Tue, October 26th, 2004 by btezra
I know others have asked/discussed obtaining permission and signed model releases for images they take in public and private...and I was reminded of the need to carry model releases with you as images are being taken when I was on Popular Photography & Imaging's web site today.
Here is a link for a few simple model releases for you to either print out and carry or turn into your own version of a release.
*(printer friendly version is here)
Opportunities to get published arise all the time, at any given moment. The main reason I wanted to post this link was because I was approached about an image I had taken by a publishing company, a street portrait from 1991, but one shot I neglected to obtain a signed release for...which sucked, because it was a missed opportunity to be published...
A shot you take tomorrow could be desired by a stock image company or may be used in an exhibit/publication...but there is no need to be sued and/or risk legal action without the proper, and legal, permission being acquired beforehand. Just a head's up because I don't want anyone to lose out on an opportunity to be published...noticed, recognized for the work they do and their passion for photography.
October 26th, 2004 at 2:00 pm
I was under the impression that editorials do not need model releases. i.e I covered the Tour D'Elegance for a UK car magazine and in one of the photo, a couple was shown but we never approached them to even get their names.
That is why many tabloits and paparazzi's are able to sell images of celebrities because they sell it to a magazine which is considered editorial, and celebrities don't sign model releases for them.
If you intend to use a photo for advertisement or stock photography, then model releases are a necessary.
October 26th, 2004 at 2:05 pm
Oh, I wanted to also point out. One of my instructors photographs famous comedians. He intends to publish these photographs in a book. I asked him about model releases, he said he doesn't need one because it's a collection of his personal photographs.
However, the photograph he will choose for the cover will need a model release because it will be used to advertise the book when it is published for review and to promote the book.
October 26th, 2004 at 2:57 pm
yes Mona I'm under the same impression.
October 27th, 2004 at 2:18 am
I wish someone, somewhere, would clear this issue up once and for all. Seems to come up here once a month or so.
My understanding is that you only need a model release if you use the image for advertising purposes. Period.
I hung street photos in a gallery and sold them as well. I didn't get anyone's permission. From what I understand (and this is regarding street photography, legal street photography, not peeping in someone's window photography) you have the right to sell the images, do anything you want with them, just not use them to advertise a service or product.
October 27th, 2004 at 7:13 am
THANK YOU!!! I was looking for something like this the other day.
In my photography class we have to look at a lot of this stuff, its debatable from so many reasons. Better to just get the signature ahead of time.
October 27th, 2004 at 10:18 am
"Better to just get the signature ahead of time."
Not likely I'm ever going to do that.
In America we have a Consitutional right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that pretty much only covers the areas of changing rooms, bathrooms, hospitals and inside private homes. Anywhere else in public, you are fair game.
October 27th, 2004 at 12:30 pm
As I understand the deal, it is not a completely black and white issue.
When an image that was taken in the public domain runs for editorial purposes, it is clearly fair game and there is no release neccessary.
When an image is used for advertising purposes, a release is always neccessary.
Galleries can be a grey area. Books can be a grey area. Other publications can be grey areas. The issue only arises when the person in the photo is upset by their depiction in any particular use. That person's means of of discourse is to sue. Sometimes they win, sometimes they loose.
For that reason, certain people who might want to buy your photos for various reasons require a model release. It covers their butts from potential litigation.
Stock photography agencies will always want images that accompany signed releases.
If you are shooting street photography for your blog or personal use only, don't sweat it. If you have intentions of selling your images, you will find a larger market for them if you have releases.
February 18th, 2005 at 1:04 am
Model and property release guidelines from shutterpoint, hope this helps: http://www.shutterpoint.com/Help-Selling.cfm#releases
April 22nd, 2005 at 8:35 pm
we use the shutterstock model release without a problem.... i think you can find it at http://submit.shutterstock.com ?