anything in public is fair game" scenario?

Question 3: In that case, may I sell said photo to private parties(non-commercial) for private home collections since the photo itself is my intellectual property, and it was taken in public without a release?

Sorry for the long post, this is my first...I had to be thorough.

P.S. PhotoAttorny, I hope you will reply to this post.

[dlw]

I live in Omaha and would like to take photos of Rosenblatt Stadium for sale in a local art gallery during the baseball college world series. Am I going to need a release, or is this city owned stadium public enough that I will not need to get a release? Thanks for any help, I would dread trying to get a release through the city government. I had to get a building permit to build a garden shed and it took forever.

[amfoto1]

1. Buy a copy of "The Law In Plain English for Photographers".

2. If that doesn't answer your questions, consult your attorney, not a bunch of strangers on the Internet.

[thenaturephotographer]

Hi everyone. I was in India this last year and I took some pretty cool pictures of people walking down the street, selling stuff on the street, etc.... From what I read, It doesn't sound like I would need a model release to put these images in my personal web gallery/portfolio, right? But what if someone wants to buy a print of them? (not advertising, but like for the wall?) Thanks

[Ukuleleman]

1. Buy a copy of "The Law In Plain English for Photographers".

2. If that doesn't answer your questions, consult your attorney, not a bunch of strangers on the Internet.

The book sounds like a good idea, unfortunately if it is an american publication, it may be written in plain english, but it does not apply to the English, nor to anybody in the UK since, as I understand it (and I plead the 'I'm not an expert' statute) although I believe that a person's image should be sacrosanct and belong to them, I do not believe that British law makes such a clear cut statement and it is good advice to seek help from a person who knows the law of the country that you are in.

As to the 'Bunch of strangers' bit, many of these strangers have been more than helpful to me personally from a technical point of view and I think I read a post from a US Legal Eagle specialising in the law as it applies to photography, anything he says amounts to free legal advice to you guys in the US of A, and might be worth a piece of L glass in the long run.

[alphonsis]

thanks for the information, it was very useful.

[black_z]

Seems like a bunch of people in this thread can't read! :)

[photographergirl]

Some one mentioned around page 1 or 2 that you can buy a large amount of photo releases for cheap. Can anybody post a link to where you can purchase them? I mostly shoot portraits but have been wanting to do release with each session just to make sure that I am covered. This way if I chose to use them for a ad or promote my business there is no legal issue for it was take care of at the beginning of the session.

I have several photo releases that are legal doc files but its time consuming to go in and change each thing in red that they tell you to put your own info so having a large stack of general release forms would be much easier!

[Hogster]

You may want to buy the attorney's book. She probably wrote it to provide the very information you are seeking.

[KJEphoto]

Here's one i am confused about. I am going to be going to a summer camp to take pictures and document the experience for the campers, i will then be posting the pictures online. There will be roughly 800 kids at this camp, does that mean i need a release from every single one of them if i want to sell the images??

[newb2pro_1day_or_so]

Here's one i am confused about. I am going to be going to a summer camp to take pictures and document the experience for the campers, i will then be posting the pictures online. There will be roughly 800 kids at this camp, does that mean i need a release from every single one of them if i want to sell the images??

Correct me anyone if I'm wrong, but who would you selling the images to? If it's the parents, I don't think there's much of a problem there. You might get the occassional parent that goes against it, but if you get in with the camp, you get in all the way. Now if you are selling the pictures to other people, I'm not sure why you would besides the parents or the camp director, that sounds strange.........but, you wouldn't need a release if it's for editorial purposes. It's a touchy subject because there are kids involved. I feel that no release is required if no explicite action is being shown, no bare skin or offensive gestures, and is purely showing the life of the camp. I'm not full of knowledge on releases, but I'm thinking unless you are selling them to anyone other than the parents or the camp council, you don't need a release.

Now for the website bit. I've been told that in a situation like this, pictures can be posted on your own site and used in your portfolio without a release. Double check me on this, but if you are able to take pictures through the camp council, you can always get a release after you decide what pictures you are keeping. That would narrow down the pool of 800 kids. In this situation, you'd only need a release to cover your butt. I think the picture has to show a clean and closeup shot of a person. If it's a large group of people, I think you're fine. Another way to approach it would be to have the council tell the parents there will be a documentation photographer on the grounds to capture the kids having fun for their website. Just ideas. I'm no pro, but I though i'd share how I feel.

