STICKY: When do I need a Release?

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.

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.

picturepages wrote in post #3476090
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

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???

Here are some useful references. For Australia (NSW in particular) see http://4020.net/words/​photorights.php and http://www.4020.net …photorights.php​#infosheet. For the UK see http://www.sirimo.co.u​k …UKPhotographers​Rights.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!

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

bungee wrote in post #3536894
...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??

NSWEP wrote in post #3540502
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.a​u …raphy_is_not_a_​crime.html

Timely, thank you, bungee..maybe you can help me get my head around:

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?

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

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!

Mr. Clean wrote in post #3703633
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

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 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.or​g/wiki/Philip-Lorca_diCorcia

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.

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

Raymond Lin wrote in post #3896828
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