model release forms for a picture book

[madeyejohn]

i am currently working on my first photo book from blurb.com. i was told by my father i needed model release forms to publish and sell these books. they do not endorse any products or will not go into any corporate magazines. the book is simply to sell to family and friends to show off my model work. most of my models have already signed model release forms only i was just wandering because to me it doesn't seem like i would need them in this case.

[DDCSD]

You really don't need model releases for the situation that you're describing.

[madeyejohn]

Are u sure I don't want to get into any legal trouble even if. So I don't need them even if I start selling to people other then friends and family.

[RDKirk]

Are u sure I don't want to get into any legal trouble even if. So I don't need them even if I start selling to people other then friends and family.

Presuming you're in the US and as you have described it, it sounds as if you intend to publish an editorial or artistic work. Technically, your Constitutional First Amendment right to editorial and artistic expression supersedes state privacy rights (which is what model releases are for), and you do not need model releases.

This does not mean someone might not try to sue you, but if privacy alone is the issue (the mere fact that the persons did not give you permission to publish their pictures), the lawsuit will fail, as has consistently been the case.

It doesn't matter that you sell your editorial or artist work to other people for money--the Constitution allows you to profit from your editorial and artistic expression.

However, if your expression causes the subject to undue humiliation or public disgrace, that gives them another reason to sue you--your First Amendment right does not permit you to hurt people without cause.

For a couple of actual instances: A newspaper once published a photograph of a local woman exiting a state fair carnival ride taken just as a gust of wind blew her dress over her head. The woman--a married woman with children--sued the newspaper and won, claiming that the photograph humiliated and disgraced her. Now, if she had deliberately paraded around town in the nude, it would have been a different situation.

In another case, a Wall Street businessman successfully sued a newsmagazine for using his picture (taken as he exited his company) to illustrate an article about dishonest executives. He was not a subject of the article--his was merely a random "picture of a businessman" that they made the mistake of using to illustrate a story specifically about dishonest businessmen.

An outside, but connected issue, involves photographs of famous people even when you have a model release. The estate of Marilyn Monroe has been fighting photographers who have valide, signed releases for their pictures of Monroe from licensing those pictures for advertising.

They have gotten the state of California to declare those images the property of the Monroe estate even though the photographers clearly own the copyright for them and have Monroe's express permission to use them in any manner.

[madeyejohn]

so if the models know that i have taken the pictures and they arnt incriminating then i can publish the book with out having them sign a release form. awesome.

[RDKirk]

so if the models know that i have taken the pictures and they arnt incriminating then i can publish the book with out having them sign a release form. awesome.

Another point--it must have been legal for you to take the pictures in the first place. That means, you weren't trespassing, you weren't being a voyeur, it's not child pornography, et cetera.