Model releases?

So first off, let me say that I am in no way trying to get legal advice from POTN members, rather just information on how my fellow forum members handle certain situations so that I may be able to use similar processes. Just need some guidance.

Couple of scenarios I need help with regarding release forms.

Scenario 1:
I will be shooting my wife's, cousin's daughter will be having a birthday here soon since she is turning 3. My wife wants me to take pictures for them at the birthday party. I would like to use them on my website as a portfolio once I get set up. It is my understanding that a portfolio is a form of self advertising so a model release should be required.

Question:
Do I need a model release for everyone in the picture? 20 people attending = 20 model releases?

Scenario 2: (very general)
Taking pictures for someone who has agreed to sign a model release.

Question:
Do you look at photo ID or anything to make sure they signed as themselves and not some random name or something?

Scenario 3: (also very general)
Taking pictures of a persons child.

Questions:
Do you just get the parent/legal guardian to sign the release for the child and write the child's name on the release? What happens later on when the child becomes an adult and does not want those images used?

Scenario 4: (street photography)
Walking down the street and snap several great pictures of people (candid).

Question: (It is my understanding that a model release is not needed to sell pictures, only when advertising) Is this true? Would you sell pictures like this without a release as a "work of art"?

Also, do you ever have clients that absolutely refuse to sign model releases? What do you do? (continue the shoot or agree to shoot?) or (refuse to shoot without model releases).

Thanks for all of your help!

Ratjack wrote in post #15697091
Couple of scenarios I need help with regarding release forms.

Scenario 1:
I will be shooting my wife's, cousin's daughter will be having a birthday here soon since she is turning 3. My wife wants me to take pictures for them at the birthday party. I would like to use them on my website as a portfolio once I get set up. It is my understanding that a portfolio is a form of self advertising so a model release should be required.

Photographers are allowed to display their work in the studio and in their portfolio for the purpose of selling their work or services. The problem is that this law was written before the internet existed so it doesn't specifically include online websites/portfolios. There is a strong argument that an online portfolio is the same as a hardcopy portfolio. There is an equally strong argument that it isn't. Until someone goes to court and the court renders a decision the current best advise seems to be to get a release.

Yes

Yes that is probably a good idea.

Yes you need to get the parent/guardian to sign the release if the child is a minor. Once signed the release can not be rescinded once the child becomes an adult - see http://www.photoattorn​ey.com …-signs-model-release.html

Yes. The key issue is sell vs use. You can sell a photograph of someone and use it editorially but it can't be used to advertise or promote a business or cause without the person's permission.

Awesome! Thank you VERY much Dan. You have been EXTREMELY helpful!!

I just got to thinking... how the heck do photographers get model releases from every person at a wedding so they can put the images in their portfolio? That just seems insane to me. That would be a lot of signatures to collect :P.

yes, and people can be really funny when it comes to photos of their children on the internet, even though they might be posting 10 pics of their kid every day on facebook. And that is their perogative, I guess. The minute someone else posts a pic of their kid, they become unglued. The release would at least let you know who is likely to give you trouble.

Ratjack wrote in post #15698445
I just got to thinking... how the heck do photographers get model releases from every person at a wedding so they can put the images in their portfolio? That just seems insane to me.

It is one of those cases where you have to balance risk vs reward. In my opinion use in an online portfolio should be fine but (unless someone else knows of a precedent setting case) the matter hasn't been settled. I think most wedding photographers just go ahead and post images to their portfolio on the assumption that guests won't actually mind and that any one who does will ask that they be removed, rather than going immediately to legal action. Just as long as you don't use such images in an overt advert for your business it will hopefully be OK.

I think you have to be a little bit sensitive about the nature of the shot. Put yourself in their boots. But also bear in mind that some one would have to be pretty hard nosed to go after you for a folio photo of them at a wedding, esp if they are stood at the back! Mind you I am replying from the UK, I do know the US citizens are particularly sensitive (and litigious).
The big crunch would come if you are using the shot of a person who appears to be endorsing a product or service. This is a huge - HUGE no-no without a permission.

hmmm, you can just do like those with MLB and the NFl and other sports do. By using the ticket you grant rights to the team or organization. Only the invitation will now have fine print on the back stating that the attendant of the function waives the rights to their image taken at the event. lol I can see it now, the invite is a nice card and then you have the legal stuff in there which takes up 5 pages.

I have found something else I need help with. In a lot of model releases I am seeing something along the lines of "In consideration of value" or something like that. From everything I am reading you are supposed to provide something of value to the person in order to make the model release valid?

Ratjack wrote in post #15716876
I have found something else I need help with. In a lot of model releases I am seeing something along the lines of "In consideration of value" or something like that. From everything I am reading you are supposed to provide something of value to the person in order to make the model release valid?

An erroneous assumption, at least in the US. State laws (this is a state law issue) only require "permission." In some cases, the permission need not even be written (although getting only oral permission is stupid anywhere).

If you write a release as a quid pro quo, you make it look like a contract. A model release need not be written as a contract and is strongest if it is not written as a contract, but merely as a statement granting permission to use the image for specific purposes with no requirements promised by the photographer.

If you write it like a contract, it will be treated by the courts as a contract under the state's contract law, which is an unnecessary bucket of snakes. It's much easier to get it wrong as a contract.

"Valuable consideration" may actually weaken the model release, because model releases have been broken in court when models have later sued that the "valuable consideration" was not valuable enough compared to the compensation the photographer received for the photograph.

One group of real model releases you can find on the Internet are those used by universities (both public and private). Do some Googling for university releasees and you will see that they never, ever offer "valuable consideration" for the commercial use of photography.