[DDCSD]

Here's one i am confused about. I am going to be going to a summer camp to take pictures and document the experience for the campers, i will then be posting the pictures online. There will be roughly 800 kids at this camp, does that mean i need a release from every single one of them if i want to sell the images??

Assuming you are in the US, you don't need a release to post the images online. You don't need a release to sell prints. You only need a release if you are going to be using the photos for commercial purposes, meaning advertising of some sort.

[DDCSD]

Here is good read on model releases.

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

[tomd]

Derek,
thanks for the link. I read 50% of the reference, and scanned the rest. I didn't see any comment about minors/photographs.
Maybe I'll just reread the pedeophile thread. ;) :lol:

[KJEphoto]

Ok thanks for the responses guys! Most of the sales i presume will either be to parents or the kids themselves. I will make sure that the camp has the parents notified just to be safe. Also one more issue on this topic, the kids at the camp are highschool and under. And many of the activities are pool/water related (swimsuits) is there any reason to worry about this ? i.e. too much skin?? Obviously i'll make sure no "parts" are showing im just being cautious...

[Vegaslabs]

Another question..

If I am at a public pet expo/dog event - and am taking photos of competitors dogs. I put them up online on my website - (just a normal information site), not offering it for sale, more as an image on one of the pages, do I need a signed release from the dogs' owner? (I am asking, since dogs are property, unlike children.. how does this work)

Not sure if it would matter at all, but before taking the photo of this particular dog, I did ask for verbal permission to photograph it - with witnesses. Again, not sure if any of that information is pertinent, but just want all of the details out there.

I plan on consulting an attorney here in town, but just curious what some of you others think about this...

Thanks in advance!

(Also, while I am at it, may as well just ask, if I am there taking photos of dogs that are competing and I DO want to offer them for sale to the owners of those dogs, do I need releases then - since again, they are dogs, not humans...)

[DDCSD]

Another question..

If I am at a public pet expo/dog event - and am taking photos of competitors dogs. I put them up online on my website - (just a normal information site), not offering it for sale, more as an image on one of the pages, do I need a signed release from the dogs' owner? (I am asking, since dogs are property, unlike children.. how does this work)

Not sure if it would matter at all, but before taking the photo of this particular dog, I did ask for verbal permission to photograph it - with witnesses. Again, not sure if any of that information is pertinent, but just want all of the details out there.

I plan on consulting an attorney here in town, but just curious what some of you others think about this...

Thanks in advance!

(Also, while I am at it, may as well just ask, if I am there taking photos of dogs that are competing and I DO want to offer them for sale to the owners of those dogs, do I need releases then - since again, they are dogs, not humans...)

Nope, you don't need releases for web display or for selling prints.

Also, being as they are dogs, in most cases you don't need releases for anything unless they are trademarked (Think Spuds McKenzie).

Of course, if the owner asked you to take them down it would be common courtesy to do so. Within reason, of course.

Here is a great read on Model/Property Releases.

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

Dan specifically addresses pets/animals in that link.

[Vegaslabs]

Nope, you don't need releases for web display or for selling prints.

Also, being as they are dogs, in most cases you don't need releases for anything unless they are trademarked (Think Spuds McKenzie).

Of course, if he owner asked you to take them down it would be common courtesy to do so. Within reason, of course.

Here is a great read on Model/Property Releases.

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

Dan specifically addresses pets/animals in that link.
Thank you so much for the link and information! :)

[jmchooper]

I sometimes shoot adventure sports such as whitewater kayaking and mountaineering. I would like to sale prints on my mostly wildlife and landscape website. Would getting a release from Kayaker rushing by on a class 5 river or a climber fighting for survival on a stormy mountain fall under "undue burden"?

[DDCSD]

I sometimes shoot adventure sports such as whitewater kayaking and mountaineering. I would like to sale prints on my mostly wildlife and landscape website. Would getting a release from Kayaker rushing by on a class 5 river or a climber fighting for survival on a stormy mountain fall under "undue burden"?

