Posts: docjoque | Ugly Hedgehog

beverett wrote:

mgemstone wrote:

Photographers often confuse the legal definition in this context of the word "commercial". It does not mean advertising. It means an exchange between two or more entities having monitary value. It is usually used, but not limited to, the direct exchange of money for materials and/or services.

Wrong again. You are an treasure trove of misinformation.

LOL. We are on the same page. I keep responding to his misinformed posts, then I get down a few lines and you've already done it.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

mgemstone wrote:

Photographers often confuse the legal definition in this context of the word "commercial". It does not mean advertising. It means an exchange between two or more entities having monitary value. It is usually used, but not limited to, the direct exchange of money for materials and/or services.

WOW! You had to look that up in Websters, didn't you. Well, once again, you're wrong.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

mgemstone wrote:

quote=mdorn quote=bvm Aren't web sites open to t... (show quote)

And these detentions are legally inaccurate and have been struck down in court. Yes, they do happen, but there is no law stating that you can't do it. There is also no law stating that you can't photograph children in a park, for God's sake, unless you are a convicted pedophile and that's a stipulation in your parole. You can also legally photograph police and firemen doing their jobs, or sitting at a donut shop.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

bvm wrote:

No honest what ????? You can take someone to civil court. Do you want to appeal?

I gave you 4 sites to go to:
BOOKMARK THEM,
READ THEM,
UNDERSTAND THEM.
IF THEY ARE PUBLISHED SOMEBODY IS MAKING MONEY.
NEWSPAPERS ARE A DIFFERENT STORY.
TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PRIVACY IS!

Dude, you are totally missing the point. These relate to commercial uses of a photograph.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

bvm wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html

http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languages/english/modelrelease.pdf

I THINK THIS SHOULD CONVINCE YOU

You need to not only read these yourself, but be able to interpret them correctly.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

bvm wrote:

Yes, a lawyer is a great choice. BUT you can learn a lot by looking up this stuff on the net. Then you can talk to a lawyer intelligently.

You can look up whatever the hell you want on the internet. It doesn't mean it's right though. But yes, that's a good place to start.

If you really want to get it right, use the internet to look up case law. Someone could look it up on the internet and get to this website and this thread, and look at all the WRONG information one here.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

bvm wrote:

If it's worth publishing, it's worth a release. Otherwise all the guys who photographed your wife in the nude before you married her could have a ball.

Suppose you photograph a minor ( ( who looks like they're 22) and the parent see's $$$$$ signs.

If you think it's worth publishing, don't be cheap, don't be a thief. If you work for a company, make sure they have the release that covers you.

If your wife is nude in a public place, you most certainly can photograph her, and sell those images to boot.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

mgemstone wrote:

Best advice I can give - the 2I - Incorporate and insurance.

Incorporation does nothing for you if you are a sole entity. Everyone thinks it does, but it doesn't. It's just one extra step to get you.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

mdorn wrote:

coastlawyer wrote:

She could sue you. If so, even if you win, you will have legal expenses.

Won't she also have legal expenses if she sues? And if she wins, what will be the damages if the photographer posts her pics on his website? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm curious what sort of claim she would have.

She wouldn't have any. Case law has already been established on this issue.

Additionally, a photog would have legal recourse if he was stopped from shooting in a public place and his camera and images confiscated, even if it was by security or the police. A release is not necessary to shoot in a public place. You cannot be restricted by the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, etc., although it still happens, unlawfully. The problem with legal redress and bringing the case forward is that damages for photos that were never taken is impossible to establish, so these cases usually go nowhere.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

ole sarg wrote:

Beverett I think you nailed it.

He's been nailing it since the beginning. Nobody wants to listen.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

beverett wrote:

quote=mgemstone quote=docjoque No need for a mod... (show quote)

Exactly.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

mgemstone wrote:

docjoque wrote:

No need for a model release, even if her face were visible and recognizable. Person is in a public place. You can use the photos any way you wish. You can sell the prints, post them, etc. You can't use them to promote a business, product, or item though. Think photos in National Enquirer, etc.

Totally wrong!!!!!! You can not compare a newspaper's rights to an individual. They are not the same.

Nope. You are TOTALLY WRONG. Just get a free consultation from a lawyer versed in such. They can set you straight. Or, you can just do a Google search.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

RealDeliDeal wrote:

quote=docjoque quote=RealDeliDeal quote=donrent... (show quote)

LOL. What a moron. In that case, NO PLACE is public then.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

No need for a model release, even if her face were visible and recognizable. Person is in a public place. You can use the photos any way you wish. You can sell the prints, post them, etc. You can't use them to promote a business, product, or item though. Think photos in National Enquirer, etc.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Model release needed or not?

RealDeliDeal wrote:

donrent wrote:

The local restuarant is a PUBLIC place - open for ANYONE to come in.... Do what you want with the pictures...
You got permission when she accepted your card and said nothing... Musicians like her expect people to take pics...

are you for real? a local resturant is not a PUBLIC place, it is privatly owned and is a private location.

bad advice once again from the "know-it" alls.

Since when is a restaurant not a public place? What country do you live in? I guess if you own a restaurant and just allow your family to eat in it, it's private.