who really owns it?
Dec 24, 2011 03:46:46 #
billbreezy
Loc: md
Ok, just read the assoc. of media photographers guidelines and they clearly state, the "law" says, if I took the picture the copyright is mine, so why do I need a model release?
Dec 24, 2011 05:00:38 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
Because there are limits to how you can use even your own pictures.
Suppose for example that you took a picture of a scantily clad young lady on a street corner, and that it was then used(without her permission) in an article about prostitution. Assuming she were not a prostitute, she could then sue for defamation of character. Actually, she could sue anyway, at which point it's up to you to prove that she was. If there's a model release, she couldn't sue.
That's an extreme example, but others are as trivial as a sports personality appearing to endorse a product without payment. Basically, it's down to misrepresentation, and it's why you don't always need model releases in editorial photography; very rarely need them in fine art; and usually need them in advertising. "Follow the money," as the saying goes.
Cheers,
R.
Suppose for example that you took a picture of a scantily clad young lady on a street corner, and that it was then used(without her permission) in an article about prostitution. Assuming she were not a prostitute, she could then sue for defamation of character. Actually, she could sue anyway, at which point it's up to you to prove that she was. If there's a model release, she couldn't sue.
That's an extreme example, but others are as trivial as a sports personality appearing to endorse a product without payment. Basically, it's down to misrepresentation, and it's why you don't always need model releases in editorial photography; very rarely need them in fine art; and usually need them in advertising. "Follow the money," as the saying goes.
Cheers,
R.
Dec 24, 2011 05:29:22 #
billbreezy
Loc: md
Hey R! Thanx for the reply, but, still not clear, I do a lot of parties and events....just starting, anyway, I print on site, do I need model releases for everyomne I shoot if lets say I want to post them on my web site? or if I want to sell them on my web site?
Dec 24, 2011 05:50:17 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
billbreezy wrote:
Hey R! Thanx for the reply, but, still not clear, I do a lot of parties and events....just starting, anyway, I print on site, do I need model releases for everyomne I shoot if lets say I want to post them on my web site? or if I want to sell them on my web site?
VERY disputable. This is about as grey an area as it gets. To put them on your web site as examples of your work, probably not. To sell them as 'fine art', probably not. To sell them as record shots, maybe. To sell them as stock pictures, definitely.
The trouble is, you only need one person to start kicking up a fuss and you're involved in a law-suit, so I'm going to bow out of this. I don't really know enough about it to give any further advice, and I'm not convinced that ANYONE does, because even lawyers have different opinions about it.
Cheers,
R.
Dec 25, 2011 06:35:13 #
If you are using it for profit, without a model release they can sue you and probably win. ALWAYS get a model release. To confuse things even further, Each state has differnet requirements. If you get a release in Utah, it may not meet NY requirements. If you use NY requirements, as of today it meets the balance of the states requirements.
If you can, in PP blur the face and you won't need a release.
Photographers that are shooting school graduations are starting to get releases. You never know if in the future one of them will become a model or famous.
If you can, in PP blur the face and you won't need a release.
Photographers that are shooting school graduations are starting to get releases. You never know if in the future one of them will become a model or famous.
Dec 25, 2011 07:11:54 #
Just because you own something does not mean you can do what you want with it. You and the model are entering into an agreement for a specific purpose and nothing more. I own a gun but I am restricted as to what I can do with it.
Dec 25, 2011 08:32:40 #
ArchieV
Loc: Winter Park, Florida
This is straightforward and easy to follow:
http://knol.google.com/k/how-to-copyright-photography# and
http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=37
http://knol.google.com/k/how-to-copyright-photography# and
http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=37
Dec 25, 2011 08:37:18 #
In general, if a photograph is used for a commercial purpose, then a signed model release protects you from the claim that you used the person's image without permission. When you get sued, you produce the model release and all is well. If you have no model release, you produce cash and hand it over to the plaintiff. An image used for journalistic purposes does not require a model release. If you sell an image, that's a comercial use. If it contains a recognizable image of a person, you had better have a model release. Those are the brightline rules. And that covers maybe 10% or less of the possiblities. The rest is all gray area. If you want a definitive answer, ask 10 lawyers and divide by Pi. Or just get a model release.