If you're just selling prints, you really don't need a release anyways.

[hollis_f]

For example even parents can find it difficult, or even impossible here in the UK, to photograph there own children at a school sports day due to silly laws that imply the photographs may be used for the wrong reasons. :?
There are no laws, silly or otherwise, that prevent parents shooting their own children. However, the school can impose any restrictions it likes on people it invites onto its property, including a 'no cameras' rule. If you ignore that rule then the school may ask you to leave their premises. If you refuse then you are guilty of trespass. The school has the right to ask you to delete any pictures you may have taken - you have the right to refuse.

[jrm27]

Great info folks. Thanks for such an awesome resource!

I am struggling with determining if I need releases for some works uploaded to Alamy as it will affect how I structure their restrictions. One of the pics is of a collection of objects, and the maker's corporate logo is visible on the product, do I need a property release? If I do need one, but don'r have a release, it can only be used for editorial use right?

Same property release question for items that were sitting out on a sidewalk in front of a store. The store is not ideintifiable, the objects are rather common and the image was taken from a public walkway. Do I need a property release for those as well?

Sorry for the pecific questions... this is all new and confusing to me and I don't want to expose myself to any potential liability. Thanks!

photos in question can be seen here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7016159&postcount=15

I apologize if this is an inappropriate use of the thread. If it is, please let me know and I will delete my posting immediately.

Thanks for any light you can shine on the subject!

[DijitalX]

I took a few photos of a boat that is located at a historic park. I called the facility and they are owned by the park. If I just want to sell them as prints at say at farmers market.. would I need a relase if the boats name is visible?

Also, if I wanted to use them as stock photography, would I need a release?

To be on the safe side I contacted someone and got the email address to the marketing and sales head. I was going to propose that if they would sign a release to the photograph, I would provide them copies of the high resolution images to use for any and all publications that they desire. Does this sound like a fair deal?

[DDCSD]

I took a few photos of a boat that is located at a historic park. I called the facility and they are owned by the park. If I just want to sell them as prints at say at farmers market.. would I need a relase if the boats name is visible?

Also, if I wanted to use them as stock photography, would I need a release?

To be on the safe side I contacted someone and got the email address to the marketing and sales head. I was going to propose that if they would sign a release to the photograph, I would provide them copies of the high resolution images to use for any and all publications that they desire. Does this sound like a fair deal?


Welcome to POTN!!!

My advice is given with the assumption that you are located in the US.

You do not need a release to sell prints. Period.

You can certainly use them for stock photos, as long as it is not published for commercial use (advertising). You may be able to use them for advertising, assuming that the boats are not trademarked. I do not know if it matters if the name is visible when using it for advertising, it does not matter for the other purposes. Commercial use may get tricky in this. If it is owned by the government, that may change things as well (commercially), but I personally don't know how.

I personally would not offer them the photos for free use (especially with no conditions) in return for a signed release. Tell them you'll send them a print for display in their offices for a signed release if you really think you need one. Who know, maybe they'd pay you to use them for promotion.

Again, the property release most likely isn't needed anyways, depending on what you want to do with the image.

This is great read on releases.
http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html

More details specifically on property releases.
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#8.2

[DijitalX]

thank you for all of the information. It definitely answered my questions. You rock.

[DDCSD]

thank you for all of the information. It definitely answered my questions. You rock.

Glad to help out. Be sure to read through those links a couple of times. They are full of great information.

[oomus]

I have also heard that there are certain land marks that are copyrighted as well.
Take for instance the Eiffel Tower.
The tower itself is not protected but the lighting at night that reflects off of it is.
So although you can do what you want with the daytime images you will be pressing your luck with nighttime shots if you try to use them for financial gain.

Or at least thats what I have been told....

[jenchfoto]

Nice thread..very helpful. I'm still wondering what to do in my case. I shoot nightclub photos for one club. I watermark the photos with their club logo and send them to them to post on their Myspace page. Do I need to gather releases for all these random people I take pictures of in the club?

