Urgent Advice Re: Model Releases Please.

[Jonny]

Guys,

I need a quick answer to this one please.....BTW i am in the UK.

A few weeks ago our local Kite Sports club put together an article for a magazine to help publicise the club. I contributed 6 photographs that were all printed.
It is a national magazine, although it is a small niche one.

Since they were printed i have a persistant thorn in my side......one of the subjects. He wants me to give him the original image file FOR FREE to which i said no. I offered him a print at cost but he has declined.
He is now demanding the file and he is getting quite nasty.
He is talking about the fact that he signed no release....is this a problem?

The image was taken in a public park with his knowledge. the pictures were not sold to the magazine, they were used just to illustrate the sport.
No money or other form of payment has be made to anyone.

It is a shame that he has turned this way as he was so excited at first to see his photo published. He is also complaining that his photos are on my website without his permission...surely i don't need it as i am not selling it but merely displaying it.

Am i right...

Please help.

[Bruce Hamilton]

He is talking about the fact that he signed no release....is this a problem?

As was stated in the stick thread above, everybody has the right to control how his or her image is being used. You're safe in one aspect because you haven't sold the photograph, but you are displaying it on the internet. He's well within his rights to demand you remove it from your web site, but not to demand the original... You still own the copyrights.

[Jonny]

but you are displaying it on the internet. He's well within his rights to demand you remove it from your web site, but not to demand the original... You still own the copyrights.

How can that be? does that mean that every image of every person on the www needs a release? What about all the pics in the 'People' section of this forum?

[Bruce Hamilton]

What about all the pics in the 'People' section of this forum?

If you took a photo of me and posted it in the 'people' section of the forum, I would have the right to demand it be removed if I hadn't signed a release.

[desertrat_ps]

A person cannot stop the use of their photo for editorial purposes. You can even be paid for that photo. Only when the photo is used for non-editorial purposes is a release required.

Posting on the web in any format other than editorial needs a release. If you posted to your own personal gallery to show your work, this requires a release. However you could have a site that sold stock photos, showing it labeling it available for editorial use only is acceptable. Getty Images does this all the time.

[mbze430]

You don't have to give up your photo to the subject. However if he demands that his photo not to be shown, and you do not have the model release form. Than he has every rights to make this request.

For this is the reason I don't take pictures of people in public place, in details. If its someone that you can't possibly make out (too far, behind the subject...etc), than those are usable images. But anytime where you don't have a release form signed, the possibility of the subject wanting a compensation is almost certain.

My suggestion, retract the photo with the subject. And go on with life. You still have 5 printable photos for the magazine

[Digital Prophet]

I agree with the above. If the magazine used the images in a editorial context you are ok. But in the cae of your website you are not. Take it down immediately and save yourself the hassle.

However there is one more point to be made. That image still has value to you for portfolio and exhibition purposes. Do not under any circumstance surrender the file or the copyright. You are well within your rights to photograph whatever you like. It is the dessimination of the image that is the tickler.

Personally I would have given him a copy of the file after he signed a model release and a licensing agreement that stated he couldn't use it for financial gain. But that is just me.

- Digital Prophet -

[jukas]

This might be a silly question, but is he easily recognizable in the photo. That is, could your average John Q public seeing the photo and the gentleman conclude it was him? If a judge couldn't clearly confirm it was him (i.e head turn or blurry, obscured, etc) he may have a much harder time proving his case.

As for the model release, if it was used by the magazine in an editorial fashion like an article on a local kite club, no release would be needed. However if it was a printed ad for Acme Kites or for a school that teaches you how to fly then you would need a release.

As for your website and portfolio. Because both can reasonably be considered self advertising you would need a model release. If you can't work out an agreement with him where you keep all your copyrights and get a signed release from him, simply take them off your site and remove it from your portfolio. Under no circumstances give him your original media, nor sign away your copyright.