Dec 25, 2011 08:47:04 #
I am not a lawyer so take this for what it's worth. It is my understanding that copyright laws prevent somebody from taking your work and using it without your permission.
The law does not give you the right to sell the image of an individual to someone else without their permission. This is especially true if the photo is sold for use for something the individual would not normally give permission for.
And again there are always gray areas. You were talking about taking photos at a party which is not public land. An individual who is out in public can expect to have their photo taken at any time. When a person is at a party on private property they can expect to have some privacy, and for that reason you would need a release to use that photo.
Jim D
The law does not give you the right to sell the image of an individual to someone else without their permission. This is especially true if the photo is sold for use for something the individual would not normally give permission for.
And again there are always gray areas. You were talking about taking photos at a party which is not public land. An individual who is out in public can expect to have their photo taken at any time. When a person is at a party on private property they can expect to have some privacy, and for that reason you would need a release to use that photo.
Jim D
Dec 25, 2011 13:35:59 #
If the person is recognizable, and not a "public figure", you need a model release. Why? Because that's the law. The right or wrongness of the law is something to take up with your local friendly legislators.
Dec 25, 2011 14:06:12 #
Where can I obtain a copy of a model release, or examples of model release.
Also mentioned up above that it matters as to what state you are in. I guess I would need a model release for the state of New Jersey.
Jim D
Also mentioned up above that it matters as to what state you are in. I guess I would need a model release for the state of New Jersey.
Jim D
Dec 25, 2011 14:10:45 #
YOU BETTER READ THE LAW BEFORE YOU THINK YOU CAN PHOTOGRAPH ANY THING YOU LIKE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CAMERA.
Dec 25, 2011 14:15:00 #
You can be sued for 1000s for one picture. Think before you shoot that picture and know your right in doing so.
Dec 25, 2011 14:53:13 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
Nevada Chuck wrote:
If the person is recognizable, and not a "public figure", you need a model release. Why? Because that's the law.
Disputable. Anyone tried this with 'fine art'? Or crowd scenes? And where are you talking about?
Cheers,
R.
Dec 25, 2011 15:08:31 #
Basically, if the image is newsworthy and used as such, a model release is not required, generally in perpetuity. If an image is not newsworthy, and all parties agree the image is not to be used or sold commercially further than personal promotion, then a model release is not usually required.
However, if an image may have commercial purposing currently or anticipated to have commercial use in the future, you must have a talent release. The same goes for recognizable locations. You need a property release for that.
This does not apply to images of people recognized as being "in public life," like celebrities. There is too much baggage associated with the concept of "there is no such thing as bad publicity" to bring much to bear on the shooter. However, if that shooter goes to the National Enquirer and collaborates in defamation, watch out.
Now, the other flip side, concerning casual photography... it is usually a monster, expensive hassle to sue someone over images in the age of the Internet and cell phone cameras. Thus, it does not really happen that much, as in very rarely. What does happen: a person might ask you to take a picture down, off the Internet. You should comply with any such request.
However, if an image may have commercial purposing currently or anticipated to have commercial use in the future, you must have a talent release. The same goes for recognizable locations. You need a property release for that.
This does not apply to images of people recognized as being "in public life," like celebrities. There is too much baggage associated with the concept of "there is no such thing as bad publicity" to bring much to bear on the shooter. However, if that shooter goes to the National Enquirer and collaborates in defamation, watch out.
Now, the other flip side, concerning casual photography... it is usually a monster, expensive hassle to sue someone over images in the age of the Internet and cell phone cameras. Thus, it does not really happen that much, as in very rarely. What does happen: a person might ask you to take a picture down, off the Internet. You should comply with any such request.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.