Specific Private Property Matter
Oct 9, 2014 13:17:30 #
I am aware that there are a number of entries addressed to private property issues. I have a specific issue. I recently photographed images of interesting faces in Central Park in New York. My intent was to use the images for a portfolio competition in B&W Magazineno other purpose, no intent sell or use for commercial purposes. I am a serious hobbyist, peiod. From what I read,I have no reason to be concerned. Right?
Oct 9, 2014 13:19:45 #
I would say go for it. If B&W Magazine has a concern, they will let you know.
Oct 9, 2014 13:54:07 #
Some competitions require that you have a model's release on file if the images will be on public display. Check the contest rules to see if that is a stipulation for entry.
Oct 9, 2014 14:00:52 #
Nate wrote:
..... I recently photographed images of interesting faces in Central Park in New York. My intent was to use the images for a portfolio competition in B&W Magazineno other purpose, no intent sell or use for commercial purposes...... From what I read,I have no reason to be concerned. Right?
some contests will require you to transfer ownership rights.
Oct 9, 2014 15:41:32 #
Are you concerned about model releases? Central Park is public property which means you have the right to photograph anything and anyone is plain view. People have no reasonable expectation to privacy in a public space. Furthermore, your images fall under art rather than commercial use. Using them for a contest in B&W Magazine is not a problem but if you were to use them in an advertisement for a product in B&W Magazine, it would be.
Oct 9, 2014 21:45:59 #
Oct 10, 2014 06:23:33 #
Nate wrote:
I am aware that there are a number of entries addressed to private property issues. I have a specific issue. I recently photographed images of interesting faces in Central Park in New York. My intent was to use the images for a portfolio competition in B&W Magazineno other purpose, no intent sell or use for commercial purposes. I am a serious hobbyist, peiod. From what I read,I have no reason to be concerned. Right?
First - this is not the place to get legal advice - ask a lawyer.
Second - regardless of whether you are in the right - and in this case you are, since you are not promoting a commercial product or business, and being in public an individual has no expectation of privacy - there is nothing that you can do to prevent you from being sued for unauthorized use of an image. It's always better to get a release.
Oct 10, 2014 16:53:47 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Yeah, I ain't a lawyer and don't even play one on TV... just a photographer...
What you are asking about is a modeling release. It's not about "private property". Property is something owned, use of which in a photo would involve a different type of release... a property release. For example, the city where I live has a Japanese garden that's open to the public, but owned by the city. They require a release, and charge a fee for it, for photographers wanting to do wedding shoots there.
It also really doesn't matter whether the photo is being made in public place or not. We're discussing use of the person's image, when it comes to modeling releases. There is the question of invasion of privacy, when photographing people or places or things that are not in the public view, but that's another thing entirely.
Modeling release is essentially needed if the photo is going to be used for commercial purposes. More and more publications are also asking for one too, since they are, after all, in business to make a profit. This is particularly true of "soft" editorial images... Such as canned or stock photos, as opposed to hard news shots.
Fine art, portfolio usage, educational purposes, and news/editorial uses are all the traditional exceptions that don't require a model release. However, I gotta say that I'd definitely want one if an image were of a nude or in any way shows a person in a bad light, or in a manner that someone might construe as derogatory.
So long as someone's image is not being used commercially, all they really can do is ask you to cease and desist. If you do so, there's no harm done and the matter is settled. If you refuse to do so, they might be able to pursue damages for defamation or whatever, but it will be a fairly uphill battle for them with non-commercial usage of the image.
If using someone's likeness for commercial purposes, their claim is different... they then can attach a monetary value to your unapproved use of their image and ask for a share of those revenues, of whatever is being generated by the commercial usage. A court would have to look at the situation and decide what it's worth.
Copyright ownership is another thing entirely. It has to do with who owns the image and has the right to sell its usage.
For example, a photographer I know took the photo of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald after the JFK assassination in Dallas. Needless to say, no one depicted in that very well known image signed a model release. Yet the newspaper profitably sold usage of that news/editorial image for many years. (He was a staff photographer, so the copyright was not his, but belonged to his employer). When he retired, they gifted Bob the rights to that image, among others, and he continued to sell usage of it for many years afterward. It's still sometimes in use today.
This is an example of both copyright ownership, and a news/editorial photo where modeling and property releases are generally deemed unnecessary (and certainly impractical). Still, for images that are "canned" and not "hard news", where it's more reasonable to expect one, many publishers have been asking for releases in recent years.
I don't know what magazine you are submitting your work to, but they should be able to tell you what's needed, what they require for the planned use of the images.
What you are asking about is a modeling release. It's not about "private property". Property is something owned, use of which in a photo would involve a different type of release... a property release. For example, the city where I live has a Japanese garden that's open to the public, but owned by the city. They require a release, and charge a fee for it, for photographers wanting to do wedding shoots there.
It also really doesn't matter whether the photo is being made in public place or not. We're discussing use of the person's image, when it comes to modeling releases. There is the question of invasion of privacy, when photographing people or places or things that are not in the public view, but that's another thing entirely.
Modeling release is essentially needed if the photo is going to be used for commercial purposes. More and more publications are also asking for one too, since they are, after all, in business to make a profit. This is particularly true of "soft" editorial images... Such as canned or stock photos, as opposed to hard news shots.
Fine art, portfolio usage, educational purposes, and news/editorial uses are all the traditional exceptions that don't require a model release. However, I gotta say that I'd definitely want one if an image were of a nude or in any way shows a person in a bad light, or in a manner that someone might construe as derogatory.
So long as someone's image is not being used commercially, all they really can do is ask you to cease and desist. If you do so, there's no harm done and the matter is settled. If you refuse to do so, they might be able to pursue damages for defamation or whatever, but it will be a fairly uphill battle for them with non-commercial usage of the image.
If using someone's likeness for commercial purposes, their claim is different... they then can attach a monetary value to your unapproved use of their image and ask for a share of those revenues, of whatever is being generated by the commercial usage. A court would have to look at the situation and decide what it's worth.
Copyright ownership is another thing entirely. It has to do with who owns the image and has the right to sell its usage.
For example, a photographer I know took the photo of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald after the JFK assassination in Dallas. Needless to say, no one depicted in that very well known image signed a model release. Yet the newspaper profitably sold usage of that news/editorial image for many years. (He was a staff photographer, so the copyright was not his, but belonged to his employer). When he retired, they gifted Bob the rights to that image, among others, and he continued to sell usage of it for many years afterward. It's still sometimes in use today.
This is an example of both copyright ownership, and a news/editorial photo where modeling and property releases are generally deemed unnecessary (and certainly impractical). Still, for images that are "canned" and not "hard news", where it's more reasonable to expect one, many publishers have been asking for releases in recent years.
I don't know what magazine you are submitting your work to, but they should be able to tell you what's needed, what they require for the planned use of the images.
Oct 10, 2014 17:59:45 #
Nate wrote:
I am aware that there are a number of entries addressed to private property issues. I have a specific issue. I recently photographed images of interesting faces in Central Park in New York. My intent was to use the images for a portfolio competition in B&W Magazineno other purpose, no intent sell or use for commercial purposes. I am a serious hobbyist, peiod. From what I read,I have no reason to be concerned. Right?
I would only be concerned about a drug dealer or a gangsta wanting to retaliate... :hunf:
Oct 10, 2014 20:22:48 #
Nate wrote:
I am aware that there are a number of entries addressed to private property issues. I have a specific issue. I recently photographed images of interesting faces in Central Park in New York. My intent was to use the images for a portfolio competition in B&W Magazineno other purpose, no intent sell or use for commercial purposes. I am a serious hobbyist, peiod. From what I read,I have no reason to be concerned. Right?
I think you're wrong, I would get a model release, as the images are intended for publication/advertising.
Oct 10, 2014 22:44:22 #
Each of the above carry with it some truth and I am appreciative for that. The images, however, were taken with a 400mm lens, unobtrusively and at a distance. That said, although the probability is remote, if iI am among the winners and someone stumbles upon that mag, stumbles upon the page showing their image, and chooses to causes problems then, I will deal with it. Although improbable, even more improbable occurrences have happened to me, both good and bad. So be it.
Oct 10, 2014 22:53:30 #
Ann Arbor is a long way from Central Park.
I'd say go for the competition, and include my wishes for good luck Nate! :thumbup:
I'd say go for the competition, and include my wishes for good luck Nate! :thumbup:
Oct 15, 2014 07:47:43 #
SonnyE wrote:
I would only be concerned about a drug dealer or a gangsta wanting to retaliate... :hunf:
SonnyE wrote:
Ann Arbor is a long way from Central Park.
I'd say go for the competition, and include my wishes for good luck Nate! :thumbup:
I'd say go for the competition, and include my wishes for good luck Nate! :thumbup:
I hear that Ann Arbor drug dealers and gangstas are much more laid back and don't care about pictures. In fact they might just appear at the showing, if the hors d'oeuvres and wine are of sufficient quality. :wink:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.