The General Rule: If a photo of a person, or of copyrighted or trademarked property, is used to advertise something, then the publisher of the photo needs a release.

The Privacy Exception: If you are hired to take photos of someone (say a wedding or studio shot), those photos cannot be published, even editorially, without a release.

If you really understand those sentences, then you know almost all you need to know about the legal requirements of model releases. Most of this article elaborates on these sentences above to make sure each part of it is clear.

The General Rule for Photography Model Releases

The first thing to note is that, for the most part, only photos of people need releases. Contrary to popular belief, neither animals nor buildings nor other property require model releases, except in the specific case where the property is the subject of a copyright or trademark. That will come as a bit of a surprise to most people, who are used to hearing about property releases. It’s also a surprise to many property owners, who think their buildings or other property is protected. But it’s not, unless it’s trademarked or copyrighted.

Second, model releases are only needed if an image is used for advertising purposes. That is why pictures used for editorial purposes—textbooks, magazine articles, newspapers—don’t generally require model releases. Hence the old rule of thumb: commercial work requires a release while editorial work does not. The same rule applies to copyrighted or trademarked property: photos of copyrighted or trademarked property only need a release if used for advertising purposes.

Third, it is the publisher who is legally obliged to have a model release, not the photographer. For the most part, unless you lie and tell a publisher you have model release when you don’t, you are not legally responsible. Publishers of photos are responsible for knowing if a given use requires a release, and they are the ones who are legally responsible if they publish a photo without one. Of course, even if you are not legally responsible, it’s no good if one of your buyers gets in legal trouble due to one of your images. So you should have a basic understanding of the law, and you should communicate the exact release status of any images you license.

Note also that if you decide to self publish, then you become a publisher and are thus liable like any publisher.

Model Releases and Privacy

No legal discussion would be complete without an exception. If you are invited or hired to take pictures of someone, say for a wedding or studio shot, the resulting images are protected by privacy laws. You can’t sell those photos EVEN FOR EDITORIAL USES without a model release. Much like attorney-client privilege, the established relationship between you and the client creates a responsibility to safeguard privacy.

This can create a strange situation, because this responsibility applies even in public places where other people might take pictures of your clients at the same time. Since they don’t have an established relationship with your clients, they CAN sell their images editorially without a release while you can’t.

Model Release Summary

So let’s summarize. First, you (the photographer) don’t need model releases. Only the publishers of your photos need releases. And they need releases in three specific situations:  First, they are using a photo of a person to advertise something. Second, they are using a photo of copyrighted or tradedmarked property to advertise something. Third, they are publishing a photo of your clients, who hired you to take their photos.

Outside these situations, except for arcane situations you are unlikely to face, the buyers of your photos don’t need model release. And if they don’t, you don’t. Mostly.

An Alternative Answer: If Your Buyers Require a Model Release, You Need One

Whatever the legal requirements are, the simplest answer to the model release question is this: If your buyer requires a release, you need one. This is important because buyers often want releases even if they’re not necessary. Since they’re the ones who are liable, they take extra measure to protect themselves and remove even the possibility of a lawsuit.

So, Should You Obtain a Model Release?

Let’s say you’re traveling someplace and you taking photos of the people you see during your journey. Should you stop to get a release? If you have commercial clients, or you think you’ll want to sell the photo for commercial purposes, then it may be worthwhile to stop and get a release. If you do mostly editorial work, and the likelihood of commercial sale is low, then you should probably skip it. If you do stop to get a release, it will severely interrupt if not halt your shooting altogether, preventing you from getting all the other great shots you might have captured. And you’re not likely to need it anyway.

Recognize that there are armies of photographers who never get model releases. Most notably, photojournalists and press photographers who do editorial work rarely obtain releases.

The important point is that whether you obtain a model release is ultimately a business decision not a legal one. It affects which client you can sell to. Obtaining a model release can be valuable because it opens up the arena of commercial clients as potential buyers of your photos.

