Selling Street Candids (UK Laws)

[g3org3y]

A bit of help please...

I did read the long sticky at the top of the page but didn't quite answer my question especially when related to UK law.

I'm of the understanding that shots like these (street candid, random person, permission not obtained):
http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac106/g3org3y1/Barcelona/IMG_5655mod.jpg

can be put on websites and used in portfolios without 'model release'.

Is this also the same for shots of <18 year olds like this:
http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac106/g3org3y1/Barcelona/IMG_5859mod.jpg

What is the situation regarding the printing and selling of these photos? They would be printed and sold on an individual basis (for people's walls etc, not for advertising)?

What if the individual is unidentifiable (eg looking the other way)?
http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac106/g3org3y1/Barcelona/IMG_6583mod.jpg

TIA :)

[tom_fewster]

There is some useful information here:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
and here:
http://bluenoxid.co.uk/photolaw.html

Even though a model release isn't required in the UK, it is probably best to get one if you can, just to cover your back, and any future changes to the law - especially if you are photographing children.

[Karl Johnston]

With any luck your copyright will be meaningless in a few years anyway if that proposal goes through that allows non-commercial clients to use your images free of charge.

[Collin85]

As far as I know, if you're planning on selling your images or using them for commercial gain, then you do need a model release. As you said, putting them for display on a website is generally fine, unless you are using those photos to sell a service. That is, using them in a portfolio used to procure jobs is not acceptable. In the end, the rule is fairly simple: if you're using the photo in some way for commercial gain, then you will need a model release.

I don't think anything changes for children.

For photos where the subjects are unidentifiable, everything is fine.

[exile]

OK, when assessing whether you need a model release or not you need to ask yourself a couple of questions:
1. What are the laws regarding the making of and use of images in both the country in which they were made and the country in which they are to be used.
2. What is the intended use of the images.


1. This is an important point that is often overlooked. For example, if you made images of people in Paris and then went to London to sell them, then even if you were complying with UK law, you would still be in breach of the very strict French privacy laws. As such you need to understand your "home country" laws first, but then also familiarise yourself with the law in any other country you might be photographing people in.

2. In the UK the law on model releases is pretty clear cut. First of all there is no right of privacy in a public place in the UK, so you can take photographs of people without their permission. However, if they object and claim harassment then you must stop immediately - no offence has been committed up to that point and you would only be committing harassment if you continued after being informed. Regardless of the law on model releases I personally would deem it unwise to use any images obtained in that session although as the newspapers are full of such images there are many people who think differently.

For images unencumbered by possible claims of harassment the situation is clear cut and is covered by the terms "editorial" and "commercial". Forget about the exchange of money for a moment as this is actually irrelevant. The easiest way to think about the difference between editorial and commercial usage is that editorial usage is merely publishing of an image whereas commercial usage is using the image to promote a product or service. You might own the copyright of an image of a person but you do not have the right to use the image of that person to promote a product or service.

So if you wish to sell the image of a person taken in public in the UK to a newspaper, or a periodical (magazine), use it in a book, make fine art prints and sell them in a gallery then you do not need a model release ... but if you want to sell that image to an advertising agency for use in an ad campaign then the advertising agency requires a model release and they won't buy the image from you unless you can provide them with one.

If the image was taken in another country then check the local laws!

[SwitchBlade]

With any luck your copyright will be meaningless in a few years anyway if that proposal goes through that allows non-commercial clients to use your images free of charge.

That proposal is for someone who has already purchased your image to use it for non-commercial use. So it's not free.

[Richard Brewer]

Very useful information but where does on stand, where there are a number of people in a shot, say 20 or so, surely it would be impracticle to get 20 model releases!

[g3org3y]

So if you wish to sell the image of a person taken in public in the UK to a newspaper, or a periodical (magazine), use it in a book, make fine art prints and sell them in a gallery then you do not need a model release ... but if you want to sell that image to an advertising agency for use in an ad campaign then the advertising agency requires a model release and they won't buy the image from you unless you can provide them with one.

If the image was taken in another country then check the local laws!

I just want to be able to display these images on my website (which I'm in the process of setting up) and sell as prints...

...thus no model release needed? :confused:

[SwitchBlade]

As I understand it for that purpose you shouldn't need a release.

[g3org3y]

Interesting. Thanks for that. :)

These were taken in Barcelona so I suspect I should check out the Spanish law too.

[amfoto1]

... As you said, putting them for display on a website is generally fine, unless you are using those photos to sell a service. That is, using them in a portfolio used to procure jobs is not acceptable...

Are you absolutely sure about this?

In the U.S., by definition portfolio display is considered editorial usage, not commercial, so no release required. You can carry the portfolio in to show to a potential client, clearly a commercial solicitation. This is currently true whether in print or online. You might refer the same potential client to your online portfolio to see more examples of your work... It's still considered editorial, not commercial. At leat for now.

Might change, I've heard rumor of a couple lawsuits over online portfolio display, because it reaches a much wider audience than a printed portfolio would.

Might be different in other countries, too.

Besides, what's the very worst that can happen with an image in an online portfolio? The subject asks you to stop displaying their image and you do. No harm, no foul, no lawyers, no lawsuit, and no money involved.

It would be different if the photo were used on a web page that's clearly an advertisement. Then they might try to lay claim to some portion of any "proceeds" you garnered from the display of the photo, as compensation for use of their image and for portraying them as a sort of "spokesperson".

Just keep your portfolio images separate and clearly labelled as such. And if someone objects, simply remove the image from display.

Sale of limited edition, fine art prints of an image are also "editorial" in the U.S. Art is commentary and covered by laws regarding freedom of speech. In the case of photography, an edition of up to 200 or 250 copies of a print would most likely be fine. Perhaps even as many as 400 or 500. Maybe even more. I've tried to find a specific maximum number, but have not ever found one stated anywhere.

If, instead, you had 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000 posters made from an image, perhaps printed by a third party and distributed widely through various retail outlets, this would be commercial usage and definitely require a release.

What about a "coffee table book"? I'd guess it would be considered editorial, too. Certainly a magazine, newspaper or even wire service distribution of the image, even though it might actually see a press run in far, far greater quantity, is a very clear and obvious editorial usage, no release required.

But an use of the exact same photo within ad in the same magazine or newspaper, promoting a product or service, would certainly be commercial usage and require a release.

And, on the other hand, increasingly we are seeing editorial image users (i.e. magazines, newspapers) asking for releases, just to cover their rears. They are more likely to do so with derogatory images, anything risque, or photos of a celebrity in a private setting (although some quite deliberately flaunt this... think supermarket tabloids, celebs, and the paparazzi).

Oh, and the courts are somewhat reasonable in certain cases, too. Say, for example, you have a release for a person who is in the foreground of an image, but not for each and every one of dozens or even hundreds of marginally recognizable faces in a crowd behind them. The "faces in a crowd" are considered part of the background, and unlikely to need a release.

Of course, it's always better to just get a signed model release. A properly released image will simply have a lot greater value, for higher paying types of usage.