[Sharpstat]

I have also heard that there are certain land marks that are copyrighted as well.
Take for instance the Eiffel Tower.
The tower itself is not protected but the lighting at night that reflects off of it is.
So although you can do what you want with the daytime images you will be pressing your luck with nighttime shots if you try to use them for financial gain.

Or at least thats what I have been told....



Just curious as to who told you this? Not necessarily doubting you but the article brings this fact up as to how this usually gets started. :rolleyes:

[hollis_f]

Just curious as to who told you this? Not necessarily doubting you but the article brings this fact up as to how this usually gets started. :rolleyes:It's talked about in the Wiki entry for the Tower -
2003 SNTE (Société nouvelle d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel) installed a new lighting display on the tower. The effect was to put any night-time image of the tower and its lighting display under copyright. As a result, it was no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in some countries.
But it's still fairly controversial - see the rest of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower) for details.

[Tom Reichner]

I'm amazed at how many people refuse to sign a release without first having in writing that they will get ______ % of any profits when the photo is sold. Most people I ask seem to think that if I'm asking them to sign something, then there must be money in it, and they want to ensure that they get half. Makes me think I should just stick to photographing wildlife.

[Matthew.Samos]

I've searched around a bit, but with few results-- can I sell photos of public statues(like, outdoor, walk-up-and-touch, in the US) royalty free? Is there a rule of thumb? Or are locals laws too varied...?

[DDCSD]

I've searched around a bit, but with few results-- can I sell photos of public statues(like, outdoor, walk-up-and-touch, in the US) royalty free? Is there a rule of thumb? Or are locals laws too varied...?

You will probably get a better response if you start a new thread for this. Many people don't read longer threads like this one.

[Matthew.Samos]

Ha, and here I thought this was a designated area for these types of questions. Oh well. Thanks for the heads up.

[DDCSD]

Ha, and here I thought this was a designated area for these types of questions. Oh well. Thanks for the heads up.

It is a good place to ask, but most people don't even look at the stickies. The only reason I saw your post is because I am subscribed to this thread. If I wasn't, would never have seen your post. :)

[Tom Reichner]

I saw his post, too.

[Mick_I]

You always need a release, even if it's your wife.

[KidPics]

I'm just wanting to make sure that the model release applies to just selling the image commercially, right? I don't need the model release to just post the pictures I take on my own website or blog, right? Clarification please...

[DDCSD]

I'm just wanting to make sure that the model release applies to just selling the image commercially, right? I don't need the model release to just post the pictures I take on my own website or blog, right? Clarification please...

Correct. Unless you are incorporating them in an ad of sorts and implying that they are endorsing you. Simply posting the images does not do that.

[Lennybird]

So let me see me if I understand this:

If I want to go to the local park and snap some photos of the kids in the skate park, that's okay as long as it's for non-profit, non-commercial use? Unless, of course, they directly tell me not to photograph them.

[DDCSD]

So let me see me if I understand this:

If I want to go to the local park and snap some photos of the kids in the skate park, that's okay as long as it's for non-profit, non-commercial use? Unless, of course, they directly tell me not to photograph them.

The way you worded it is not correct. For example, the Red Cross is non-profit. You would still need a model release in order to use an image of someone for an ad for the Red Cross.

Basically, you can't use the image of someone in a manner that implies that they are endorsing a product, person or organization. You could however sell the images to a magazine or newspaper and they could run them on their front cover if they wanted to.

[Lennybird]

The way you worded it is not correct. For example, the Red Cross is non-profit. You would still need a model release in order to use an image of someone for an ad for the Red Cross.

Basically, you can't use the image of someone in a manner that implies that they are endorsing a product, person or organization. You could however sell the images to a magazine or newspaper and they could run them on their front cover if they wanted to.

Great thank you.

You could however sell the images to a magazine or newspaper and they could run them on their front cover if they wanted to.

So you're saying I wouldn't technically need a release in that specific situation, though?

[DDCSD]

So you're saying I wouldn't technically need a release in that specific situation, though?

If the photos are being used editorially, then you shouldn't need a release. So if your photo is run as part of a story or photo sharing section, that should be fine.