More Information

That is the shortest and most direct answer I can give for model releases. If you would like a longer and more detailed answer, I would strongly recommend reading Dan Heller’s guide to model releases. He’s written a good book on the subject, and almost the entire contents of the book are available on his website. It’s very thorough, and probably the only reference you’ll need on model release. If you want to more information on the book, click here: A Digital Photographer’s Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things.

Sample Release Forms

If you’ve decided you do want to get a signed model release form, you can find a list of sample forms at the National Press Photographer’s Association here.

Tweet

What it seems to have happened is that Virgin Mobile, or an advertising agency they hired, decided to save lotsa moola and attempt some good PR (backfiring, obviously) by using Flickr photos with Creative Commons licenses (specifically, the ones that allowed commercial use) in a recent ad campaign. Which, fine, is legal, though, perhaps, cheap-assed. What’s getting people especially crazy over this (and this doesn’t include me, thankfully) is that they’re using these photos without the models’ permissions

It seems some random person has spotted Gillians Flickr photo of a smashed car used on an advertisement. No problem there, it was CC licensed in a way that meant only attribution was necessary. Notification to these Flickr users would have been the polite thing, but ok it’s not a requirement.

The crazy thing though is there are people in these advertisements. Without model releases. Being insulted.

There is more coverage here and over at Flickr.

Tags: flickr, virgin, copyright, cc, license, pr, disaster

Tweet

That’s what Thomas Hawk did, and they said no. Even though there is already a bunch of pictures floating around and he might bring in some much needed attention for the museum.

This place I had never heard of until he wrote about it, The Neon Museum, thinks keeping images of it protected helps with their mission of “cultural enrichment for diverse members of our international community” (it seems they only want to serve the international community of ‘driving distance from the museum’).

I just got back a rather disappointing email from the Neon Musuem in Las Vegas. I had written to the museum to inquire about taking photographs of some of their neon signs this past weekend while in Las Vegas. I’m not going to link to the museum. You can find them on Google if you want. For those of you who don’t know what the Neon Museum is, it’s a boneyard of sorts of many of the old Las Vegas neon signs. It’s a place that these signs go to die and the non-profit Neon Museum states their mission as “to collect, preserve, study and exhibit neon signs and associated artifacts to inspire educational and cultural enrichment for diverse members of our international community.” Unfortunately their policy with regards to photography does not seem to fit with their stated mission.

What they should have said was “If people can see your pictures for free who is going to visit and put money in our donations box”. Then they would have a point. It would be tempting for Thomas to just go and sneak some pictures like everyone else but then he would lose his moral high ground, I really doubt he will stoop to that.

It’s not an easy thing, on the one hand without publicity no-one will visit so they close, on the other if people can see the stuff without visiting they close any way. Really they should be smart and work out a limited way that he can take some pics and they get good coverage without giving away the whole thing. Until they do that, they are just making their mission a joke.

Technorati Tags: photography, ethics, issues, news, rights

Tweet

Try to resist the cheap thrill of being paid (very little) for a photo. The true expense of that action is that you ultimately deprive someone who has devoted their life to shooting professionally much of a chance of financial survival. If you are good enough to work for pay, you are good enough to work harder and raise the standards of the profession, not devalue them.

On the one hand I can totally get your point David, I really do. And you know, I do feel a little guilt for giving my photograph away (thanks for ruining a great moment in my photography career! heh).

Having pondered on it for a little while though here are my thoughts

• If I say “no” someone else will say “yes”.
• The only person I would be depriving is me and sorry but depriving me hurts a lot more than depriving you from where I am standing.
• How the heck am I supposed to build a portfolio if I have to charge what you consider fair rates to people who consider those rates anything but.
• The people who want cheap or free will not pay more than that.
• What makes the photography industry any different?

My last point needs some clarification. Consider web sites. A company comes to me and says “I want a web site to sell my widgets”. I say “That will be $£xx,xxx.99″. They say “Whoah, my neighbour’s nephew’s friend’s sister can do it for $£x”. I say “Go get them to do it then and come back to me when they make a hash of it”.

