model releases needed for website?

reagan

reagan

hey, they're only Zorkis
Local time
3:01 AM
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
2,110
Location
Америка
View My Gallery
Our church is putting together a new website. In it's present form there are maybe a dozen photos on the site of folks 'n kids at church functions. Today the webmaster emailed me and suggested I get permission to use the photos from those in the photos. geez ... Honestly, I've got more to do than to take the time running 'round town with a fistful of release forms so I can use some snapshot on our website.

So the question, in your opinion --- "Is written permission needed to use photos of people who attended our church's public services/functions considering these photos will not be used by us to gain any monetary profit whatsoever?" A little help if you got the time ... thanx!
 
reagan said:
Our church is putting together a new website. In it's present form there are maybe a dozen photos on the site of folks 'n kids at church functions. Today the webmaster emailed me and suggested I get permission to use the photos from those in the photos. geez ... Honestly, I've got more to do than to take the time running 'round town with a fistful of release forms so I can use some snapshot on our website.

So the question, in your opinion --- "Is written permission needed to use photos of people who attended our church's public services/functions considering these photos will not be used by us to gain any monetary profit whatsoever?" A little help if you got the time ... thanx!
Click to expand...

Depends on where you are. USA? Probably not. IANAL and this is not legal advice.
 
In general "editorial use" doesn't require releases. Possibly using them on a section of the website dedicated to a fund raising project, like an upcoming church carnival, might be considered advertising, but how many of your church's congregants are likely to be suing their own church? If it's a real concern then your church has a bigger problem than just getting sued.

I'd suggest treating the website the same way as a church newsletter and post newsworthy photographs. Let people know that prints are available for a nominal fee and use the print sales as a fund raiser for the church.
 
Yep, we're in the US.

Some of the subjects in the photos are members and some aren't. Using members' photos are no problem. Thanks to their pastor's influence 😉 quite a few of our folks have an interest in photography, so we take and exchange photos quite often. And I'll choose to use photos of members only before I go for the releases to use non-members images. I'm just wondering if I even need to be concerned. Do I need to tell my photographing parishoners, "Sorry, we can't use that photo because that boy in the back isn't a member here. Unless of course, you stop by little Billy's mother's workplace and get this model release signed."

I can't imagine anyone suing either. That's why I was rather blown away by the webmaster's suggetion. We have photos on bulletin boards all over the church in the foyer, the hallways, classes, etc. All can be viewed by anyone entering the church at any meeting; that is to say, "they're publically displayed."

Not likely we'll be using the site for any fund raisers. (In fact, I can't remember the last time we even had one; we don't do much of that.)

"...why not get the releases?" For insurance purposes, we ask for permit slips to be signed by legal guardians before we load kids on a bus and haul them out of town and off to camp, another questionaire about any medical needs the child might have while at camp, etc. I'd hate to add another form "giving us permission to take your child's photo while at camp." I can see this blooming into the need to announce before picnics, "The sandwiches are over here, drinks and chips there, plates, knives, forks and model release forms at the end of the table." 😱
 
You might be able to write a basic usage clause/signature line into the insurance waiver... "conset to the taking of photographs for the churches non-commercial purposes" If they're really that worried about it.

For my buck (and I'm no lawyer) if the camp is owned/operated by the church, or even if the kids are at a church sponsored event, then I would say they are fair game for non-commercial use.
 
oops ... My apologies to the modz. This is the wrong forum. I thought I had put this thread in the Photography Gen. Interest forum. I shall make it so.
 
newspaperguy said:
RFF advice is always interesting, but when it comes to legal matters,
talk to a lawyer. Surely there must be at least one in the congregation.
Click to expand...

The rest of this advise is:

Make sure it is a lawyer with applicable experience/background/education and one who is getting paid. Asking free advice from a lawyer, whether friend of church community person, often is no better than asking RFF advise... or photo.net advise... etc.
 
If it were me, and my church, I wouldn't worry about it. I would post the images that best told the story that needed telling. If there were any complaints, then I would tell the offended party "we are sorry, we'll delete that image right quick."

--michael
 
'Church' is awkward. On an general website, people are not normally taken to endorse the views of the photographer. On a church website, it's a bit different. I hazily recall a member of a strict church whose pic was used in Playboy or Penthouse or some such. He was on waterskis and the caption implied he sympathized with the aims of the magazine. He sued and won. What you have here is the mirror image. If someone's views are not compatible with those of the church, he has a very good precedent.

I've never practised law; I have no licence to practise law anywhere; but I do have an LL.B. (from more than a third of a century ago!) and I'd be nervous of using pics without permission in this context if I were you. Get proper advice (or easier still, and cheaper, get permissions).

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Shooting groups, probably not, unless they are nude (hey, I don't know what kind of church it is). Shooting individuals who are recognizable and who are obviously the focal point of attention, I'd get one just on general principals. CYA.
 
gb hill said:
Reagan is the pastor.
Click to expand...
Well actually, some of my members refer to me as "that guy that's keeping us from having a real pastor." Some good thought provoking input here (as I expected) and much appreciated. I hadn't considered the "..views are not compatible with those of the church" angle.

And I guess that nude group shot of the deacons meeting is out. 😱
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom