Theoritical question........ ;-)

[ottor]

OK, for fun's sake, let's say that I took a photograph a couple of years ago, of - let's say .... a cowboy that I ran across out in the country. Just him and his cows. Let's also say, that I recently entered that photo into a magazine cover contest. Perhaps, one of the requirements of the submission is that it contains at least one person. Now, let's get real wild and say ... I won, and the photo would be on the cover of a fairly well known, wildly distributed magazine. "IF" this happened, let's assume that I'd receive a really nice financial reward for winning ......... Now, let's say that the magazine didn't require any kind of model release ...... "IF" this cowboy was able to recognize himself in this photo, could that present a problem for anyone ?? Of course, the photo wasn't taken with any intent of profiting or for any commercial uses ..

Lets say I'm just curious .......

tks,

 

[tirediron]

Keith or Derrel can probably say for certain, since my understanding of US law is a bit hazy in places, but as far as I know, that would not constitute commerical use, and no release should be required. Can we see the picture and how much did you win?

 

[runnah]

Do you know the guy? if so write a quickie contract saying he'd get a percentage of your future winnings.

 

[SnappingShark]

as far as I know, that would not constitute commerical use, and no release should be required.

Hmm, I'm kind of curious about this - because I'm no US law expert either - hell, any kind of law except Murphy's - but anyway - by entering the competition, wouldn't it have been known to the photographer that the winning image may be on the front of the magazine, which, is used for commercial reasons to sell magazines?

IDK - because my dog doesn't have to sign releases to be in pets monthly. Humans are a different breed!

I look forward to the answer of this one actually!

 

[andywag]

as far as I know, that would not constitute commerical use, and no release should be required.

Hmm, I'm kind of curious about this - because I'm no US law expert either - hell, any kind of law except Murphy's - but anyway - by entering the competition, wouldn't it have been known to the photographer that the winning image may be on the front of the magazine, which, is used for commercial reasons to sell magazines?

IDK - because my dog doesn't have to sign releases to be in pets monthly. Humans are a different breed!

I look forward to the answer of this one actually!

Editorial use. No release required.

 

[SnappingShark]

The secret life of Walter Mitty all over again.

Wait, what - did I just spoil the ending?

 

[AlanKlein]

Hey pardner. I told you you'd win.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Theoretical ?? - well, regardless of why you're asking, here are a couple of links to resources. Usually it would be necessary for commercial or I think retail use; typically not for editorial use but it may be requested. I don't know in this case since it's being published in a magazine but there's financial gain/profit in winning the contest. (And I thought contests usually require releases.)

Probably better to get a release if a subject is recognizable and you think you might want to use a photo for some future purpose.

Property and Model Releases | American Society of Media Photographers
What Photographers Need to Know About Model Releases

 

[KmH]

IMO, the photo on the cover of the magazine would indeed be a commercial use - an advertisement to sell the magazine.
The same photo inside the magazine accompanying an article about cowboys would be an editorial use.
There are situations where a model release is also needed for an editorial use.
Model release law is not cut and dried and it varies somewhat by state.

The cowboy could have an attorney sue you and the magazine. Sans having a valid model release on file it's highly likely the cowboy would prevail in court. Cha- Ching ! ! ! !

A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

 

[snowbear]

Isn't the publisher (the theoretical magazine), and not necessarily the photographer, ultimately responsible for having a release? I realize that often the photographer is also the publisher and that the photographer is the best person to actually obtain one.

 

[Browncoat]

Isn't the publisher (the theoretical magazine), and not necessarily the photographer, ultimately responsible for having a release? I realize that often the photographer is also the publisher and that the photographer is the best person to actually obtain one.

In theory, the publisher is ultimately responsible since they are the ones using the photo for publication. They accomplish this by requiring photographers to submit a release, so in the end, it's the photog who needs to perform due diligence and keep records.