Image use W/O Permission

What does PR stand for? Press Release right? Ok, so a photo which is included in a PR piece would still be editorial.

Now if it is in an ad which looks like a story, if you look at the bottom of the article you may very well see ADVERTISEMENT typed along the bottom, sometimes at the top but, it will most likely be there. These are articles which are written to bring business into your resturant/auto shop/bar/hair salon etc etc. and are usually done by the owner and are submitted with a check for publication.

When working in PR I often had to commission photographs for product testimonials to be used for editorial purposes. Just to be safe we would always get a release from the people providing the testimonial; while legally not necessary it formalised the arrangement so that everyone knew where they stood.

IndyJeff wrote in post #2305399
What does PR stand for? Press Release right? Ok, so a photo which is included in a PR piece would still be editorial.

Now if it is in an ad which looks like a story, if you look at the bottom of the article you may very well see ADVERTISEMENT typed along the bottom, sometimes at the top but, it will most likely be there. These are articles which are written to bring business into your resturant/auto shop/bar/hair salon etc etc. and are usually done by the owner and are submitted with a check for publication.

Those are advertorials & are seen as ads, for which a release should be included. I am fairly sure I've read this.

Yes Claire they would be advertorials and a release would be a good idea. My point being those type of "articles" aren't editorial in nature.

IndyJeff wrote in post #2306298
Yes Claire they would be advertorials and a release would be a good idea. My point being those type of "articles" aren't editorial in nature.

Definitely not. It's not editorial as it's PR stuff and therefore not objective.

PR stands for Public Relations not press release.

Although PR may incorporate advertising or advertorial content the bulk of the content generated through PR is editorial - most of the news stories you see in the media are generated through publication; it's not journalists getting out and chasing stories - well over 50% of stories in most media are generated through media releases, press conferences or briefings organised by people in PR.

blackshadow wrote in post #2307041
PR stands for Public Relations not press release.

Although PR may incorporate advertising or advertorial content the bulk of the content generated through PR is editorial - most of the news stories you see in the media are generated through publication; it's not journalists getting out and chasing stories - well over 50% of stories in most media are generated through media releases, press conferences or briefings organised by people in PR.

Yep. But there I find a difference between advertorial and the press releases. The press releases are just sent off and let's hope the publication picks up on it, either by writing up a story on the topic, rewriting/summarizing the release or publish it straight off.

blackshadow wrote in post #2307041
PR stands for Public Relations not press release.

Although PR may incorporate advertising or advertorial content the bulk of the content generated through PR is editorial - most of the news stories you see in the media are generated through publication; it's not journalists getting out and chasing stories - well over 50% of stories in most media are generated through media releases, press conferences or briefings organised by people in PR.

LOL A PR can be read or delivered by a PR person.
Public Relations would be the arm of a company who drafts, delivers or arranges for a Press Release.

vwpilot wrote in post #2302569
Mike, you're wrong. I'd check with an IP lawyer if I were you.

Just because someone is an employee of yours does NOT give you the right to use their image in any way you want to use it...period...no agreement necessary.

If they decide to sue you for using their image without their consent and you do not have a model release, you can be screwed.

You're right, my wording might be wrong, its not required. You can certainly take a photo without one, however, it is needed if you want to protect yourself. You DO NOT have the right to use their images for commercial purposes and if they decide they want to sue, you will be required to produce it very quickly. Even if they said that it was ok, without a written release, they can change their mind and you could be in real trouble.

I'm not sure why you are saying I'm wrong, Jim, if you agree that it's not required. I agreed that if it's used and they don't like it they can sue. But they can sue regardless of if you have release or not. That doesn't mean they will win but it doesn't mean they will lose either if they did sign a release.

IP lawyers can only advise. They don't make up law or define law. Just because a lawyer says something, that does not mean that is how it's going to come out in court. Lawyers give wrong or bad advice all the time. And most of the time they still get paid too.

I'm not disagreeing that it's a good idea to get a signedrelease, just that it's not a legal requirement to have one in all cases. And you might be surprised at what rights emplyees give up when working at some companies. It's interesting reading some of the HR publications that come out with articles about what the courts have decided. Scary sometimes too, from both sides of the fence, employee and employer.


Mike

Well, I dont know if we are getting our definitions of required messed up or not, but lets see if we can clear it up.

It is required to have a photo release of someone in the photo if you are going to use them for commercial purposes, employee or not.

Its as much required, by law, as if you were to use one of my photos without asking me for commericial use.

When I said its not required, I meant it in a way that yes, you can do the shoot and not get one, but if you're ever brought before a court on it, you will lose.

Just as its not required for me to get a release one of your photos for commercial uses, but if I'm caught, I'm screwed.

The law is pretty clear, you cant profit off of anothers image without their consent. Now if in signing the papers to become an employee they are signing something giving up that right, thats one thing. But just cause I work for someone doesnt mean I give up the rights to my image being my image.

But it doesnt do either of us any good to argue over it. However, anyone that reads our posts should consider how its much better to be safe than sorry and having someone sign a release is one of the easiest things you might do on a shoot.

No argument from me about being safe rather than sorry, Jim.

Mike