Model Release Questions (Weddings in the U.S.A.)

1.
The bride and groom sign off on the contract which includes a model release for me to advertise my wedding work on my website for more business. But, the attendants, guests, and etc do not. If some other than the B&G later decide they don't want to be on my website or just plain want to sue can they do this? I don't think its practical to run around to everyone at the wedding and ask for their signature.

2.
If I shoot as a second shooter and the main photog gives me a copy of the contract (which includes a model release) as well as authorization to use my own images on my website to promote myself, is that "good enough" for me?

Thanks!

With number #2 it depends how the mains contract reads. Mine includes anyone working for me so it covers my seconds.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

While copyright is governed by Federal law, Right of Publicity is governed by state law, and varies by state. Many states don't even have written statutes, but do have common-law guidelines.

After doing a moderate amount of reading and research, a professional portfolio still seems like a gray area to me. I don't know of any case law, where it's ever actually been tested in court.

You could probably get away with it. You're using the photos to promote your service; you're NOT implying that the people in those photos explicitly endorse your service.

And, everyone else does it.


Here's a good starting point:
http://www.dmlp.org …state-law-right-publicity

Thanks all. Keep the comments coming..

Silver-Halide wrote in post #17715437
1.
The bride and groom sign off on the contract which includes a model release for me to advertise my wedding work on my website for more business. But, the attendants, guests, and etc do not. If some other than the B&G later decide they don't want to be on my website or just plain want to sue can they do this? I don't think its practical to run around to everyone at the wedding and ask for their signature.

1. Anyone can sue you at any time for any reason. Doesn't mean they will win but they can sue.
2. the B&G can't give permission on behalf of other guests (unless the other guest specifically agreed for them to do so) so any release would relate only to the B&G.
3. Point #2 doesn't mean that anyone suing you would win. That would depend on the court's view of the particular usage. They may rule that a web site is the same as a hard copy portfolio (and thus not commercial use) or they may rule that is it closer to an advert and as such commercial use.

That depends on how well written the release is. If the release is specific to a certain person (the main shooter) then you wouldn't be protected, unless the release included a clause that gave the tog permission to sub license the rights granted to them. If the release was a general one that allowed "use of the images for commercial use" then you would be OK.

thanks Dan.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even an internet lawyer.

But, when I think about it, I think that you may use the images in portfolio sections of your website. For instance, the slideshow on the front page, image galleries showing your work, stuff like that.

But, for advertising parts of your website, such as a page where you are pushing your sessions, an image there is (in my uneducated view) more commercial in nature. Or a page that lists what kind of special deals you have going. That kind of thing. I would think you need a release for images displayed on those pages.

And, definitely, if you're printing brochures, business cards, or other advertising media, you probably need one there, as well.

So... again, in my (uneducated -and probably wrong) view, if it is simply to show the work, no release should be needed. But, the minute you put it on a page that contains anything pushing people to hire you, you've entered the commercial realm of displaying images.

Maybe.

Maybe not.