[Jonny]

Thanks guys for all your comments and advice, it is much apprieciated.
I feel better and more assured that no release was required for the type of article printed.

I have taken your advice and removed his pic from my site and as far as i can see it is his loss. To be featured in a national mag relating to a sport he obviously loves must have been a brilliant experience for him.......it won't happen again. The mag in question has asked me to cover more events and you can be sure my lens will never point in his direction again.

thanks again

[Digital Prophet]

As for your website and portfolio. Because both can reasonably be considered self advertising you would need a model release. If you can't work out an agreement with him where you keep all your copyrights and get a signed release from him, simply take them off your site and remove it from your portfolio.

In the case of the website I absolutely agree. But as far as gallery showings and portfolios (in the US at least) there is no need to have a model release. The reason being that the 1976 Copyright law defines "published" as distribution to the general public by means of sale or transfer. But the 1909 Copyright says that the public perfomance does not constitute publication. It goes on to say that display to select groups without the right to distribution or sale does not constitute publication. And since the 1976 Copyright law does not refer to amend this clause the 1909 statute stands.

So as long as the shot remains out of public circulation you don't need a release. Portfolios and even gallery showings fall under the precept of public perfomance. So I say if it is that grand a shot register it and leave it ye old portfolio.

- Digital Prophet -

[Digital Prophet]

The mag in question has asked me to cover more events and you can be sure my lens will never point in his direction again.

Oh, one last thing. Don't be surprised if this guy causes problems for you at future evets. Jerks love to spread malicious comments when they don't get thier way. And if he sees you shooting in someone else's direction prepare to have issues.

Get yourself a small pad of releases (very simple ones) and be prepared to offer prints in exchange for the release. In fact insist on and state on the release. A release without an exchange of goods is an agreement. Once you exchange goods (prints, cash, first born) the agreement becomes a contract. And it is much harder to revoke a contract.

Again, in the US at least.

- Digital Prophet -

[S230]

Oh, one last thing. Don't be surprised if this guy causes problems for you at future evets. Jerks love to spread malicious comments when they don't get thier way. And if he sees you shooting in someone else's direction prepare to have issues.Digital Prophet is correct.. Make sure you record any problems that occurred because if things persist and gets really ugly, a court settlement can help make this person stay away. Try being political first to resolve the issue. The person may simply just want unlimited free prints.

As for speading malicious comments; this is serious and can hurt your reputation. You may give a warning but if it's serious enough and continues, then you need proof and a lawsuit.

[Bruce Hamilton]

I have taken your advice and removed his pic from my site and as far as i can see it is his loss...The mag in question has asked me to cover more events and you can be sure my lens will never point in his direction again.

Just out of curiosity, Jonny... How well could you distort his features without destroying the photograph? If you make him unrecognizable, he'd have a hard time making a case in court and you can do with the photo what you wish.

[Jonny]

Just out of curiosity, Jonny... How well could you distort his features without destroying the photograph? If you make him unrecognizable, he'd have a hard time making a case in court and you can do with the photo what you wish.

No it would ruin the shot.

[Claire]

I'm a tiny bit confused about the magazine issue. The first thing I thought is that it's editorial as it's a magazine, but Jonny mentions that the mag is to publicise the club. Would that not count as a form of advertising then? Anyone know? Or is the magazine about kite flying in general, as that'd count as straight up editorial.

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm a tiny bit confused about the magazine issue. The first thing I thought is that it's editorial as it's a magazine, but Jonny mentions that the mag is to publicise the club. Would that not count as a form of advertising then? Anyone know? Or is the magazine about kite flying in general, as that'd count as straight up editorial.
To answer this, you need 2 high paid teams of lawyers who'll argue about endlessly and shovel paper at each other.

[Claire]

To answer this, you need 2 high paid teams of lawyers who'll argue about endlessly and shovel paper at each other.

And here I thought Jonny could help answer part of the questions! ;) :p