Question about People Photos Entered in a Contest

[sm4him]

I'm considering entering some photos in a contest. And yes, I already *know* most photo contests are just a photo-rights grab.
But:
1. This one is held by Nikon, and offers something like over $10K for the winning photo.
2. I have no chance of winning anyway, it's just an exercise to make myself enter.

ANYWAY.

It looks like the judges have historically been *exceedingly* favorable to "people" pictures in choosing their winners. And I don't really DO people pictures. So that's a problem. Mostly I'm going to just enter some of my "favorites" from last year and see what happens.

I do have two or three people pictures I've considered entering. They are all from the Veteran's Day Parade held last year in my city.

THE QUESTION:
--Do I need the permission of the people in the photos in order to enter them in a contest?

In all the photos, the people's faces are toward the camera, so they are easily recognizable.
ONE of the pictures involves small children, who were sitting on the sidewalk watching the parade and waving their flags.
The other two pictures are of people who marching in the parade.

Since a parade is a public event, taking place on public property, I know I don't need permission to TAKE their pictures...but would I need it to enter the photos in a contest?

Oh, and: I don't see anything that makes it look like the winning photo would ever be used for direct profit by Nikon. Their "rights grab" statement reads:
"With the objective of publicizing the contest, the organizer reserves in perpetuity the non-exclusive right to publish, reproduce, make public, display, print, distribute andscreen winning entries on websites, in photo exhibitions and in facilities managed bythe organizer, its affiliates, and overseas subsidiaries without further compensation toor the additional prior consent of the entries' creators."

A similar statement is made elsewhere that again emphasizes that they have the right to use the photo as they desire basically, but only with the objective of promoting and publicizing the contest and/or photo exhibitions where winning entries will be shown.

 

[tirediron]

Keith can speak with much more authority on the US laws as they relate to this sort of thing.... KEITH!!! Over here! but my understanding is that no, a release should not be required since this does not fall under the pure definition of commercial use. Many contests do however require some form of release regardless, so I would suggest reading everything carefully and ensuring that no such requirement does exist.

Good luck!

 

[KmH]

You really should consult with a qualified attorney. Online is not a reliable place to be getting legal advice.
Actually, some qualified attorneys are not reliable sources for legal advice either.

A photo contest run by Nikon is just one more way of advertising Nikon.

Model release law varies by state. Here in the US there are 50 somewhat different versions.

 

[ronlane]

Actually, some qualified attorneys are not reliable sources for legal advice either.

+1,000,0000.

 

[imagemaker46]

You are always walking on thin ice when photos of kids are being shot in public places, especially in these times. As tirediron said read everything carefully. As an example here. You end up winning and the photo shows up in a magazine somewhere, the parents see the photo and one of two things happens, they want a copy of the photo, they want the name of your lawyer so can sue you. It's a tough call. Personally, I wouldn't.

 

[sm4him]

Keith can speak with much more authority on the US laws as they relate to this sort of thing.... KEITH!!! Over here! but my understanding is that no, a release should not be required since this does not fall under the pure definition of commercial use. Many contests do however require some form of release regardless, so I would suggest reading everything carefully and ensuring that no such requirement does exist.

Good luck!

Hey, that big, bold type worked!! You got him in here fast! :lmao:
See, that little thing about whether they might require a release even though normally I wouldn't need one for these pictures is what nags at me.

You really should consult with a qualified attorney. Online is not a reliable place to be getting legal advice.
Actually, some qualified attorneys are not reliable sources for legal advice either.

A photo contest run by Nikon is just one more way of advertising Nikon.

Model release law varies by state. Here in the US there are 50 somewhat different versions.

The chance I'll be consulting an attorney about this is slightly smaller than the chance that I'll win the next Powerball lottery (or whatever it is). And since I don't PLAY the lottery, those are some mighty slim odds indeed.
There is a far greater likelihood that I'll decide to just not enter the people photos, if there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut indication that I don't need a release for them. Actually, I could probably get a release for ONE of the photos, as I at least have some idea of how to find out who the person is.

As far as it just being another way for Nikon to advertise Nikon--if they wanted to pay me $5K or $10K for one of the photos I plan to submit, in exchange for using it to advertise them, I am A-OK with that.

Also--I have virtually NO chance of actually winning this contest anyway. :lmao:

 

[sm4him]

You are always walking on thin ice when photos of kids are being shot in public places, especially in these times. As tirediron said read everything carefully. As an example here. You end up winning and the photo shows up in a magazine somewhere, the parents see the photo and one of two things happens, they want a copy of the photo, they want the name of your lawyer so can sue you. It's a tough call. Personally, I wouldn't.

I think that's an excellent point, and I'm inclined to agree with you and toss that one out of the running.
That leaves two photos of adults and one photo of a minor (high school student), which is the one that I'm fairly certain I could track down the parents for a release.