[Cathan]

I know there are lot model releases available on net today, though could someone share a good or their current used model release form? (if you could provide a link or a pdf download link, is great)

[brandonqualls89]

i just got started in this stuff! and that was a really good read. lots of helpful information! thanks a lot!

-brandon

[john-in-japan]

Did the photobook question get answered?
If publishing a photobook on Blurb or similar that does not advertise within or contain any commercial intent other than simply selling the book online, immune from model release? This should be a simple Yes No answer.
John

[DDCSD]

Did the photobook question get answered?
If publishing a photobook on Blurb or similar that does not advertise within or contain any commercial intent other than simply selling the book online, immune from model release? This should be a simple Yes No answer.
John

You do not need a model/property release for the situation that you are describing.

[john-in-japan]

Derek - Thanks,
John

[ErrolEPhotography]

amazing

[elo179]

do paparazzi need release forms?

[DDCSD]

do paparazzi need release forms?


Depends on what they want to do with the photos. If they want to sell them for editorial use, no.

[MJones]

Hi... I am aware that model release for adults is a little different for minors. If a model (17yrs) wants to do a Time For CD / Portfolio shoot - in which both of us can use the images for our portfolio. Do I need a release? Specifically because the person is not 18+? On my end I would only be posting the images in an online portfolio, not for sale. Her end would be for her portfolio - self promotion etc.

[RDKirk]

Hi... I am aware that model release for adults is a little different for minors. If a model (17yrs) wants to do a Time For CD / Portfolio shoot - in which both of us can use the images for our portfolio. Do I need a release? Specifically because the person is not 18+? On my end I would only be posting the images in an online portfolio, not for sale. Her end would be for her portfolio - self promotion etc.

Yes, you do need a model release. If you are posting the images on a website to promote yourself as a photographer, that's a commercial use requiring a model release. If the person is under the age of majority wherever you are, you will need an adult parent or legal guardian to sign the release.

[RDKirk]

I'm just wanting to make sure that the model release applies to just selling the image commercially, right? I don't need the model release to just post the pictures I take on my own website or blog, right? Clarification please...

In the US, If your website promotes you as a photographer, that is a commercial use and you will need a model release. It doesn't even matter if you are a non-profit photographer--it's promoting your service, therefore you need a model release.

Money is not a deciding factor! If the image is promoting a product or service, even on a non-profit basis, you still need a model release.

In the US, you actually don't need a model release to sell the photographs directly--as long as there is no hint of them being used to promote your services as a photographer. For instance, an art agent could sell the photographs to a private party as works of art without a model release.

[sloonz]

So here's the situation:

I've been taking photos of events for my local Church. What are the legalities of posting these to our church website? I assume I don't need a release because all images are not for sale. In this case is it just good practice to get releases from the people in the photos as common courtesy?

On a similar note, what about posting street photography photos to my website or places like Flickr?

Thanks for any advice you can give

[RDKirk]

So here's the situation:

I've been taking photos of events for my local Church. What are the legalities of posting these to our church website? I assume I don't need a release because all images are not for sale. In this case is it just good practice to get releases from the people in the photos as common courtesy?

The best answer is always to get a release, especially in such a situation that you can get into contact with the subjects after the fact. A church website would probably be mostly "editorial" -- and has religious rights as well that are guaranteed by the same First Amendment that allows editorial and artistic work to be shown without a release. However, some parts of the site can conceivably delve into the "promote a service" realm, so having a release would keep you on safe ground.

On a similar note, what about posting street photography photos to my website or places like Flickr?

Thanks for any advice you can give

As mentioned above in the thread, a non-commercial use does not require a model release--however if the picture exposes the subject to undue ridicule or humiliation undue publicity, you will need a release.

What is "undue ridicule or humiliation" or "undue publicity?" Let's say you photographed an ordinary woman whose dress was suddenly blown over her head by a gust of wind. Posting that photograph would be "undue ridicule or humiliation." Let's say you photographed a young woman who was deliberately walking nude down Main Street. That would not be undue ridicule or humiliation.

