Permission

[AluminumStudios]

The short answer is if you're photographing someone for an editorial, article, etc., you often don't necessarily need permission. If you are photographing someone to sell for profit you need a signed model release.

If you google "model release" you'll find more information. If you don't have the signed release you can be taken to court and will probably loose.

 

[Azuth]

This is all internet opinion stuff, the best advice has already been given, get a legal or expert opinion for where you are. In a lot of places you can take a picture of someone in a public place and sell prints of it for profit. You just can't sell it as a stock image or use it for advertising without a release. Street photography is a perfect example. There are other complex issues, but like CaptainBonzo said, obtaining releases when they're not required isn't necessarily helping photographers.

 

[fmw]

This is all internet opinion stuff, the best advice has already been given, get a legal or expert opinion for where you are.

There you go. "Excuse me sir, I want to take your picture but I need to find out if I need a model release. Could you wait a few minutes while I consult my lawyer?" Is that what you had in mind?

 

[Azuth]

Yes, that could have been what I meant, or perhaps I was being tricky by meaning what I wrote. I'm sorry, did you run out funny before arriving here?

I gave a reasonable answer the question, there are many forms of "taking a photo to make a profit", not all of them require a release. Some countries or states may have different laws that affect this ("where you are").

In my opinion, getting a release where not required runs the risk of damaging certain aspects of photography for other people, as Groupcaptainbonzo intimated. Accepting statements of "Better to be safe than sorry" is less than ideal. Better to get the facts for your specific circumstances.