Comments on: Do you need a model release?

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:06:01 +0000

Erick,
You’re right, the CDPA does give the commissioner rights over photographs, although in my experience the model is rarely the commissioner. I was thinking more about candid street shots actually, where US specific law is rather different to the UK.

As I say though, a useful article. It’s good to see accurate legal advice on a photography site..seems to be a rarity these days..

By: Erick Danzer

Erick Danzer — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:52:51 +0000

Ha! Matt, that’s funny. I suppose this is a bit American-centric. I’m trying to think why that might be. Obviously, I’m American , but much of my work has been in Asia, and my stock agency is based in Singapore and Bangkok.

I think a big part of it is that the US market dominates for image sales, and partly as a consequence, most large international stock agencies seem to have model release rules that tilt more to that market than others.

Obviously, model release dynamics in Indonesia, where I’ve done much of my shooting, are totally different. As a legacy of 32 years of authoritarian rule, the restrictions on photographers are much more intense. But those rules are felt more when you are TAKING photos than when you are SELLING them.

However different the Indonesian market is, I usually think of the UK/European/US markets as following very similar rules. On that count, I would add that the UK DOES actually have privacy laws of exactly the kind I describe in the article. The relevant law is in section 85 of the Copyrights, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988. Here the exact text:

…

85 Right to privacy of certain photographs and films

(1) A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have-

(a) copies of the work issued to the public,

(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or

and, except as mentioned in subsection (2), a person who does or authorises the doing of any of those acts infringes that right.

(2) The right is not infringed by an act which by virtue of any of the following provisions would not infringe copyright in the work—

(a) section 31 (incidental inclusion of work in an artistic work, film, broadcast or cable programme);

(b) section 45 (parliamentary and judicial proceedings);

(d) section 50 (acts done under statutory authority);

(e) section 57 (anonymous or pseudonymous works: acts permitted on assumptions as to expiry of copyright or death of author).

I haven’t worked in the UK before, so I don’t have a good sense for how these laws are applied. Perhaps that’s been trumped by subsequent laws or juridical interpretations. But this is my understanding of UK law, and it’s is very similar in tone and quality to the US. I’d be interested in any further thoughts, of course.

By: curtis copeland

curtis copeland — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:27:31 +0000

Our studio actually uses model releases for all photography shoots. It is simply a part of the contract. As of yet we have not had anyone complain, but we would omit it if they had reservations. The contract also states that we will never use their images for derogatory or insulting usage. A good benefit is that in the future we can sell these images to stock agencies if we desire to. Also, it is always good to have fresh images to use in portfolios and competitions. Most of all, model releases are a needed tool in this day and age to protect us from unnecessary litigation.

By: Matt Cope

Matt Cope — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:07:43 +0000

A useful overview, but kind of forgetting that they have the internet in other countries now! These kind of legal provisions are heavily territorial. Unless you define which jurisdiction you are operating in, then your advice is incomplete. In the UK for example there is no right to privacy (as such) in a public place where in the US I understand there is..