joshuafloeter Loc: Austin, Tx.

Hey Hhoggers! I am scheduled to take some photos at a restaurant patio tonight for the business' promotional fodder. Does anyone have a link for a quick release form if someone asks? Or should I use common street photography etiquette and compliment, ask for email to send them that nice photo of them, offer to delete the photo immediately? All helpful info is greatly appreciated.

Thank you all!

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

If the photo will be used for commercial purposes you will need a release form. Google photo release form and print out a bunch of them. Be sure to keep signed copies

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

In the past, I have used a "Crowd Consent and Release Notice" that is worded something like this:

"CROWD NOTICE / RELEASE

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT BY ENTERING THIS AREA, YOU CONSENT TO YOUR VOICE, NAME, AND/OR LIKENESS BEING USED, [WITHOUT COMPENSATION], IN FILMS AND TAPES FOR EXPLOITATION IN ANY AND ALL MEDIA, WHETHER NOW KNOWN OR HEREAFTER DEVISED, FOR ETERNITY, AND YOU RELEASE [insert company name] , ITS SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS AND LICENSEES FROM ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER OF ANY NATURE.

DO NOT ENTER THIS AREA IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE SUBJECT TO THE FOREGOING."

This is a template that you can find by googling crowd release notice.

I've used this, in conjunction with the restaurant and the wait staff - where the host/hostess makes everyone aware that they may be photographed/filmed and that the images/footage will likely be used for promotional purposes by the restaurant. In consideration the house buys them a drink/appetizer/dessert, making the "without compensation" wording not applicable.

It is logistically impractical to get signed release forms from everyone, including staff in the restaurant.

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

I hope you were kidding. That is pretty heavy-handed. If someone stuck that notice in front of me, I'd leave! And, if most people have a similar reaction, the restaurant would be empty, except for the staff.

I think a better solution is for the owner/manager to notify the staff in advance of the photo session. That way, they can look their best for the event. And, I would advise all customers, as they come through the door, of the session so there are no surprises. You never know... that well-dressed couple may be wanted by the FBI and might take exception to you taking their images. Better that they know in advance and can decide whether or not to enter.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Yes, and keep the original signed (ink) copy.

alliebess Loc: suburban Philadelphia

The crowd release form is not so surprising - all incoming students at the college where I worked signed a photo release form and a sign was posted at the library when events were held notifying visitors and students that they might be photographed.

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

I did this for a restaurant soft opening where we did the interior design and I did the photo murals and photo artwork. Everyone signed the release forms except one person who was seated with his party at an out of the way corner away from the action. One could tell that the others in his party were not too happy with him. But I avoided him in the photos because he was always behind me. As a soft opening, the invitations were for select patrons and invitations mentioned that there would be photography of the evening dining rooms and patio.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Who is ultimately responsible for obtaining releases - the photographer or the client who actually publishes the images?

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

I worked with the client to make sure we had releases, as they were not aware of the legalities. So, in that sense, the photographer who knows that releases are required should ensure they are obtained. Since the client could conceivably be sued and in turn sue the photographer for putting them in that position, I would say the photographer is responsible since he or she produced the images.

In the situation I had, I archived the signed releases into storage but made scanned digital copies for myself and the client for our records.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not kidding at all. And if you feel so strongly you would be under no obligation to stay, either. My experience is that a very small number of people leave, and the majority enjoy the freebies and the chance to share in something different. Good thing most people generally don't react like you, the restaurant would be empty indeed. . .

FYI, it is not as unusual as you make it out to be:

http://foodmarriage.com/category/restaurant-review/page/2

https://dc.eater.com/2011/7/15/6669015/cooking-channels-unique-eats-filming-at-oyamel-today

https://gateb3.com/2016/11/

Maybe you might want to get out more. . . Just sayin'

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

Yes, I certainly need to get out more. LOL! And, to be clear, I certainly don't know about this type of photography... dealing with crowds, only individuals. So, my comments were just my thoughts. And, I have been enlightened by all the other comments. 👍🤓👍

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Any image being used for commercial purposes absolutely requires a model release signed by each person in the image (and a property release signed by the business owner, too).

An offer to "delete" doesn't cut it. You and the business can be sued for misuse of the person's image.... Even if you win, the cost of defending yourself can bankrupt you.

If you were simply displaying the image and no one was profiting from the image (i.e. the photographer isn't getting paid... the business isn't using it for promotion, marketing and advertising), a release isn't necessary so long as the people are in a public place with no expectation of privacy.... and common courtesy is to take the image down if anyone objects to it and requests you not display it.

If you don't have a good model release, go to https://www.asmp.org/property-model-releases/ and read the information. There are links to each of the specific releases... you will probably need the standard (adult) model release and property release... and possibly the minor release (which must be signed by a parent or adult guardian).

The releases at the above link are some of the most widely used. The American Society or Media Photographers releases have probably been used many millions of times.

Technically, a model/property release is a contract and for it to be valid there must be "consideration" paid to the party signing the release. It can just be $1 or a free copy of the finished image.... whatever.

Shooting on a patio, unless the restaurant is closed for the shoot there may be customers in the background who are "incidental" to the image. If they're recognizable, it would be best to have a release signed, but not as important as primary subjects in the foreground. If there is a real crowd in the background, it may not be practical to get all of them to sign a release. In that case, it might be good to shoot with a larger aperture to blur them down and make them less recognizable.



Unfortunately, that's risky. It may or may not hold up in court. Someone could say they didn't see it and weren't expecting to be photographed while dining in a restaurant or didn't think it applied to them or that they don't read English. Depending upon which side of the bed the judge got out of that morning, he or she may or may not side with the complainant.

Individually signed releases from all recognizable persons who will be in the images are MUCH less risky.

The point of a release is to discourage lawsuits. Because even a frivolous lawsuit that you ultimately win can be very expensive.

I shoot sporting events and simply won't display the images of a person anywhere publicly (such as online), unless a release has been signed. I know photographers who won't even take a shot until a release has been signed.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

When I was contracted to be the official pub photographer, I directed any and all concerns to the owners of the pub. The photos were published for them at their direction. I never had a problem. There was no notices posted or paperwork to sign. Just have a good time.
--Bob

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

I don't think it matters. Most publishers or stock entities will ask for one. They won't care who got it. They just need to be released. It's NOT the photographer that needs it(but they're usually the ones that get it), it's the puplisher, they are the ones that get sued for publishing the likeness.
SS

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It's fairly commonplace. And it does stand up in court.