Well I'm not sure but...

[stanblaok73]

I did read the sticky on releases, but I don't think I saw anything that pertains to my question. I am in the process of getting my website/portfolio up, and have pictures from personal collection, as well as weddings, and sporting events. I don't plan on selling these photos, the sport ones anyways( Pro skaters/ bmx riders) Am I allowed to put their photo up, without legal hassle. Excuse me if it is a dumb question, I am kind of new to this. Thanks for any help.

[harroz]

you hold copyright, so you should b e fine unless there was a contract saying otherwise. Put them up, and if anybody has a problem then pull them back down ;)

[jra]

If you are using them in a commercial sense (as a promotion for your hired services) then you would need a release. If you're just sharing them on a personal site, you shouldn't need a release in most cases.

[SouthernImages]

I would strongly suggest reading Dan Heller's Model Release primer (http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html).
Actually, just read Dan Heller! :)

To be completely safe, you should get a model release if you put it on your "business" web-site, as it is obviously for commercial purposes: advertising your capabilities, showing your work, etc... It promotes your business.

However, if you took photographs at a wedding, and the couple knew it and you gave them prints and they were happy... I would feel pretty confident in posting those.
If it's at a birthday party with kids... ABSOLUTELY get a release from the parents. Don't mess with moms!
If it's a surfing competition, local baseball game, HS football, that's pretty safe to post.
If it's a Major League Baseball game or other professional league in a professional venue, big NO NO (not that you'd get great pictures from the stands anyway).

Don't confuse Copyright with Usage Rights. Those are NOT the same things.
The images absolutely belong to you and you can make whatever PRIVATE use you want of them.
When you make commercial (i.e. derive money, even if indirectly) use of them, the people depicted in the photographs have a right to object.

Again, read Dan Heller on the subject.

[stanblaok73]

Thank you for the answers, it cleared some things up.

[amfoto1]

Hi,

I agree that to be completely safe you should have releases. However...

If you are displaying these photos as samples of your work, in a portfolio of sorts, whether in print or on your website, that is editorial usage and technically you do not need a release for this purpose. The same would be true of making some prints and hanging them on the walls of the waiting room of your studio.

If you were using one of the photos in an advertisement, where the subjects essentially become "spokespersons" for your services, you have crossed into the commercial realm and definitely should have a release. The advertisement can be a web page, space in a newspaper or the local yellow pages, on TV or a printed brochure detailing your services.

But, really, what's the worst that can happen?

If someone sees you using a photo where they are the subject, and the photo is in good taste, not defamatory in any way and is nicely displayed they will either a) be flattered (998 out of 1000) or b) be upset and object to the usage (2 out of 1000). If they happen to choose b) and object, their next step legally would be to send you a "cease and desist" letter. So long as you cease and desist immediately upon receiving the letter, the issue is over.

Images on a website are easy to remove. A print hanging on a wall or slipped into a portfolio can simply be taken down or removed.

The mistake here would be to argue your case... That's where you would get into problems and end up with legal bills. Even if you won your case in court, you might end up broke.

Now, there are some definite exceptions to this.

One would be a celebrity. They might argue that you have already profited from using their famous image and that they deserve reimbursement. The same might be true of a professional model who is typically paid for use of their image.

Another exception is kids. The courts tend to give greater protection to anyone underage in cases like this. So extra caution is advised and a release - signed by a parent or legal guardian - that permits you to display the image is a part of that extra caution.

Also, any image showing nudity, or any image that is derogatory and might be argued to be defamatory, would be a bad idea to display publicly without a signed release.

Even a photo that's simply used in a manner that might be considered defamatory may need more specific disclosure and agreements. There's a famous case of a model who was compensated and signed a standard release, but who sued when a photo was used in an ad that discussed sexually transmitted diseases and portrayed her as having diseases. Her suit was successful because the use of the image damaged her reputation and effected her ability to earn an income as a professional model. In this case, the photographer should have gotten a more detailed release that spelled out how the photo was going to be used.

I'd also be more careful if the images are made in a private setting, such as in a person's home.

And, as noted, offering to sell photos made at any venue that strictly controls photography for profit, such as a sports league, NASCAR, a concert, etc., would be a bad idea without written permission (Note: this is more of a property release than a model release, but see above comment about celebrities... A separate model release might also be necessary. That's a different issue).

And, yes, all this has nothing what-so-ever to do with copyrights and who holds them. However, most releases do contain a phrase to clarify that the photographer retains all ownership of their copyright.

So, besides those exceptions, in other situations where all you really have to do is "cease and desist"... Hey, why bother with releases at all?

Well, for one thing you want to sell your images, don't you? A third party considering purchasing your images to use in a commercial manner will want the protection of a solid, signed release. Sure, you can still use and even sell the images for editorial purposes without a release (although more editorial users are starting to ask for releases these days), the pay isn't the same. Commercial usage of an image often generates 10X, 25X or even much more than what you might expect to be paid for editorial usage. So, the released image is worth much more to you.

And, an ad that's been published can't be retracted. Better get a release or there might be some compensation due to them, since there is no way to cease and desist from using the image. You cannot put this genie back in the bottle, so to speak. If you use the image in a commercial manner (i.e. an ad) where it's published in some way, better have a signed release.

You can go back and get a release signed after the fact. But, usually it's far easier to get it in advance and just make it part of your regular work flow.

Besides Dan Heller's online musings, I'd also suggest you get the book "ASMP Professional Business Practices in Photography" (http://www.amazon.com/ASMP-Professional-Business-Practices-Photography/dp/1581154976/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255039904&sr=8-2) This includes a sample release that many photographers use. The ASMP has no doubt had their battery of attorneys look over every page of this book.

Another very useful read that includes info on releases is "The Law - In Plain English - For Photographers" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581152256/sr=1-1-spell/qid=1255040092/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1255040092&sr=1-1-spell&seller=) This is written by an attorney who specializes in issues pertaining to photography.

As far as I know, Dan Heller isn't an attorney but is a photographer who is dealing with these issues, same as me. Neither of us is really qualified to give legal advice. So, consult an attorney who knows about these things, if you are still nervous after reading those books.