Selling prints of people on DeviantArt

[Joshonator]

I mainly do nature photography and haven't had a second thought about submitting prints on DA. Haven't sold any yet but I figure I don't have anything to lose by doing it . But recently I did some street photography and now I am trying to decide whether or not some of my photos would be acceptable to post there as prints without a model release (which cannot possibly be obtained at this point). I heard that it is Legal to sell artistic prints without releases in the US, but I don't know about canada. I also heard that selling prints to a friend is considered private use, but would posting a print on the web for people around the world to see be considered commercial use?

Any knowledge you have on this subject would be appreciated. And please don't tell me not to worry about it.

 

[Big Mike]

I'm no lawyer...but I think that 'commercial' use is when something is used/published on a large scale or to promote a company/product etc.

So if the photo appears in a Nike ad campaign...that's a commercial use. If you are just selling prints, that's not a commercial use.

 

[KmH]

Each country makes their own laws.

In the US, model release statutes vary by state, but what it boils down to here in the US is the legal definitions, not the general definitions, of 'publication' and 'commercial'.

Photos sold to individuals as a digital file or a print for their personal use is not considered commercial, unless you are doing mass distribution. There is no specific number that defines mass distribution, but it's unlikely selling on DeviantArt would generate a sufficient number of sales to qualify as mass distribution.

Selling photos so they can be used for promotion or advertising purposes is commercial.

 

[Moonb007]

DeviantART is similar to several stock sites out there, so I think it is considered commercial...even know they are more about the artistic community. I personally would not do it if you can make out the persons face or feature, as you don't want to run a legal risk...just not worth it. I have never had a sale on DeviantART by the way. You can sell images of people without a model release, but only as editorial and can be for retail purposes(resale on t-shirt, post cards, etc) fyi.

 

[Dusica]

I haven't sold anything on DA yet. Maybe I misunderstood, but I've heard that if you make money on a photo, you need a model release.

 

[FavillePhoto]

If you can not identify the person in the photo (can't see facial features, back is turned, etc.) then you do not need a model release. And yes, if you post your photos for sale on any website, including DeviantArt, you would technically need a model release for resale of a photo, although no one will actually ask you for one.

 

[KmH]

It's nowhere near as cut and dried as people are alluding to here. FavillePhoto's statement "If you can not identify the person in the photo (can't see facial features, back is turned, etc.) then you do not need a model release." is far from true, but gets oft repeated because it has become online urban legend.

The person(s) in the photo determines if they are recognizable, not you.
A photo of a man's forearm that also shows a scare from a cut he got when he was 8 years old, or a tattoo, or some other unique feature, makes him recognizable.

Note the OP is in Canada, so US law does not apply.

Some suggested online reading for those here in the US: Model Releases

....the key concept you need to always have at the front of your mind is "association." Does the person or thing in the photo imply he or it is an advocate or sponsor for an underlying idea or product. The stronger the implication of this kind of advocacy, the more likely that someone can draw an "association" between the photo subject and that product or idea. Hence, the stronger the need for a release.