school photos : release

I'm in a similar situation. I did an event for a school before and I didn't got the parents to sign a model release. I'd really like to use the pics for my website portfolios. So they're okay to use without the release?

Some interesting points and a few things I can comment:

It was a generic release I got from PPA.

Why would a parent sign a release?
Why not? I did spring and graduation pictures for the kids, all with custom backgrounds that the parents were super excited about in comparison to the last year's photos (that I did not do). I had some comments that mine were unique and new, and I had many good comments from the teachers as well.
With that said I am NOT "tooting my own horn" i know I'm still relatively new. But for the springs pics I spent about $50 in fresh flowers alone, bought backgrounds, etc. I drove over 1 hour 1 way and spent all day.
So why sign the release? It's an easy tradeoff b/c I charged a group rate of much less than I would if someone stopped by my studio and wanted that. If someone called me up and I had to spend $30-50 in fresh flowers for 1 session, you bet I'd charge a lot more than the package options I gave those kids which even allowed them to order 1 single print and that's it.
So if they did not like the release, the option is always there to have someone else do that for a higher price. I am not saying I am dead set in my thinking but that was my rationale. I really made an effort not to do "cookie cutter" point and shoot school pics with an ugly background, and I feel my efforts were well received.

As far as "selling them". yes I did keep family member's galleries in my smugmug as part of a "portfolio" and smugmug does not allow you assign "no price". I have since taken them down. With that said just b/c someone pays doesnt mean I cant refund them and refuse to sell them, I always had my smugmug set on 4 days processing time and smugmug allows you to cancel sales I do believe. It doesnt mean I'm actively trying to sell peoples kids pictures to others, and let's face it, if someone wanted the pics for questionable reasons, we all know they'd likely just take them off a FB portfolio or even a screen shot of my own portfolio, whether they were "for sale" or not. I can see that being a valid concern, but in reality I dont see a lot of wierdos actually going out and buying prints of a kid they dont know. Heck theres plenty of threads on here about customers ripping off photographers and trying to download stuff for free.... and it's their own kid in that case.

I also thought I would need a release since it's a private school and I was not employed by them. I thought I'd have to have the parents release me to do that without them there. I believe I was wrong on that end. But these days I also think you can't be too careful.

All in all, I only plan to use 1 or 2 from each session in a portfolio.

^ So, if it was clear to the parents going in that in exchange for signing a release, they were offered special pricing, then it sounds like many of the parents took advantage of the discounted offer.

I guess I have to go back to read the original post again as I've forgotten what the issue was.:o

I had asked what to do if they did not sign it, b/c I was mistakenly under the impression they needed to regardless of whether or not I'd be using it... b/c I thought since they werent there and I didnt work for the school I would have to have some type of authorization.

thebishopp wrote in post #15872805
He doesn't need a release to sell prints so that part is irrelevant.

There's already been several court cases about this the latest I believe was Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia

Ed Greenberg explained it in an interview with Scot Kelby
http://scottkelby.com …s-and-shooting-in-public/

The links to the video on that page are no longer current but I found it on their kelby tv website:
http://kelbytv.com …v/2008/07/07/ep​isode-141/

It starts around 14:20 on the video. Specifically regarding the selling of prints without model releases starts at 18:10

...well, yeah, but that really wasn't my point. I know that you don't need a release to sell prints. But if I was a parent and a photographer wanted me to sign a release, and if I went to the website and saw photos of other peoples children for sale, I would say "hell no!" and not only not sign the release but I'd walk away from the shoot. Its not very convincing to say on one hand "I have no intention of doing anything with the images except use them in my portfolio" and on the other have pictures from the portfolio available for sale. The legality of it is irrelevant. Its poor marketing and sends mixed messages to potential clients. And it is also very easily fixed.

I am not a lawyer, nor is anyone who has answered (to the best of my knowledge). The interview with Ed Greenberg (who IS a lawyer) was from 2008. Things change so I am not taking much of what was said to be set in stone save for one thing. LAWS VARY FROM STATE TO STATE. In lieu of contacting a local attorney, I (personally) would not print/distribute any images without one. Even facebook, twitter, etc. have a form of release to which you must agree prior having an account there. Your release may need to be reworked to spell out in detail and plain language what you might do with the images, allows you usage in portfolios, on websites, etc.

graydragon1 wrote in post #15873849
I am not a lawyer, nor is anyone who has answered (to the best of my knowledge). The interview with Ed Greenberg (who IS a lawyer) was from 2008. Things change so I am not taking much of what was said to be set in stone save for one thing. LAWS VARY FROM STATE TO STATE. In lieu of contacting a local attorney, I (personally) would not print/distribute any images without one. Even facebook, twitter, etc. have a form of release to which you must agree prior having an account there. Your release may need to be reworked to spell out in detail and plain language what you might do with the images, allows you usage in portfolios, on websites, etc.

That is of course your call however regarding the law as it is currently. Yes it can vary from state to state but cases such as the DiCorica case set precedents. Unless it is overturned (which it has not been) or another similar case gets as high as it did and the ruling is the opposite then there is no "change" (at the very least in the state the case was in).

All that being said, releases are good to have just in case. It is like insurance. But keep in mind there have been cases where releases themselves have been deemed invalid. While I do not have specifics I believe those cases were based on the fact that there was not any type of "real value" exchanged for the "model" signing the release. Meaning if you don't give "something of value" to the model other than just the "privilege" of shooting with you then the agreement is not binding.

banquetbear wrote in post #15873528
...well, yeah, but that really wasn't my point. I know that you don't need a release to sell prints. But if I was a parent and a photographer wanted me to sign a release, and if I went to the website and saw photos of other peoples children for sale, I would say "hell no!" and not only not sign the release but I'd walk away from the shoot. Its not very convincing to say on one hand "I have no intention of doing anything with the images except use them in my portfolio" and on the other have pictures from the portfolio available for sale. The legality of it is irrelevant. Its poor marketing and sends mixed messages to potential clients. And it is also very easily fixed.

Point taken. My releases are built into my portrait contracts, have not had a problem so far (since 2008). I do have a privacy option available for those who do not want their photos displayed publicly and that costs a bit extra as all my normal portrait contracts have a release discount built into them.

banquetbear wrote in post #15873528
...well, yeah, but that really wasn't my point. I know that you don't need a release to sell prints. But if I was a parent and a photographer wanted me to sign a release, and if I went to the website and saw photos of other peoples children for sale, I would say "hell no!" and not only not sign the release but I'd walk away from the shoot. Its not very convincing to say on one hand "I have no intention of doing anything with the images except use them in my portfolio" and on the other have pictures from the portfolio available for sale. The legality of it is irrelevant. Its poor marketing and sends mixed messages to potential clients. And it is also very easily fixed.

I understand the point... but I have seen a lot of smugmugs on here with tons of portrait sessions in them with all sorts of families, children, pets, weddings, parties, etc.
Does that mean those people are trying to sell other people's family and kid's photos to others too?
Does it mean they are trying to sell clients wedding photos to the public?
I dont think I'm the only person with "people" in my smugmug.
Would that turn you off from a family portrait session if you saw on the photographers website pictures of other families in a smugmug?
Would you think they are going to sell your family print to the public?

I am only asking b/c it seems to be a double standard and you are giving the impression I am actively trying to sell kids pictures to other people, which I'm not and never had, and I think it's a bit reaching to paint that impression. As I've said before, smugmug doesn't let you assign "no price option".

Personally, any time I've ever seen a smugmug I viewed it as a portfolio site, even before I was "in" to photography. I never viewed it with the impression "oh hell yes I can buy this persons family photos"

If a photographer puts a pic in another portfolio website that is not "right click protected" do you view that as "they are allowing other people to download my picture or my kids picture".... afterall if I put a kids pic on FB anyone can download it free with the "download" option on FB. I dont think that sends the impression I am trying to "give away" kids pics any more than putting them in a smugmug gallery suggests I am actively trying to sell them.

