school photos : release

abbypanda wrote in post #15877130
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...

You own the copyright to a photo you take automatically on pressing the shutter. The model has no rights over the copyright (unless you sign a contract to the contrary). However there are countries where that is not the case in all circumstances*.

No. A model release is nothing to do with selling the photograph it is to do with using their likeness.
You can make a print of the portrait and sell it for money without a release.
You can put it in a photo book and sell it without a release.
You can even sell it to Coca Cola for them to use in their advertising without a release.
However Coca Cola can't USE the image which shows the persons likeness in their ad campaign without a release.
Likewise if you wanted to use the portrait in an advert for your studio, in your local paper, you would need a release.
Also, if you gave the image for free to a charity (no monetary gain) they can not use it to promote their cause without a release.

It makes no difference if they do or don't sign a release. The model/subject has no right to use your photograph in any way at all, unless you grant them such rights in a license agreement. The copyright in your photo is totally separate from their right to control the usage of their likeness. Just because they appear in the photo they don't have any right to make use of it.

*Australia is one such place.

abbypanda wrote in post #15876475
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.

Wasn't that a "liability" release? If so, I don't see how that's relevant to a discussion of a release to use a photograph of someone.

Foodguy wrote in post #15872696
As a parent, I wouldn't sign a release for my child's school photo. Not sure why anyone would?

I NEVER sign the releases that my kids bring home for photos because i don't want my kid's image showing up on some billboard or print media advertising some educational program.

Ex GF was in massotherapy last year and they had a photog come in to take photos. they wanted everyone to sign a release. most people did, but she read it and it gave the school permission to use the images as they wished. she refused to sign it, and they gave her a hassle over it. Long story short, the school used several of the images on a billboard or two and the students got nothing for it.

abbypanda wrote in post #15876475
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.

Wait a second.

What kind of release are you talking about? For activities like you mention it is usually a release of liability. Some kid slips on a mat and jacks their shoulder, the school is protected. In photography you're generally talking a model release. In this case if the model slips on a mat and jacks their shoulder, your liability insurance better still be up to date. On the upside, if they signed a model release you can sell the photo and someone can use it in an ad campaign to advertise personal injury claims.

What's the language of the release you're requiring?

In general terms you don't need a release anyway since you're not intending commercial use. When we have portraits of our daughter done we will not sign a model release. I had one photographer lose her mind because she said she wouldn't be able to use her website to sell us images without it. Very annoying to have explain her own business to a supposed "professional". We went with a different photographer.

-F