Let's say you came upon the scene of an accident before the ambulance had even arrived and photographed broken body of a child strewn in the street and the dazed, anguished parents nearby. Publishing that photo as a news item would not be "undue publicity." But publishing it a year later as merely an intriguing photograph might be considered "undue publicity" because it's no longer a current news item. However, if they are movie stars, their celebrity would make any photograph of them a continuing newsworthy item.

But enough digression...for your purposes, the best thing is to get the releases. That way everyone is fully aware of everything and you have no chance of unpleasant misunderstandings.

[opianstate]

lot of good information in this thread. I recently showed up at a party with a "pro" photog (actually a dude with a D90 and kit lens and offboard flash) following everybody around at the club. They were insistent I sign a model release and I wasn't having it. The entire ordeal was a little strange to me...

[DDCSD]

lot of good information in this thread. I recently showed up at a party with a "pro" photog (actually a dude with a D90 and kit lens and offboard flash) following everybody around at the club. They were insistent I sign a model release and I wasn't having it. The entire ordeal was a little strange to me...


That's a little creepy. I can't imagine that many people would sign them at a club, and even if someone does they could just claim that they were drunk and not aware of what they were signing.

Not sure why they'd even bother.

[sloonz]

Thanks for the great info RDKrik! It's much clearer now.

[Bainsworth]

good info and a sample release...
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

[DigitalTimmay]

I read that link above (still reading it) and not sure if I have an answer...

Next week I'm photographing a charity hockey game between an FBI team and a Marine team. I'm going to sell the prints back to the players via Smugmug. After I cover my costs, I'm going to donate the sales to the charity (Toys for Tots).
My question here arises from the situation of association. The players all have the Marine logo or FBI logo on their jerseys. And the charity is associated with Toys for Tots (Marines).
Does posting photos online at my site or smugmug constitute publishing? (This is considered vehicle of information so no right?)
Does the fact they are playing for FBI and Marine teams show association with those organizations?
Since there may be association, should I have a release?
Would I need releases from each player or just a team release?

I don't think I need one but "hey that player has an FBI logo on that jersey!"
Any help would be most appreciated.

[RDKirk]

I read that link above (still reading it) and not sure if I have an answer...

Next week I'm photographing a charity hockey game between an FBI team and a Marine team. I'm going to sell the prints back to the players via Smugmug. After I cover my costs, I'm going to donate the sales to the charity (Toys for Tots).
My question here arises from the situation of association. The players all have the Marine logo or FBI logo on their jerseys. And the charity is associated with Toys for Tots (Marines).
Does posting photos online at my site or smugmug constitute publishing? (This is considered vehicle of information so no right?)
Does the fact they are playing for FBI and Marine teams show association with those organizations?
Since there may be association, should I have a release?
Would I need releases from each player or just a team release?

A. By law, the federal government does not own any copyrights or trademarks.

B. By some legal accounts you are publishing the photos. However, there haven't been any actual court rulings on whether posting on websites constitute "publishing" with regard to copyright or privacy rights. Some legal sources speaking of privacy rights believe that if the website is completely open to the public, a court will eventually rule that to be "publishing," but if the web page is secured and requires a log-in, that would not be regarded as "publishing." But other legal sources speaking of copyright advise that photographers register the copyright of any photograph that appeared on the web under any circumstances as "published."

C. Regardless, you own the copyright for the photographs and the government does not own any trademarks on its own logos, so there is not an issue of trademark or copyright violation.

D. Courts have ruled that the sale of the photographs themselves is not a "commercial" use.

C. If you did intend to use the photographs for commercial purposes (say, to promote your photography business), the issue of "association" would be ethical, not legal. Your images do not contain any of the "distinctive accouterments" of either the Marine Corps uniform or the FBI (I don't know offhand if the FBI even has "distinctive accouterments") or their official seals. There aren't any laws that prohibit that association, which is also why Hollywood doesn't have to have the government's permission to make movies and television shows about government agencies.

[DigitalTimmay]

A. By law, the federal government does not own any copyrights or trademarks.

B. By some legal accounts you are publishing the photos. However, there haven't been any actual court rulings on whether posting on websites constitute "publishing" with regard to copyright or privacy rights. Some legal sources speaking of privacy rights believe that if the website is completely open to the public, a court will eventually rule that to be "publishing," but if the web page is secured and requires a log-in, that would not be regarded as "publishing." But other legal sources speaking of copyright advise that photographers register the copyright of any photograph that appeared on the web under any circumstances as "published."