With that said... the parents were never directed to that site b/c I do not use it in advertising, so there was no "mixed signal" to be sent, and further I don't feel you can say it's "poor marketing" when It was not marketed in the first place.....

abbypanda wrote in post #15875859
I understand the point... but I have seen a lot of smugmugs on here with tons of portrait sessions in them with all sorts of families, children, pets, weddings, parties, etc.
Does that mean those people are trying to sell other people's family and kid's photos to others too?
Does it mean they are trying to sell clients wedding photos to the public?
I dont think I'm the only person with "people" in my smugmug.
Would that turn you off from a family portrait session if you saw on the photographers website pictures of other families in a smugmug?
Would you think they are going to sell your family print to the public?

I am only asking b/c it seems to be a double standard and you are giving the impression I am actively trying to sell kids pictures to other people, which I'm not and never had, and I think it's a bit reaching to paint that impression. As I've said before, smugmug doesn't let you assign "no price option".

...look: there is no reason to get defensive. You had a link on your website (that you have now taken down) that said something like this was your shop and you could buy images from there. So I clicked on that link and you had images of children for sale. I know what your intentions were. But I'm a photographer, not a mum.

Most photographers will password protect client galleries and they won't price for sale portfolio work. If you can show me other photographers with smugmug or zenfolio or photoshelter sites where client work is not password protected and/or priced for sale to the public, then I would say exactly the same thing to them as I would to you.

And if smugmug doesn't have the ability to disable pricing on a gallery I suggest you contact them and let them know their advertising is wrong. It quite clearly states herethat all smugmug accounts allow you to enable/disable product sales from any gallery.

You may very well view a smugmug page as a portfolio site.

But how many people in the world have heard of smugmug? Why would you expect others to have the same view as you? I view smugmug, zenfolio and photoshelter as shop fronts to sell and distribute images. But thats me. Most people would never have heard of smugmug before.

The link on your website said it was your "shop." You need to manage the expectations of visitors to your website. If you didn't intend your smugmug to be a shop, then perhaps you should have labeled it differently. Of course, labelling it "portfolio" would be confusing because you already have a portfolio on your site.

Look. You had a link on your site that said "shop." (If my memory is correct, that what I recall, you have since removed the link.) I clicked on the link. There were images for sale. I'm not a mind reader and your clients aren't either. If the smugmug page was supposed to be a portfolio site only then you need to make it look and work like a portfolio site. But I sense a bit of "brand confusion" here: I'm not entirely sure you know exactly how you want to market your business. Ask questions here: there is a lot of help available. Just don't be defensive about it or people won't bother.

I'm sorry, but I told you how I got to your smugmug. I clicked on the now-gone shop site link on your primary website and ended up on a site with other peoples children for sale. I am not accusing you of anything. I'm telling you what my first impressions were as I was exploring your site. And any parent exploring your site would have done the same thing. It is entirely possible you were encountering problems with people signing releases because they had explored your website and done the same thing as I did.

You've fixed the problem now so its no longer an issue.

You are right that it is gone.

I got defensive b/c this is the 2nd time in this thread you have brought up that point.I already addressed you the first time you brought it up.

I thought I needed a release regardless. I used to teach martial arts at the same preschool. All the parents signed a release. All the parents who come in my gym sign a release. I would never teach someone's child without a release. I thought it was standard procedure for photography as well, whether I planned to do anything with them or not. I was wrong. With that said it was 2 people out of 45 or so that didn't want to do it, ... so I dont think any "branding" or anything to do with me having some family pics on the smugmug contributed to the issue at all. I have been involved with this preschool for over 12 years, and if any parent has been to the office there they will recognize all the pics on my smugmug as family pics, b/c some of the same pics are hanging there. The teachers as well as many parents are familiar with the person I am.

You made a valid point about the smugmug, I took your advice and addressed you the first time, and there's nothing more to it. I do not think my smugmug had anything to do with the question at hand though. I can't help but get the feeling that you are trying to make it the issue at hand since you keep referencing it.

abbypanda wrote in post #15876475
You are right that it is gone.

I got defensive b/c this is the 2nd time in this thread you have brought up that point.I already addressed you the first time you brought it up so why do we keep having to have the same conversation?

...I bought it up again because someone else was addressing what I said and I responded to them. At that stage I was "not having a conversation with you."

thebishopp wrote in post #15875738
But keep in mind there have been cases where releases themselves have been deemed invalid. While I do not have specifics I believe those cases were based on the fact that there was not any type of "real value" exchanged for the "model" signing the release. Meaning if you don't give "something of value" to the model other than just the "privilege" of shooting with you then the agreement is not binding.

The cases you mentioned were due to the photographers creating/signing a contract, instead of a simple release of rights.
A model release is a one sided document signed only by the model. It grants permission for their likeness (in the particular images covered by the release) to be used for commercial use. It is not an agreement (contract) between the photographer and the model, it is the model releasing their rights so that anyone may use their likeness*.

Some photographers have turned their model release into a contract between the model and the photographer. To be binding a contract generally needs to be equitable (fair to both parties) and one of the measures of that is that both parties receive something of value (due consideration). If the model wasn't paid the market rate for their work or was working for free (as part of a TFP shoot) they can claim that they didn't received due consideration and as such the contract could be struck down.

This is why your model release should be separate from your contract or your contract should include a severability clause.

*The person making use of the likeness also need the copyright holder's permission to use the image. The copyright is separate from the models image rights.

banquetbear wrote in post #15876489
...I bought it up again because someone else was addressing what I said and I responded to them. At that stage I was "not having a conversation with you."

Either way you were having a conversation about my intentions when I already clarified them and rectified the situation. It gave me concern my initial response must not have been clear enough.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #15876969
The cases you mentioned were due to the photographers creating/signing a contract, instead of a simple release of rights.
A model release is a one sided document signed only by the model. It grants permission for their likeness (in the particular images covered by the release) to be used for commercial use. It is not an agreement (contract) between the photographer and the model, it is the model releasing their rights so that anyone may use their likeness*.

Some photographers have turned their model release into a contract between the model and the photographer. To be binding a contract generally needs to be equitable (fair to both parties) and one of the measures of that is that both parties receive something of value (due consideration). If the model wasn't paid the market rate for their work or was working for free (as part of a TFP shoot) they can claim that they didn't received due consideration and as such the contract could be struck down.

This is why your model release should be separate from your contract or your contract should include a severability clause.

*The person making use of the likeness also need the copyright holder's permission to use the image. The copyright is separate from the models image rights.

Thank you for posting this I think some of this might have been my point of confusion here. (not the contract part but the copyright vs model release type stuff)

So in any event let me make sure I understand this:

If you take a picture of someone (say their portrait) they do not have to do anything to release you the copyright...

If you want to use the image for any purpose that can basically cause monetary gain, you need a release.

A contract is separate from both of those (a mute point in my case bc I didnt do a contract, but noteworthy nonetheless)


Ok so final question then: If you take someone portrait and they dont want to sign a release, and if you dont sign anything either, does that mean they CAN NOT use the image you took for any purpose either: IE they can't use it on a business website, they cant reproduce it, etc. Or does it mean they can?

In doing this initially, I thought that was the purpose of all of this release stuff, to clarify beforehand an understanding of what can and can not be done by either party. It seems to me the best way to avoid any litigation or problems is to not take anyone's pic without a clarification.

I would like to edit this to say that part of my wanting to do the release has to do with martial arts i suppose. I am just used to it. Our people sign a full page release that says a lot of things. It gives us rights that we may use their image and or video, but that doesnt mean I go taking everyone's pic and trying to sell it or use every single person's picture in advertising... it's just standard. It also addresses everything they may or may not do... like tells them "you can learn dangerous chokes and submissions and some may even cause death". But just because they sign that doesnt mean that we are intending to kill them every class with a choke. It's just a standard acknowledgement of what may/ may not happen. I thought this type of thing was standard for photography as well. I would not let anyone take even 1 class if they refused to sign that release.

abbypanda wrote in post #15877130
If you want to use the image for any purpose that can basically cause monetary gain, you need a release.

My understanding is you MAY need a release. Like many things, is seems to depend on the mood of those presiding. I believe you need a release for any "commercial" usage. That MAY include use in a portfolio as some would consider that a form of advertising.

As to the copyright; YOU own the copyright once you take the image UNLESS there is a contract/agreement specifically stating otherwise. Owning the copyright and enforcing it are not the same thing. If you have it registered it can be enforced but at what cost? Not just monetary but you may pay with your reputation. Seldom an easy call.