Model Releases

Bill Clark

Bill Clark

Veteran
Local time
5:11 AM
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
3,020
Model releases is a murky area. Some say "yes" while others say "no."

My advice, get a model release just in case. You're running naked without one. It can cost a fair chunk of change should some one decide to take action.

Here is some info on model releases:

http://www.nyip.com/ezine/techtips/model-release.html


http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=551084


Do as you want to do.

I'm only suggesting to help.

It may save you a bunch og money, frustration and heartache.

Hope this helps you!
 
Model releases are absolutely NOT needed in the USA for fine art photography or editorial photography (photos in newspaper and magazines to illustrate articles). They're needed for photos used in advertising, or photos that are used for commercial products like greeting cards (interestingly, a photographer can sell a photo for large sums of cash in a gallery and its is still considered non-commercial and thus a model release is not needed!).
 
Bill Clark said:
Model releases is a murky area. Some say "yes" while others say "no."
..................
It may save you a bunch og money, frustration and heartache.
Click to expand...

I had my fill of frustration and heartache many years ago over lost photo opportunities when I asked people to sign model releases and they refused. Never again will I ask for a release.

But everyone should do what they are most comfortable with and they think will work best for them.
 
Maybe this idea could be expanded to photographs of law enforcement officers (as mentioned in another thread). No pictures unless they first sign a release ;)
 
The issue flames up every so often and I thought I would mention it. Makes no difference to me what you say or do.

There are some interesting videos on Kelby training web site but you need to be a member to view them.
 
Bill Clark said:
The issue flames up every so often and I thought I would mention it. Makes no difference to me what you say or do.

There are some interesting videos on Kelby training web site but you need to be a member to view them.
Click to expand...

Then why are you trying to spread gloom and despondency, and frighten people? The main reason it 'flames up every so often' is because of alarmist posts like yours.

Any competent lawyer (and many incompetent ones) can devise moot questions about when the need for model releases is disputable, but in the real world, Chris nailed it.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger,

Not trying to spread gloom & despondency or frighten people. Are you? You're making the the fear with your comments. I find this offensive and, quite frankly, surprised by your comments.

What's the problem, why not carry a few model release forms and get them signed?

Not a big deal to me but maybe it is to you.

I've taken groups of peoples portraits and have had some that won't sign a release and don't want their picture on some web site or anywhere else for that matter.

Shouldn't we respect the people we photograph and find out if they want it published?

The PPA and other professional organizations highly recommend getting model releases.

On TCPPA outings we get model releases when there are people present we photograph.

I've got a pretty good photography business and don't need the problems that could be associated with no model releases.

Since I'm a PPA member here is something from them:

"Even if you live in a state that will accept a verbal model release, PPA strongly recommends that you always get a signed one to keep on file. If you select an image for use in advertising (including your website), we recommend a specific release. There’s a good chance you’ll never need to show the release to anyone, but if you are ever accused of wrongdoing on this issue, you’ll have much more success defending yourself if you have written proof of permission."

End of story for me.
 
Bill Clark said:
Roger,

Not trying to spread gloom & despondency or frighten people. Are you? You're making the the fear with your comments. I find this offensive and, quite frankly, surprised by your comments. Does Shutterbug know your thoughts?

What's the problem, why not carry a few model release forms and get them signed?

Not a big deal to me but maybe it is to you.

I've taken groups of peoples portraits and have had some that won't sign a release and don't want their picture on some web site or anywhere else for that matter.

Shouldn't we respect the people we photograph and find out if they want it published?

The PPA and other professional organizations highly recommend getting model releases.

On TCPPA outings we get model releases when there are people present we photograph.

I've got a pretty good photography business and don't need the problems that could be associated with no model releases.

End of story for me.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Bill, but no, I don't think I'm spreading fear, because I'm saying what Chris is: that for editorial and fine art you DON'T need model releases, so the advice to get one just in case is spreading needless alarm. It is NOT actually a very murky area.

The 'big deal'? First, if I don't need 'em, why bother? Second, why waste shooting time getting model releases (cf Bob's comment)? Third, how many languages am I going to carry them in? English? Spanish? French? Bulgarian? Greek? Hungarian? Czech? Tibetan? Cantonese? Italian? Romanian? Turkish? German? Estonian? Latvian? Slovenian? Slovakian? Hindi? Kanada? Lithuanian? Dutch? I've shot in countries where any of those might have been needed, and more.

Fourth, 'What's the problem, why not carry a few model release forms and get them signed?' Well, there might be 100 recognizable people in twenty or thirty pictures: it would take infinitely longer to get signed releases than to take the pictures. It would be even more fun if there were kids in the shot and I had to talk to their parents or guardians.