C. Regardless, you own the copyright for the photographs and the government does not own any trademarks on its own logos, so there is not an issue of trademark or copyright violation.

D. Courts have ruled that the sale of the photographs themselves is not a "commercial" use.

C. If you did intend to use the photographs for commercial purposes (say, to promote your photography business), the issue of "association" would be ethical, not legal. Your images do not contain any of the "distinctive accouterments" of either the Marine Corps uniform or the FBI (I don't know offhand if the FBI even has "distinctive accouterments") or their official seals. There aren't any laws that prohibit that association, which is also why Hollywood doesn't have to have the government's permission to make movies and television shows about government agencies.

Of course I forgot the govt can't own a copyright.

Well I have my answer and it was right in front of me. Thank you for the clarification.

[DDCSD]

Of course I forgot the govt can't own a copyright.

Well I have my answer and it was right in front of me. Thank you for the clarification.


You don't need any releases of any kind to sell prints back to people, either.

[CaptureTheLife]

Yes, I would like one as well!

[mayt444]

Suppose I take a photo of farmer John's old barn covered with bleached out skulls. I then sell that photo and it ends up on a calender. Farmer John sees the calender and say's "hey, thats my barn!". Could I be sued by farmer John?
Clay

[RDKirk]

Suppose I take a photo of farmer John's old barn covered with bleached out skulls. I then sell that photo and it ends up on a calender. Farmer John sees the calender and say's "hey, thats my barn!". Could I be sued by farmer John?
Clay

Maybe. Although a building has no privacy rights (and your example doesn't get into trademark issues), an item that can be positively identified to a specific person might persuade a court that the person's privacy rights have been violated. One case was won on those grounds in NY, but another case on the same grounds was lost in Ohio.

[DDCSD]

Maybe. Although a building has no privacy rights (and your example doesn't get into trademark issues), an item that can be positively identified to a specific person might persuade a court that the person's privacy rights have been violated. One case was won on those grounds in NY, but another case on the same grounds was lost in Ohio.


Yes, very gray area. The best thing to do would be to get a property release signed anyways. Usually easy enough if you offer the owner a print or something in return.

[10megapixel]

Yes, I would like one as well!

I was just waiting for someone to say it :lol:

[RDKirk]

Yes, very gray area. The best thing to do would be to get a property release signed anyways. Usually easy enough if you offer the owner a print or something in return.

I use a couple of local bed and breakfast locations for formal portraiture. I do not and would not use a "property release." The reason is that it evokes the concept that like persons, property has a privacy to be respected and protected. I don't want to be part of the building of a case that property has rights. If you check with ASMP and this blog: photoattorney.com, you see that there isn't actually any case law or legislation that requires a "property release."

Rather, I do something similar what Hollywood productions do--I have a form to "rent for commercial photographic purposes." It's a slight semantic difference--I'm still getting the permission of the owner to use his property for my commercial photography--but it avoids blending the concept of "model release" (which is all about personal privacy rights) with renting property for commercial purposes (which is more similar to leasing a truck for your delivery service).

[DDCSD]

I use a couple of local bed and breakfast locations for formal portraiture. I do not and would not use a "property release." The reason is that it evokes the concept that like persons, property has a privacy to be respected and protected. I don't want to be part of the building of a case that property has rights. If you check with ASMP and this blog: photoattorney.com, you see that there isn't actually any case law or legislation that requires a "property release."

Rather, I do something similar what Hollywood productions do--I have a form to "rent for commercial photographic purposes." It's a slight semantic difference--I'm still getting the permission of the owner to use his property for my commercial photography--but it avoids blending the concept of "model release" (which is all about personal privacy rights) with renting property for commercial purposes (which is more similar to leasing a truck for your delivery service).


Using the property as the main subject of a photograph in a calender is completely different than to use it as a backdrop for a photo of a different subject.

Its funny you mention the ASMP since they recommend obtaining a property release every time it is possible:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html

In fact, they provide a template to use:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-release.html


Like I said (and the ASMP says), its a gray area and it is easier to get the release signed when possible to avoid any future problems.

[RDKirk]

Using the property as the main subject of a photograph in a calender is completely different than to use it as a backdrop for a photo of a different subject.

No, it isn't. Property has no personal rights. Whether backdrop or in the center of the frame, property is just property. Putting it in the center of the frame does not change its legal status as being merely property. If you get permission to use property commercially, you have permission to use it commercially.

[DDCSD]

No, it isn't. Property has no personal rights. Whether backdrop or in the center of the frame, property is just property. Putting it in the center of the frame does not change its legal status as being merely property.


No one is claiming that property has personal rights.


If you get permission to use property commercially, you have permission to use it commercially.

You really have me confused here. You claim that property requires no release of any kind, but then say that "If you have permission..., you have permission..." A property release simply states that you have permission to use a photo of a certain subject commercially.

You seem to be saying that as long as you get permission, you're fine. Before you said that, you made the case that you need no form stating that you have received that permission.


You also made the ASMP out to be an authority on the subject, but then ignored the fact that they think it is a good idea to get a property release. I simply re-stated the ASMP's position on the subject that it is a good idea to get one if possible.



You are correct when you say that property has no personal rights. Property owners do have rights though, and that is where it starts getting gray and why the ASMP recommends getting a property release signed, when possible, if you plan on using the photos commercially.

[mayt444]

So I guess my next question would be, if I simply sell prints of the image, it would be differant than if I sell a stock photo that ends up on a magazine page as a backdrop to an add? The later being commercial use.
Clay

[RDKirk]

You really have me confused here. You claim that property requires no release of any kind, but then say that "If you have permission..., you have permission..." A property release simply states that you have permission to use a photo of a certain subject commercially.

You seem to be saying that as long as you get permission, you're fine. Before you said that, you made the case that you need no form stating that you have received that permission.

You also made the ASMP out to be an authority on the subject, but then ignored the fact that they think it is a good idea to get a property release. I simply re-stated the ASMP's position on the subject that it is a good idea to get one if possible.

You are correct when you say that property has no personal rights. Property owners do have rights though, and that is where it starts getting gray and why the ASMP recommends getting a property release signed, when possible, if you plan on using the photos commercially.

I also pointed out someone else to read, Carolyn Wright. Do some reading of her blog essays on the issue. www.photoattorney.com/

[mayt444]

Thanks a bunch everyone.
Clay

[bdpaco]

My wife's work (daycare) asked me to come in and take pictures to put up on their website... I told them sure, but that she needed to get model release forms signed to use them on her website. I, in turn posted them in my photo gallery. Now a parent has not signed the release for use on the daycare website, and wants me to remove the picture of her son from my photo gallery...I was under the impression I did not need a model release as long as I was not selling the photo or using it in advertising..Am I wrong? I have no problem with removing the photo, and probably will to avoid problems for my wife with the parent.

[DDCSD]

Technically you don't need a release to display the photos in a web gallery like that. But you should take down the photo(s) in questions to avoid any animosity.

[badrose]

First time poster here! Just wanted to get my feet wet and say what a great site this is!

[Brandonsfocus]

Here's an odd one for you fellow members: I have a photography book idea that I'm working on and will skip the details ;)

At any rate, the photos consist of persons from say...mid thigh down to the ground, so there are NO faces or 'likeness' involved. Other than associating the name of the person in their respective photos during print (which I do get model releases for), if I DO NOT associate their name with their photo when printing, is a model release still needed? These photos are also taken on the street, in public places.

Thanks!

[DDCSD]

Even if you associate the names with the photos, you don't need a release.

I assume you are in the US.

[Brandonsfocus]

Even if you associate the names with the photos, you don't need a release.

I assume you are in the US.

Thanks for the quick response. Yes...in the states. Hawaii to be exact. I was/am unsure, so as a precaution, I've been getting model release forms for these photos I've been taking to be safe.

How about this: What if the person in the photo under the same scenario is under age? Verbal permission? Minor release form?

Any other opinions or insight? Anyone?

Aloha!