If an industry gets commoditised it is because that industry is doing a poor job of selling itself. What is the difference between me building a website and the 12 year old kid with a copy of Dreamweaver? Oh, probably more than a million pounds in profit on the clients bottom line, and I can prove it, but I am not going to do it at the kids rates. You have to decide what the difference is between your photograph and some kids $1 stock photo. If there is no difference who’s fault is that? Not the kid and not the customer, that’s for sure.

Technorati Tags: strobist, stock, photography, news

Tweet

the Charlotte Observer has sacked a staff photographer for altering the colour of an image to, as he states, “to restore the actual color of the sky”. He said the color was lost when he underexposed the photo to offset the glare of the sun.

OK this is plainly ridiculous, the “truth” of the story was restored by this superficial change, who cares what colour the sky was though really? So either way, an over reaction right? How about this one …

The Miami Herald’s Spanish-language sister paper acknowledged Friday that it manipulated two photos to make it appear that two Cuban police officers were ignoring prostitutes gesturing to a tourist.

In this one the image was intentionally created to show a false impression of Police neglect of the prostitute problem. As far as I can tell this photographer was not sacked.

Technorati Tags: photography, news, law, ethics, media

Tweet

something that I have encountered many times in my own career – is that many photojournalists forget about how the event is “staged” for the camera before hand. Many photojournalists, myself included, tend to get caught up with “getting the picture” and do not generally indulge in evaluating the moral complexities or consequences of a particular event unfolding before them and for them.

How many photographers, who are obviously relying on the sale of their photographs to put food on the table, are going to turn this down on moral grounds? As Dennis says, the event happened, and was obviously done to get a certain result. The photographer is “reporting” but is also an active participant in a manipulation of the media consuming public.

It’s an interesting issue, well worth reading Dennis’ thoughts about it.

Technorati Tags: photography, journalism, media, ethics, news

Tweet

When I took this picture of Antonio Hart at The Blue Note I posted a question in a technical thread on Flickr: could I print and sell this image of Hart without his consent.

Last night I was at The Blue Note in New York and shot a number of pictures of a famous jazz band, mostly of individual players like this one of Antonio Hart: Antonio Hart Soloing at The Blue Note My question for all of you pros and semi-pros is: what can I do and not do with a picture like this? I know I can post it here. I know I can print it for personal use, but can I sell it? Can I publish it in a magazine?

A good conversation ensues, covering aspects I would not have thought of like what the venue would have to say about it. I also did not realise a press pass is not a silver bullet solution in many cases, just giving you a few extra feet of proximity a lot of the time. It seems, as with pictures of the public, a lot of the decision would come down to “reasonable expectations of privacy”; the dude was on stage at a promoted event open to the public so really shouldn’t expect to be invisible, right?

Regardless, Richard did the right thing and asked the subject of the photograph his own opinion on the matter.

Technorati Tags: photographer, photography, law, news

Tweet

German Newspaper Puts Photography Boycott On Robbie Williams

On this place we wanted to print a picture of the Robbie Williams´concert. But we had to refuse to do so. The singer´s management wanted to constrain the photopraphers´ work by an adhesion contract which is unacceptable to us. The local chapter of the German Association of Journalist in Saxony called the restrictions a “flagrant example of an immoral contract” and appealed for a photo boycott. The Dresdner Neue Nachrichten follows to this appeal and will only publish a review in the edition of July 12, 2006.”

The contract which is given to photographers rules that all photographs are property of Robbie Williams and almost all copyright and authors rights are conceded to him, so there is practically not much use left.

OK, I was kidding (a bit) with that first line, it is probably over-protective management, record company and/or legal team at work here. It does raise an interesting issue though, who should own the rights to your own face? The raw material is yours but the “art” or intellectual property is the photographers …

photographer, legal, rights, news, photography

Tweet