Model Release??

Big Bully · Jan 1, 2008

Trenton Romulox said:
Oral contracts hold up in a court of law up here in Maine. I was shocked when I found that out.

That is crazy... Especially now-a-days, there are so many dishonest people, and people willing to screw anyone over for a buck. I wouldn't think that an oral contract would hold weight. Now I am actually going to have to figure out if they hold weight in Idaho for sure.
I do know it is better to have a contract in writing, but verbal might work too.

jols · Jan 2, 2008

im in the uk and im not using the pics for commercial stuff i just want the parents to agree or disagree that i can put their childrens photo on the internet and that they are fully aware of it.

Big Bully · Jan 2, 2008

Well, I think the fact that you are dealing with kids, it is better to be safe than sorry. Doesn't matter what the content of the pictures are, there is always going to be that "one parent" who gets a wild hair and will accuse someone of child porn. So save your butt, and just have them sign a release, especially when dealing with kids.

skieur · Jan 4, 2008

JC1220 said:
You do not need a release unless the photograph is used for commercial purposes.

The correct term is "advertising purposes" since in advertising purposes the photo is used out-of-context. Commercial purposes are allowed if not for advertising.

skieur

skieur · Jan 4, 2008

Big Bully said:
Well, I think the fact that you are dealing with kids, it is better to be safe than sorry. Doesn't matter what the content of the pictures are, there is always going to be that "one parent" who gets a wild hair and will accuse someone of child porn. So save your butt, and just have them sign a release, especially when dealing with kids.

This issue of kids photos used on the web is more a concern of whether the child could be traced by some whacko through his/her photo on the net. Whether that is possible or not depends on how easy or difficult the photographer has made it to identify the location and the subject.
Even then, is this kind of stalking any more likely than those that take place out in the street?

skieur

JC1220 · Jan 4, 2008

skieur said:
The correct term is "advertising purposes" since in advertising purposes the photo is used out-of-context. Commercial purposes are allowed if not for advertising.

skieur

No, I stated the correct term here in the States, commerical covers advertising or any other profit making venture not related to fine art purposes. Perhaps it is different up North.

Big Bully · Jan 4, 2008

JC1220 said:
No, I stated the correct term here in the States, commerical covers advertising or any other profit making venture not related to fine art purposes. Perhaps it is different up North.

That is the hard thing about being on a mulit-national forum, we all have different terms for things. Either way you are both right, but JC has a point, "commercial" covers a lot of things here in the US.

skieur · Jan 5, 2008

JC1220 said:
No, I stated the correct term here in the States, commerical covers advertising or any other profit making venture not related to fine art purposes. Perhaps it is different up North.

No, in the U.S. as well American photography lawyers have defined commercial purposes as advertising a product, or being a product as in using a photo of someone in public on a massive publication of posters.
Other than that, selling the photo for art purposes is OK and one was sold for $20,000 in New York, and magazine use if OK as well, as long as the photo is not taken out of context and is presented as a street or candid photo.

skieur

skieur · Jan 5, 2008

Big Bully said:
That is the hard thing about being on a mulit-national forum, we all have different terms for things. Either way you are both right, but JC has a point, "commercial" covers a lot of things here in the US.

What is important is what the legal use of the term "commercial" means and in the U.S. and other countries. It means advertising use and use that takes the photo out of context as a street or candid photo. Presenting it as a street or candid shot in a magazine or an art shot is permitted.

skieur

Jon, The Elder · Jan 7, 2008

Model releases are for model shoots and advertising. Otherwise, they are not necessary.

Following that little piece of brilliance, could cost you a lot of money.

kundalini · Jan 7, 2008

Some more information on the Model Release.

cameramike · Jan 7, 2008

when it comes down to it there is NO way to identify who is in that picture

JC1220 · Jan 7, 2008

skieur said:
No, in the U.S. as well American photography lawyers have defined commercial purposes as advertising a product,
skieur

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:

monkeykoder · Jan 7, 2008

According to kudalini's link the photographer is not responsible for how the image is used unless they misrepresent it as having a release when they don't have one otherwise it is the publisher's responsibility to know how they can use the image. Of course that is just recapping the information on said website and would probably only apply in the U.S. and it would be a good idea to get permission whether or not you need a release.

Big Bully · Jan 7, 2008

JC1220 said:
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.

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