Permission?

[ryyback]

Like Big Mike says. Dont invade there personal space. If you take a picture of me from far, I would assume your taking a picture of something that I'm in the way of and think nothing of it. But if your in my space pointing a camera at me while I walk by and you snap a photo.....well just lets say you would be shopping for a new camera.

I usually go and ask, or if I do a random shot (non-posed) I offer up a download free-
Shopping for a new camera-hmm, not going to happen-

 

[KmH]

Like Big Mike says. Dont invade there personal space. If you take a picture of me from far, I would assume your taking a picture of something that I'm in the way of and think nothing of it. But if your in my space pointing a camera at me while I walk by and you snap a photo.....well just lets say you would be shopping for a new camera.

Paid for by you, of course.

I believe that kind of action is called an assault and could not only land you in jail, but give you the opportunity to see a courtroom in action, from the defendants table. :lmao:

 

[KmH]

The purpose of a model/property release is to protect the publisher of an image from law suits for damages.
Check out this Model Release Primer.
Most times the publisher is not the photographer. A image is sellable in many more ways if a photographer has a valid, properly executed model/property release.

The criteria that consitutes a 'properly executed model/property release' varies from state to state. In California, a model has to be compensated with something of value, like money, or free prints, but not in Illinois.

A model release is not required if an image is used in a editorial context. Images accompanying a newspaper story constitute editorial use. So would images accompanying a magazine article. A release is also not needed if the image will be sold as art prints.

A release is needed if an image will be used for any commercial purpose including to promote the photographer. If you want to use an image in your portfolio you really should have a valid model release on file.

 

[raptorman]

I went looking on the net for Laws in Canada regarding photography. Selling included. NOTHING! Nothing good anyway. You might think there is a book out there or something. I am going to the book store later to see if there is anything there.Because I would like to know the rules regarding selling random people photos and sports (kids, etc).

This could be a start: Ambientlight.ca - Laws

 

[DScience]

Like Big Mike says. Dont invade there personal space. If you take a picture of me from far, I would assume your taking a picture of something that I'm in the way of and think nothing of it. But if your in my space pointing a camera at me while I walk by and you snap a photo.....well just lets say you would be shopping for a new camera.

I think you need counseling

 

[tsaraleksi]

Like Big Mike says. Dont invade there personal space. If you take a picture of me from far, I would assume your taking a picture of something that I'm in the way of and think nothing of it. But if your in my space pointing a camera at me while I walk by and you snap a photo.....well just lets say you would be shopping for a new camera.

I think you need counseling

It's what we call a sighting of the not-so-elusive "internet tough guy."

 

[c.cloudwalker]

As far as I know, from my personal experience, there are two types of photography that do not require model releases: art and news. The celebrities fall into the news category although they do still retain some right to privacy and that is how they can sometimes sue and win.

Everything else, which I would call commercial photography, requires one and I have a file cabinet full of them.

A event (as in wedding) is commercial photography but it is different in the sense that the participants are willing to be photographed and I've never heard of a photographer getting sued in cases like this. Now, if you were to use one of your wedding shots on a huge billboard or a mailer to promote your business, you had better get a release because this use of the shot falls outside of the original contract.

 

[KmH]

That's correct, in so far as people attending a wedding can have no realistic expectation of privacy.

 

[ryyback]

What about taking pictures at a high school football game or a Division 1 game?
Would a release be needed for that or would that fall under "news".
IMO, it would fall under news for stuff like that.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

The category a photo falls under depends on the use you make of it rather than the subject matter.

Let's take the high school football game as an example.

News: it is published in the local paper's sport pages.

Art: You make a beautiful print that is included in your next gallery show.

Commercial: you sell the image to Gatorade for their next advertising campaign.


This also brings an aspect of releases that I'm not sure anyone mentioned. If the subject is not of age, make sure the realese is signed by the parents or legal guardians.