Looking for advice :)

[c.cloudwalker]

My curiousity makes me wonder. How does one present this kind of contract to a 'friend' without scaring them off.

You just tell them the contract is there to make everything clear between you and them and, it is also to protect them as well as you. Some people will get scared, most won't.

I thought you needed to have a model release if you were selling their image for profit, but not if you were using it to show your capabilities, like in a portfolio or on a website.

A commercial/retail photog website is an advertising tool. Advertising is commercial use. If you were to use the photos in a physical portfolio only, you wouldn't really need to worry about it but a website being out there in public for everyone to see, I would.

 

[Dominantly]

What about a company such as TMZ that displays images without permission of various famous people?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

What about a company such as TMZ that displays images without permission of various famous people?

Famous people have no expectation of privacy. Fame makes you public property in a way.

 

[bennielou]

Seeking legal advice online is not a good idea.

You not only need a contract, you need a model release in order to use a persons likeness to promote yourself or for any other kind of advertising.

When minors are involved, you must get their parents signed permission on a model release to use the images.

Often a contract includes a model release clause.

I thought you needed to have a model release if you were selling their image for profit, but not if you were using it to show your capabilities, like in a portfolio or on a website.

Actually, the contract should suffice as a model release. Mine basically says, the contractees are giving me full right to use their image in anyway I see fit. I also have a diddy in there about using guest photos, and transferring the liability back to the contractee if there is a dispute. (However it is perfectly legal for me to shoot anything at anytime, going on in a public space, IE a wedding).
I've never had to go there, as I would never do anything that I would think would be embarrassing to my clients or friends.

Best advice is to get a photo attorney to write a good contract for you.

 

[bennielou]

What about a company such as TMZ that displays images without permission of various famous people?

Famous people have no expectation of privacy. Fame makes you public property in a way.

This is half truth, and actually covers more than you would think.

(I know this from the photojournalism stuff).

Privacy rules are the same for all of us. Famous or not famous. If you or a celebrity is in their home, or a hotel room, or anywhere else one would expect privacy, you can not step on that ground to shoot them.

You can stand in the street on a ladder, with a telephoto, but that would still be tricky legal ground.

But the second they step out of "sacred space" where other people can see them, like a beach or a grocery store, or a wedding, or a public street, all is fair game. Basically, if you can be in a public area and see something with your eyeball, you can legally shoot it.

Anything privately owned? No. This would include the inside of hotels where they restrict room privacy policies, bars (for obvious reasons) and gaming places like casinos.

Hope that helps.

 

[KmH]

What about a company such as TMZ that displays images without permission of various famous people?

Because that is editorial use (not advertising).

 

[KmH]

You can stand in the street on a ladder, with a telephoto, but that would still be tricky legal ground.

I don't think there's anything tricky about it.

It would be an invasion of privacy if you use a ladder.

Using the telephoto to photograph them when they are out in the open would be ok, but not if you have to us a ladder to do it.

Shooting into their back yard from a hill that is publicly accessable would be ok, but not if you have to use a ladder to get the shot.

If they are inside, taking any photograph with any lens would be an invasion of privacy.

There is also the "right of publicity" issue to consider when it comes to famous people and like most model release law varies from state to state, though ROP varies a lot.

 

[skieur]

I thought you needed to have a model release if you were selling their image for profit, but not if you were using it to show your capabilities, like in a portfolio or on a website.

NO, commercial use means for advertising purposes which requires a model release, NOT selling an image for profit which by itself does not require a release.

skieur