Fifth, what incentive has any sane person to sign a model release for a street picture? So that their pic can be used for ANYTHING? Damned if I'd sign. 'Respecting' someone means not using their picture in a derogatory way -- and you can use it pretty much any way you like if you have the right model release. NOT having a model release can actually give the subject MORE protection.

Yes, Shutterbug knows very well how I feel. They also know that I have a law degree. If you find all this offensive, I apologize, but (as you may by now have guessed) this a subject I feel strongly about, the perpetual drip-drip-drip of fear, that terrible things might happen to you. It's about on a par with the way I feel about the majority of terrorist legislation: it's more about keeping people frightened than it is about reducing terrorism.

Running a photo business like yours is nothing like doing what Chris does, or Bob does, or I do, or indeed, the vast majority of photographers (especially amateurs) do, and the recommendations of the PPA and TCPPA are completely irrelevant to most people. For model shoots or indeed studio shoots generally, yes, I do get model releases. I even had mine printed on auto-carbon, so that the subject and I get identical copies.

But advocating them as a good idea for fine art and editorial photography is likely to have one or more of three effects, none of them good. The first is that photographers will be frightened off taking pictures; the second is that they'll get rotten pictures, because their subjects have adopted wooden poses 'for the camera'; and the third is that they'll waste so much time getting unnecessary model releases that they won't have time to take pictures. Taken together, these three effects would pretty much have prohibited a very large number of the best pictures ever taken. Do you really want the 21st century to have no iconic pictures, just endless (and non-model-released) Facebook shots?

Why am I so heated? Because (as you say) this subject keeps coming up, and people start believing they're going to be sued, when they aren't. If that isn't spreading fear, what is?

Cheers,

R.
 
Thanks Roland!

Each person can make decisions. That's fine with me. I was trying to show what most professional photographers do. I can't speak for everyone however, the ones I associate with, do as I do.

I'm pretty much retired although folks keep asking me to do things. Just finished doing business portraits of 35 Mary Kay ladies. Someone has to do it! And I have business portraits at a Corporate H.Q. scheduled in January.

Some folks like what I do. Just trying to help those here who want to be successful with a photography business. It's what I do and you can pass on the advice if you choose.
 
I write custom releases specific to projects, in plain language. I personally would never sign a generic release so I won't ask anyone else to sign one. In certain situations I may get just a name and number or email address and then backtrack for permission if that photo is used for anything significant. Other factors: the context of the photo, implied or verbal permission, the amount of space that the person occupies in a photo, country of origin. It's a soft approach, but I count on good judgement first, and the First Amendment to cover most editorial/fine art usage.
 
ferider said:
Easy to say when you live outside the US, Roger.

Thanks for the links, Bill.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Hi Roland,

recently at the NJ Photo Expo I attended a Leica sponsored seminar held by Craig Semetko about his latest project and also one audience member asked the question about model release forms and Craig answered along the lines of Chris' comment :
"No, I never get model release forms, for editorial work this is not required in the US."
 
Bill Clark said:
Thanks Roland!

Each person can make decisions. That's fine with me. I was trying to show what most professional photographers do. I can't speak for everyone however, the ones I associate with, do as I do.

I'm pretty much retired although folks keep asking me to do things. Just finished doing business portraits of 35 Mary Kay ladies. Someone has to do it! And I have business portraits at a Corporate H.Q. scheduled in January.

Some folks like what I do. Just trying to help those here who want to be successful with a photography business. It's what I do and you can pass on the advice if you choose.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

Same here.Cheers,

R.
 
I'm puzzled why one would need a separate model-release for a portrait session? For a portrait there would already be a contract signed over what results would be supplied and the cost. If one may want to use the images in advertising for your business, or as stock, then place that in the session contract surely?? Or perhaps, on the links, there are generic paragraphs that can be copy-pasted in to place.

In any event, the laws on image-use differ from country to country, and even locality to locality, so a generic text could lead to large legal bills - as will producing bullet-proof, custom-written forms of course.
 
PKR said:
My understanding of US law is that Showing work in a gallery setting is Publishing as the Law is concerned.
Click to expand...

That's not true, as the case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia demonstrates. Photographer Philip Lorca Di Corcia was making photographs, using a very long lens, or people's faces on the streets, unbeknownst to them. He made large prints of them and sold them at Pace-McGill, a major New York gallery, in 2001, and were published in a book. The prints sold for $20,000 each!

One of the subjects of the project, a ultra-orthodox Jewish man who objected to being photographed on religious grounds, learned of it and sued. He lost because he had no privacy rights on the streets, and because artistic expression is protected by the first amendment and does not require model releases for publication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom