Recent Lawsuit: Question on releases

Did you all see this?
http://www.skipcohenun​iversity.com …essity-in-your-camera-bag

Reading I get the impression he sued for a number of things, but basically he didnt sign the release. I'm guessing the person who bought the session (MIL) did.

But this brings me to some question on events/ parties. I've always been "told" the event organizer can sign for everyone. I can see that with sports events. In a sport event the athlete releases the organizer and there is almost always some form of release that says "I know I'll be photographed, blah blah" and the organizer then in turn hires a photographer.

But what about weddings? Parties? In light of this….do you really need a release from everyone in attendance at a party? Unlike sports events, guests don't do any sort of acknowledgement that they'll be photographed.

One thing he sued for was b/c he felt it "hurt his ability to be taken seriously" at his job. Ok so different scenario. Lets say someone's photographing a wedding, and at the reception they're photographing the people enjoying themselves… and here's random friend Bob holding a glass of wine. It's a great party picture so photographer uses it in portfolio…. and then there goes friend bob suing years later when eh gets a job in the ministry for "hurting his ability to be taken seriously" from the pic of him partying…..

What do you think? When I do birthdays, parties etc do I need a release from every single person or is it still enough for the person doing the booking?

Well, this isn't a right to use the image situation as such, it is about how the image was used. Unless you have an industry standard "all uses" model release from the person in the image, then they can still sue under defamation or libel laws if they feel the image is used in such a manner. The fact that it was taken at a wedding doesn't alter that.

If he feels (and I suspect that he didn't, he just saw the chance of a payout) that being used to promote picture frames could be damaging to his career, then he can sue. I don't think it would be likely to harm his career, but that is what courts are there to decide.

If you take a shot of a drunk in public, that is fair game as he is in public and you can publish the shot without fear of a lawsuit, however, sell the image to Alcoholics Anonymous to use in their publicity and it crosses into defamation as the guy is now being branded as an Alcoholic, not just somebody who had a little too much to drink on one occasion.

The contract, in the case quoted, probably covered using images for self promotion, and that would cover use in a shop window, on a website, facebook etc., but selling images for other commercial use is a different matter and it would be unwise to sell any image for such use without an iron clad, industry standard, all purposes, model release from anybody in the image.

Similarly, "friend Bob" holding the glass of wine can be used as it is, but sell it to a wine merchant to promote cheap plonk and that will imply that Bob is endorsing such cheap plonk. If Bob then feels that negatively impacts his reputation as a wine connoisseur (or he likes to be thought of as teetotal) he is within his rights to sue. Again, don't use it in that manner without a bulletproof model release from Bob.

It isn't simply using the image, but how it is used. commercial use needs a model release.

It is difficult to believe that this "...best known photog in the world" didn't know he needed a model release to sell a pic for commercial use. I know this and I have never sold a pic commercially haha

I agree the title appears misleading. I can also totally understand someone suing if they really feel it damages them. (I don't think that's the case here I think this "soon to be attorney just smelled $)
but anyway the thing that concerns me is that the brides mother signed all the forms. He never did. This concerns me b/c I just shot 2 events: a graduation party and a 50th anniversary celebration. High $ celebrations. The mom booked both and signed both. So am I free to use the pics with others in them, say even a family picture? This raises the question that can an event organizer or someone who organizes the shoot really sign off for every adult?

Are you planning to sell any of the photos for commercial use? This isn't the same thing as your portfolio use.

No not sell, but use for any and all advertising they may or may not be needed for.

I'm no lawyer - but photogs have been using photos of their clients for their own promotion forever right?

99% of your portfolio shots are gonna be of the actual bride and groom, so random drunk dinner guest won't be a factor anyway.

Andrushka wrote in post #16987814
I'm no lawyer - but photogs have been using photos of their clients for their own promotion forever right?

.

Yes, of course they have.

But they have it in the contract that they can do that, and if clients aren't happy with that clause they can ask to have it removed. In which case it is very unwise to use the images that way.

I don't know about US law, but here in the UK there is a privacy clause in copyright law which prevents using / showing domestic clients images anywhere without their permission.

Besides, the case in question here isn't about using images for their own promotion, it is about selling them for commercial use, a different matter entirely.

sandpiper wrote in post #16987915
Yes, of course they have.

But they have it in the contract that they can do that, and if clients aren't happy with that clause they can ask to have it removed. In which case it is very unwise to use the images that way.

I don't know about US law, but here in the UK there is a privacy clause in copyright law which prevents using / showing domestic clients images anywhere without their permission.

Besides, the case in question here isn't about using images for their own promotion, it is about selling them for commercial use, a different matter entirely.

right

Andrushka wrote in post #16985495
It is difficult to believe that this "...best known photog in the world" didn't know he needed a model release to sell a pic for commercial use. I know this and I have never sold a pic commercially haha

The other part that caught my eye was that this "...best known photog in the world" sold an image for use in a commercial product for $750. I'm thinking that this is about 1/10th what I would charge in the same situation. (If I was among the best known photogs in the world. )

In fact, the more I think about this the more is sounds like something that should be at snopes.com.

The photographer did not need the release at all though, the end user of the image needed the release. The attempted litigation seems to have been made against the wrong party. The copyright holder, the photographer in this case, can license the image to anybody they like for any use they like. It is the end user that may need the benefit of a release to use an image in a specific way. Of course the end user may have a clause in the licence contract that would enable them to sue the photographer in turn to recover any damages that might result from the licensee's use of the image. It seems as if the photographer did have the then currently industry acceptable release in place anyway.

Alan

If I saw my wedding picture in a frame in Walmart or Target, I'd be 9issed! I'm not one to sue, but isn't that bad practice?

Japanese Vogue actually used a picture from my wedding. They asked if they could use it. The wedding planner, photog and myself all had to agree. I was proud to have them use it. But, if they didn't ask, I'd be pissed. Would I sue, probably not, but I'm not a lawyer.

I don't think this lawyer is begin unreasonable.

Is it typical for photographers to sell photos from your wedding as commercial photography?

Footbag wrote in post #17013255
If I saw my wedding picture in a frame in Walmart or Target, I'd be 9issed! I'm not one to sue, but isn't that bad practice?

Japanese Vogue actually used a picture from my wedding. They asked if they could use it. The wedding planner, photog and myself all had to agree. I was proud to have them use it. But, if they didn't ask, I'd be pissed. Would I sue, probably not, but I'm not a lawyer.

I don't think this lawyer is begin unreasonable.

Is it typical for photographers to sell photos from your wedding as commercial photography?

Probably not but I don't think anyone would want to use my wedding pics (commercially)

This was ten years ago not recent. However,doesn't matter when it happened. Wedding ? Model Shoot ? Kids shoot ? Sports shoot ? Studio shoot ? SIGN THIS. What for ? What is it ? Its a precaution I take as a photographer incase you're pmsing and want to troll my wallet.No signature, no shoot. Hire the next dufus.

Eiro wrote in post #17034285
This was ten years ago not recent. However,doesn't matter when it happened. Wedding ? Model Shoot ? Kids shoot ? Sports shoot ? Studio shoot ? SIGN THIS. What for ? What is it ? Its a precaution I take as a photographer incase you're pmsing and want to troll my wallet.No signature, no shoot. Hire the next dufus.

this very poorly described scenario stated that it was a "wedding guest" in the photo.Show me ANY photog who actually gets wedding guests to sign releases...