Might be dumb question, but...
Jan 6, 2012 23:43:11 #
When is a "model release" needed? If your in a public area, are you fair game? On a bus, in a store, ice rink, park, on the street, that type of location.
Jan 7, 2012 00:03:20 #
Most everything I have read on the subject says you only need a model release if the photo is being use for advertising. They is not needed for editorial photos (news) or for art photos.
Jan 7, 2012 00:12:56 #
Going Digital wrote:
When is a "model release" needed? If your in a public area, are you fair game? On a bus, in a store, ice rink, park, on the street, that type of location.
'Model releases" are almost never needed in a public venue
Jan 7, 2012 00:32:23 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
Going Digital wrote:
When is a "model release" needed? If your in a public area, are you fair game? On a bus, in a store, ice rink, park, on the street, that type of location.
If the person is recognizable and if the image will be used commercially, as part of an advertisment or other venue in which someone is making money off of the unsigned "model."
Jan 7, 2012 09:57:06 #
docrob wrote:
If the person is recognizable and if the image will be used commercially, as part of an advertisment or other venue in which someone is making money off of the unsigned "model."
Going Digital wrote:
When is a "model release" needed? If your in a public area, are you fair game? On a bus, in a store, ice rink, park, on the street, that type of location.
If the person is recognizable and if the image will be used commercially, as part of an advertisment or other venue in which someone is making money off of the unsigned "model."
Also, sometimes you may need a property release if you are going to use it commercially, such as the empire state building.
Jan 7, 2012 10:37:05 #
docrob wrote:
If the person is recognizable and if the image will be used commercially, as part of an advertisment or other venue in which someone is making money off of the unsigned "model."
Going Digital wrote:
When is a "model release" needed? If your in a public area, are you fair game? On a bus, in a store, ice rink, park, on the street, that type of location.
If the person is recognizable and if the image will be used commercially, as part of an advertisment or other venue in which someone is making money off of the unsigned "model."
Ok say you were gonna use a street scene as advertisement,could you not blur the people out that you don't have a release for?
Jan 7, 2012 12:01:54 #
According to the law as I know it, anything that is in plain sight has not expectation of having a right to privacy. So if you can see it, you can photo it. There are exceptions as in the case of security issues but that's rare. Also, the police do not have the right to take your camera or delete your photos. However, common sense tells you that taking pictures of people you don't know without their permission is not wise. If your just taking pics in a park or something that's one thing if people are in the park. But if you start taking pictures of specific people that might cause some problems. The tactful thing would be to not do that without maybe explaining who you are and why you want to take pictures of them. This is especially true if children are involved. While you may have the right to do it, you might want to use discretion.
Jan 7, 2012 12:33:17 #
docrob wrote:
If the person is recognizable and if the image will be used commercially, as part of an advertisment or other venue in which someone is making money off of the unsigned "model."
Going Digital wrote:
When is a "model release" needed? If your in a public area, are you fair game? On a bus, in a store, ice rink, park, on the street, that type of location.
If the person is recognizable and if the image will be used commercially, as part of an advertisment or other venue in which someone is making money off of the unsigned "model."
That's why I'm hesitant to shoot people. Eventually, I would like to sell photos, either and or, through a web site or flea markets. To be honest, I'm not that good about asking strangers for that.
Jan 7, 2012 12:48:36 #
Having done a career in television news / sports photography we always tried to avoid shooting particular people at random.
A news item happens in the street let's say. People are standing around on public property watching. I can see them, I can shoot them... even if they're standing on their front lawn... still I, and anyone else there, can see them, I can shoot them.
It's really about public venues, where you as a photographer are standing and what you can see from your vantage point.
Being careful is important but in the normal course, as I described, no one can stop you in a public situation.
A news item happens in the street let's say. People are standing around on public property watching. I can see them, I can shoot them... even if they're standing on their front lawn... still I, and anyone else there, can see them, I can shoot them.
It's really about public venues, where you as a photographer are standing and what you can see from your vantage point.
Being careful is important but in the normal course, as I described, no one can stop you in a public situation.
Jan 7, 2012 12:50:49 #
In my experience releases are necessary in a contracted shoot. In public, the world is your canvas
Jan 7, 2012 12:51:53 #
Jan 7, 2012 12:59:48 #
OK, here's an example. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2001/oct/01/flag-waving-child-becomes-a-celebrity/ If I would made this shot, I would have had it, kept shooting, probably realizing what I had the next day, having no way to to know who it was, let alone, ask for a release.
Jan 7, 2012 16:15:30 #
Going Digital wrote:
When is a "model release" needed? If your in a public area, are you fair game? On a bus, in a store, ice rink, park, on the street, that type of location.
It's probably the gravitational pull of the looming full moon on the water in my brain that keeps me from sleeping and makes me a tad grumpy but whatever it is, this is apparently my day for nitpickin' everything and I see no reason to make an exception of this. This question has come up several times and I have yet to catch anyone answering it properly. That's not to say someone hasn't but I just haven't seen it. The answers are always real close but not quite correct and while I'm not a lawyer, I'm gonna "play one on tv" for a couple of seconds. The reason you need a model release is not, "if your image is going to be used in some kind of commercial venture such as advertising." It is because the people who use your image WON'T USE IT without a model release because they then incur the legal ramifications of using an image without the permission of the subject. So, if you expect to sell an image to an agency for advertising or other commercial purpose, get a model release. If not, it probably doesn't matter.
Jan 7, 2012 16:20:32 #
Jan 7, 2012 16:42:09 #
larrycumba wrote:
gessman- What other purposes are considered commercial?
As I said, I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't venture into an arena where I was required to pass out a list. Many agencies with what we refer to as a "franchise" retain exclusive rights to any image of their concern such as bands, sports teams, etc., retain all rights to any sale of anything to do with them. So, in those instances, model releases do not apply - you can't sell a picture of Mick Jagger, Tim Tebow, et. al., end of story - Elvis, maybe if you can catch him walking down the street but then perhaps only to The Enquirer.
When I think of a freelance photographer selling his work, what comes to mind first for me is magazines, other publications, and corporations who buy images to be used chiefly in advertising. I've never pursued all the possible outlets for the sale of photographic work so I pretty much stop there - and that within the understanding that I have yet to attempt to sell any of my images and don't expect to. I should think googling that would yield some interesting reading.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.