Model Releases when you dont sell your images?

[oliverjw]

Okay, I know that the answer is likely going to be a yes. But I am not entirely sure.

I founded a small co-op of photographers working to connect volunteer photographers of varying skill levels with small non-profits in their communities who need photographers. We seek to both help non-profits while also helping our photographers network, gain experience, and give back to their communities.

The question I have is related to Model Releases.

We are in talks to photograph a robotic competition sponsored by an educational institution where other schools will be present. All participants will be minors. To my knowledge, parents will not be present, just teacher chaperones.

Everything I read online says that a model release is required if you plan on selling the image, however, we do not sell our images. We donate our images to the small non-profits so they can use the images in the promotion of their event or helping to portray their mission in the community. We do publish some of the images in our blog and on our facebook account, however, there is no expectation of payment on our end.

My gut is to say that model releases are required because we are dealing with minors. But my brain doesn't really understand why they are and whose responsibility it is to obtain them. For future events, should we request that organizations submit a photography release form along side their liability release form? Does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this potentially large amount of paperwork?

Thanks so much for your time - and if you are interested in BeMore Photography - you can visit our website here: BeMore Photography.

John

 

[skieur]

Legally you can sell images without a model release as long as it is not for advertising a product for example. Photographing a minor in a public place also does not require a release. Again no product is being advertised through the photo.

 

[vintagesnaps]

It may depend on where you live but usually parents have to sign permission for their child to participate in extracurricular activities. You could check with the institution sponsoring the competition and see if they already have releases on file. When I took photos of a high school sports team I checked with them and they obtain releases every season from the parents of all their student athletes to cover any use of images of them.

You might still need to get releases signed by the participants' parents so you're covered - if a parent sees a photo of their child used on your website and they didn't give permission then you could potentially be dealing with an irate parent. Seems better to be covered and preventive instead of having problems to deal with later.

There are guidelines about model and property releases on websites of professional photographers organizations like ASMP.

 

[skieur]

The law related to releases is similar in the US, Canada, and the UK.

Dan Heller's Photography Business Blog: Busting Myths about Model Releases

 

[KmH]

I strongly advise you to contact an attorney qualified in publication and model release law. Model release law varies by state. Online is not a reliable place to be seeking legal advice. In fact, there is no guarantee an attorney is giving you good advice. Washington, DC is not a state and may offer unique legal circumstances.

I am not a lawyer.

Usage determines if a model/property release is, or isn't needed. Payment has essentially nothing to do with the issue.

The non-profits will need valid model releases to use images with people in them for promotional purposes (commercial usage), unless the non-profit is willing to accept the legal liability exposure of not having valid releases on file.
A persons face is not required to meet the condition of 'recognizable'. Unique cloths, haircuts, scars, tattoos, or other distinguishing features may be used.

Only parents, legal guardians, or emancipated minors can sign model releases for minors.

The responsibility of having valid model releases on file falls to the publisher of images used for a commercial purpose. Since your co-op posts images to your blog, the co-op may also need to have releases on file.

Images can be sold for non-commercial usage (editorial). Images with people in them used editorially do not need to be released.
The legal definitions, not the 'street' definitions, of commercial use and editorial use apply.
A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

 

[Buckster]

While you might not need one, the folks that want to use the image(s) later for promotional purposes and so forth may indeed need it.

As Keith said, check with a real attorney that has experience with this.

 

[skieur]

It may depend on where you live but usually parents have to sign permission for their child to participate in extracurricular activities. You could check with the institution sponsoring the competition and see if they already have releases on file. When I took photos of a high school sports team I checked with them and they obtain releases every season from the parents of all their student athletes to cover any use of images of them.

You might still need to get releases signed by the participants' parents so you're covered - if a parent sees a photo of their child used on your website and they didn't give permission then you could potentially be dealing with an irate parent. Seems better to be covered and preventive instead of having problems to deal with later.

There are guidelines about model and property releases on websites of professional photographers organizations like ASMP.

School policies tend to go beyond what is necessary in law, however I have had my photos of kindergarten children published in a national newspaper without any permissions or releases, since none were necessary.

 

[KmH]

Which is likely an example of an editorial use.

 

[dbvirago]

Another .02 from a non-lawyer. There are grey areas in which I would be willing to take a chance, knowing that worst case is usually a cease and desist.

Photographs of children is not one of those areas.

 

[hirejn]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you can use someone's image for marketing or promotion without his permission, profit or no profit. Do you really want to do this without consulting a lawyer? Nobody here appears to be one.

 

[Light Guru]

While you might not need one, the folks that want to use the image(s) later for promotional purposes and so forth may indeed need it.

BINGO so you might as well get model releases.

 

[skieur]

I strongly advise you to contact an attorney qualified in publication and model release law. Model release law varies by state. Online is not a reliable place to be seeking legal advice. In fact, there is no guarantee an attorney is giving you good advice. Washington, DC is not a state and may offer unique legal circumstances.


Images can be sold for non-commercial usage (editorial). Images with people in them used editorially do not need to be released.
The legal definitions, not the 'street' definitions, of commercial use and editorial use apply.
A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

And the legal definition defines commercial usage as for advertising purposes. Editorial usage covers almost any other use.

 

[skieur]

Which is likely an example of an editorial use.

True, but they were used to promote a particular school board and education system.

 

[oliverjw]

Thanks for the replies and advice everyone. I will ensure that the organization has either gotten model releases or has text within their release documents that cover the use of photography at the event. We make sure to get model releases of the people we photograph at various events as it is always better to be safe than sorry, but this case had a unique challenge in that we would not be able to get model releases for the minors during the event since their parents will not be there.

Thanks again!

John