Model Release??

Oh comeon!! You think THAT makes you qualified as an authority on the matter...:lmao::sexywink:

You must respect ma Authorita!

Actually authority, no, but well informed on the subject here. I leave the authority to judges, note I did not say lawyers as if you posed the question to one, their first response would be to ask which side am I on?!!:lol:
 
You must respect ma Authorita!

Actually authority, no, but well informed on the subject here. I leave the authority to judges, note I did not say lawyers as if you posed the question to one, their first response would be to ask which side am I on?!!:lol:


LOL or how big will my cut (percentage) be..
 
in this situation, let me ask you a question to your question...
can those people prove that they are the ones in that photo?

If the individual is not recognizable, then there is no need for a release.

example, I took a picture of a child running behind a B-25 bomber plane, it would have a great picture if the kid didn't look at me the time I took the photo. that means I need to get a release if I were to do anything with it... I eventually abandoned the photo.
 
Following that little piece of brilliance, could cost you a lot of money.

Why? He's perfectly correct. You do not need a model release for anything that is not advertisement/commercial photography.

I can take a picture of a bunch of kids in the park and sell it a bajillion times as "art", make a bajillion dollars, and there is nothing the parents of those kids can say about it.

You can post the picture on the website.

HOWEVER - when it comes to kids, I always ask permission anyway. Not from a legal standpoint, but from a business standpoint. I don't want to be known as the guy who posts pictures of everyone's kids when they asked me not to... bad for business, but not illegal!
 
in this situation, let me ask you a question to your question...
can those people prove that they are the ones in that photo?

If the individual is not recognizable, then there is no need for a release.

example, I took a picture of a child running behind a B-25 bomber plane, it would have a great picture if the kid didn't look at me the time I took the photo. that means I need to get a release if I were to do anything with it... I eventually abandoned the photo.

Why? Unless you were going to use it to sell something, you would've been fine. Was it in a public place, like a airshow?
 
You proved my point to be correct with that statement, just as I stated, commercial includes advertising or other profit making venture, use a photo of a person for other than an artisic venture without a release and you will find yourself in court. But I am sure my 25 years experience as a photographer and my wife's 30 years experience owning one of the largest agencies here in Maine, doesn't mean much. :sexywink:

Legally "commercial" does NOT include any other profit making venture ONLY advertising. And if you want to talk experience my 50 years in photography and 38 years in television trumps your 25 years, if that means anything.

skieur
 
Legally "commercial" does NOT include any other profit making venture ONLY advertising. And if you want to talk experience my 50 years in photography and 38 years in television trumps your 25 years, if that means anything.

skieur

Experience does lend credibility to a statement but if I'm not mistaken the laws ARE actually different even from state to state in the U.S. (girls gone wild has been sued many times sometimes depending on the state they filmed in they either win or lose). Then again this statement only comes from a few brief internet searches.
 
Experience does lend credibility to a statement but if I'm not mistaken the laws ARE actually different even from state to state in the U.S. (girls gone wild has been sued many times sometimes depending on the state they filmed in they either win or lose). Then again this statement only comes from a few brief internet searches.

Actually the law in this area is the same and it extends to Canada and Europe as well because it is part of the rights of photojournalism and a free press in a democratic society to use the jargon. Any differences evolve around interpretation of the law, the decisions, whether decisions have been appealed or not, what the body of case law is, and whether lawyers are familiar with the case law or not.

Media law is confusing because there have been a lot of contrary decisions in some areas that have not been tested in appeal and therefore do not represent precedents or case law.

skieur
 
Legally "commercial" does NOT include any other profit making venture ONLY advertising. And if you want to talk experience my 50 years in photography and 38 years in television trumps your 25 years, if that means anything.

skieur


I wouldn't dispense legal advice unless you are a lawyer nor define what commercial means "legally." I speak from expereince from what I have delt with in the US as it pertains to photography as fine art and in the commercial advertising world, SORRY but what you are saying is contrary to everything my expereince and our attorneys have delt with and because of them avoided and defended sucessfully just these same issues.

But, you go ahead and use a photo of someone without a release to make money, other than as an art photograph, and unless that person is dumber than a stump you will find yourself in court and most likely lose.

If anyone has any real concerns consult with a proper attorney, not a website.

The horse is beaten, dead, decayed.. but I am sure you will dig it up again, and again, and....
 
I wouldn't dispense legal advice unless you are a lawyer nor define what commercial means "legally." I speak from expereince from what I have delt with in the US as it pertains to photography as fine art and in the commercial advertising world, SORRY but what you are saying is contrary to everything my expereince and our attorneys have delt with and because of them avoided and defended sucessfully just these same issues.

But, you go ahead and use a photo of someone without a release to make money, other than as an art photograph, and unless that person is dumber than a stump you will find yourself in court and most likely lose.

If anyone has any real concerns consult with a proper attorney, not a website.

The horse is beaten, dead, decayed.. but I am sure you will dig it up again, and again, and....

Even the specialist lawyer quoted by Popular Photography in one of their recent issues said that a photo of a person taken in a public place could be used as an illustration in a magazine without a model release, which the photographer would obviously get paid for.

I would agree about talking to a very good lawyer, but my view is they are few and far between when it comes to expertise in the area of media. Only a lawyer that is considered a "player" by other major lawyers in this field has a strong potential to win for you. I have been told by the profession that certain lawyers are "effective" and others get "eaten up" in court. Not at all surprising but it makes the choice of a lawyer important.

I obviously deal with different lawyers than you do and I believe strongly in fighting for my rights and will if necessary hire the best lawyer I know that supports my view. I have been unsuccessfully threatened a few times but I have gained so far in any of my legal endeavors and expect to continue to do so.

We seem to represent the two extremes. À chacun son goüt! which does not translate extremely well into English: "To each, his own!"

skieur
 
check the laws for your state ect, i believe it differs depending where youa re.

heres a snip form the laws here in ontario.


People Visible in Photographs

The industry standard for commercial photography dictates that any identifiable person in a photograph should sign a model release. However, in Ontario, the Privacy Act does not protect it's residents against unwanted commercial use of their image. Other provinces, for example, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Quebec have provisions in their Privacy Acts (or similar regulations or statutes) for allowing a person to control their image or likeness, voice, and other attributes. Note that this does not disallow you from taking photos of them, only what you do with the photos (such as publishing them). If you have tracked down this information for other provinces, please forward it to me for inclusion.
Regardless of province, you may photograph and publish a photo of anyone, with the exception of young offenders, as long as the subject is newsworthy, doing newsworthy things, or are public figures or celebrities. Additionally, photos including people who are not the principal subject(s) of the photo, but instead make up the background do not have any say in what you do with the photograph.
 
check the laws for your state ect, i believe it differs depending where youa re.

heres a snip form the laws here in ontario.

May I point out that the "industry standard" is not and never has been the law for Ontario or anywhere else.

skieur
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top