 

[KmH]

There are 2 varieties of usage by legal definition - editorial and commercial.

You generally don't need a release for editorial usage.
Selling prints is generally an editorial use, not a commercial use. If you start mass producing a print and distributing it, it becomes a commercial use

You don't need a release for commercial usage either, but you and a publisher (like Nikon) of people photos could wind up in court for using someone's likeness in a commercial use without there expressed written permission.
So if commercial usage is a possibility, have people sign a release.

 

[imagemaker46]

Keith can speak with much more authority on the US laws as they relate to this sort of thing.... KEITH!!! Over here! but my understanding is that no, a release should not be required since this does not fall under the pure definition of commercial use. Many contests do however require some form of release regardless, so I would suggest reading everything carefully and ensuring that no such requirement does exist.

Good luck!

Hey, that big, bold type worked!! You got him in here fast! :lmao:
See, that little thing about whether they might require a release even though normally I wouldn't need one for these pictures is what nags at me.

You really should consult with a qualified attorney. Online is not a reliable place to be getting legal advice.
Actually, some qualified attorneys are not reliable sources for legal advice either.

A photo contest run by Nikon is just one more way of advertising Nikon.

Model release law varies by state. Here in the US there are 50 somewhat different versions.

The chance I'll be consulting an attorney about this is slightly smaller than the chance that I'll win the next Powerball lottery (or whatever it is). And since I don't PLAY the lottery, those are some mighty slim odds indeed.
There is a far greater likelihood that I'll decide to just not enter the people photos, if there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut indication that I don't need a release for them. Actually, I could probably get a release for ONE of the photos, as I at least have some idea of how to find out who the person is.

As far as it just being another way for Nikon to advertise Nikon--if they wanted to pay me $5K or $10K for one of the photos I plan to submit, in exchange for using it to advertise them, I am A-OK with that.

Also--I have virtually NO chance of actually winning this contest anyway. :lmao:

If you enter, you always have a chance.

 

[weepete]

I think you are all being a bit paranioid. Usually the law that governs images in a public place is reasonable perception of privacy, which in the street you don't have. Most western countries have pretty similar laws and what with the 1st amendment rights in the US you should be pretty well protected.

If you are submitting it to a company like nikkon, I think their lawyers would be all over the case if you submitted anything remotley dodgy and it would never see the light of day.

I'd submit the shot you like best

 

[sm4him]

Thank you all for the advice. The more I've thought about it, and considered some of the points several of you have brought up, the more inclined I am to ditch all the people photos except the one where I think I can track down the parents and get a release.

If you enter, you always have a chance.

Point taken. But trust me, I've seen the winning photos from the past few years and I may have a chance, but it is the tiniest of chances, the "little Cindy Lou Who" of all chances. On the other hand, now that I think about it, the Grinch DID bring her tree back. So perhaps there's hope. :lmao:

I think you are all being a bit paranioid. Usually the law that governs images in a public place is reasonable perception of privacy, which in the street you don't have. Most western countries have pretty similar laws and what with the 1st amendment rights in the US you should be pretty well protected.

If you are submitting it to a company like nikkon, I think their lawyers would be all over the case if you submitted anything remotley dodgy and it would never see the light of day.

I'd submit the shot you like best

That may all be true, but:
--I'd just as soon not waste one of my entries on a photo they are going to dismiss entirely ONLY because of some potential legal issue. Not that they won't dismiss my photos anyway, but dangnabit, I want them dismissed on their own lack of merit, not some pesky potential release issues. :lmao:

--I *definitely* don't want to submit them, have one of them actually WIN something, and THEN have it retracted because I don't have a release and can't get one, since I have no idea who the people are. That would suck WAY worse than just losing in the first place.

 

[skieur]

You are always walking on thin ice when photos of kids are being shot in public places, especially in these times. As tirediron said read everything carefully. As an example here. You end up winning and the photo shows up in a magazine somewhere, the parents see the photo and one of two things happens, they want a copy of the photo, they want the name of your lawyer so can sue you. It's a tough call. Personally, I wouldn't.

If the photo shows up in a magazine somewhere, then the contest people are the "publishers" so the photographer has NO responsibility or liability.

skieur

 

[Tony S]

Remember... if you don't enter you can't lose, but you also guarantee you won't win.

 

[KmH]

If the photo shows up in a magazine somewhere, then the contest people are the "publishers" so the photographer has NO responsibility or liability.

skieur

But that doesn't necessarily keep the photographer out of court and paying legal fees to establish that the photographer has no responsibility or liability.

A further issue may be deciding what constitutes, or doesn't constitute, 'publication'.

Are Photographs Posted On the Internet Published? | Photo Attorney

 

[kathyt]

Just enter, win the money, deal with the 000.0001 percent chance you will get sued later!