Are Model Releases Always Necessary?

[PDL]

I do take "street" photos and I will continue to do so. If I see a particularly interesting scene I catch the eye of the subject, point to my camera, point to them and shrug me shoulders. If they smile I shoot, if they wave me off - I do not shoot and move on. Just treat people the same way you want to be treated.

To the OP - if you are going to be shooting activities with a building - ask the owner/proprietor/priest/rabbi/druid whatever - if there are restrictions. Also remember even though there are images and music provided by the OS/media player company that does not mean that the use of that media is not copyrighted and should be treated as such.

One of the first activities assigned during a photo workshop in Santa Fe NM was to go into the central plaza and take images of two people you did not know - instructors and other class participants were not allowed. No long shots, full frame (most of the students were using slide film) and no editing. We had to get permission --- before --- the image was taken. It forced us to talk, make contact with the people and get permission. I took images of four people, three of them were together and I spoke with them for 10 minutes - lead to a very pleasant conversation. The fourth image was of a woman who had worked in one of the hotels for 50 years. I spent 20 minutes talking too her and learned a lot about her. When the workshop was over I sent the hotel an 8x10 of the picture, the manager gave it too her and put my letter of thanks into her personnel file as a good thing for both her and the hotel. Good things come out of being honest up front. I am not a paparazzi and I refuse to operate like one.

As for Mr. Davis. If I were to publish an image of you or someone in your family that was taken in a public place - I would welcome your attempt at a suit. I would demand my day in court and I would be sure to tell every photographer I know, every TV station and newspaper I could get to come down and take pictures of you and your family as they arrived at court. Then when you lost - I would counter suit for triple damages and win.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[alinla]

Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge

I think some of us spend too much time on the 'net and not enough reading magazines.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

There has been important decisions in lawsuits regarding photography this year alone. The web is much better suited and equipped to distribute information almost as soon as it happens to people all over the world than printed media.

Why would I want to wait a month to know the results of three recent court cases when I can find out instantly here?

One of the best sources of information I have found is Carolyn Wright, the "PhotoAttorney". She has a great blog here

[ycl]

I think PDL's basically right on this: A photographer's LEGAL rights in a public place are pretty expansive. As long as the image is not to be used for commercial purposes, or misused / mislabeled to defame, a photographer can take a picture of just about anything and everything s/he sees while out in public. And your face when out in public is fair game for being captured by any and all cameras, whether used by me, the New York City Police Department, or Macy's. That's the law in the US, at least (and, yes, many of us have mixed feelings about our country's future).

That a photographer has expansive legal rights does not, of course, mean that a photographer should use those rights "unethically" or in a manner undesired by the potential subject. One may have the legal right to take anyone else's picture on the street, but one should not exericse that right if the subject objects. That's a rule that, I think, many (maybe most) photographers observe.

I take pictures all over the city. Some of those include people. And sometimes I ask before I take their picture, sometimes I don't. It all depends. My only rule is the above -- no picture if the person objects.

[stewart_photo]

Originally Posted by MPrince

(snip) You do need a release in order to publish a photograph if the photo is to be used for commercial purposes. (snip)

When publishing a photograph, it is irrelevant whether that is for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Other than a few well defined exceptions (news, etc), it is always a good idea to get written permission, in the form of a model release, from the subject in the image before publishing that image in any manner. That is just as true for internet publishing as it is for book publishing, magazine publishing, or whatever. Of course, there is no law specifically mandating either permission or a model release. These are simply protections for yourself in the event of a possible lawsuit.

stewart


-

[JamesD]

Hi Stewart

I'd be willing to wager that several photographers here who have recently published their street shots in this forum did not get signed releases from their subjects. Granted, this "rule" is undoubtedly different from country to country. While on the beach in Hawaii, in a museum in Moscow... I've had people inadvertently end up in my photos. Obviously I did not intend to photograph them but I did publish the pictures later in a little website primarily for my family to see. I'm not sure whether or not I would be liable for any invasion of privacy on a public beach or a museum... it just never really occurred to me.

It seems to me just not worth the hassle and aggravation to go through this street photography business. That's why after reading all these responses, many of which are contradictory, I've decided to simply skip it for other avenues for my hobby.

All the best.

[PDL]

Sorry I have to disagree on fundamental level. If you take an image that does not impinge on the subject, there is no legitimate reason not publishing it? If you undertake due diligence to present the subject of the image in a truthful manner, then there is no hassle involved.

If the subjects of the image attempt to throw out subjective and parochial objections, then let them rant away. If you make the attempt to get their permission and get a positive reaction, then feel free to express your view. If someone objects, then just move on, however in my limited experience, the majority of people do not object and are willing to allow you to express "the moment".

Please to not let the few and far between limit your expression. As a basic guide - just ask - most people will go with the flow, those who are not willing to go along are best left behind. Work with the subject, those who do not want to participate are best bypassed.

Life is too short to be interrupted by those who take themselves too seriously.

I have not been a target of such a photographer, but when I encounter such an individual - I will puff my chest out - and assume the position and pose with intent to make your image unique. I might even ask for a copy (not full resolution, quick and dirty etc.) I am not afraid of having my image spread all over the world (internet). Come to my part of the USA - we are not afraid. The conversation that would follow would be enlightening, we might even be able to share a cup of coffee or a bowl of soup, the city of Seattle and its environs have many targets of opportunity (to quote TOP Gun), let me show you my local place on planet earth.

This is not to say the other places on earth do not have their places too, and if we manage to cross paths - let's be civil - before one of us decides to run to court because they appear to be offended.

If you are in a quandary about appropriate images - just ask - you will find that most people (apart from the litigious and paranoid) will come to an acceptable agreement. If the response is no - then take a step back - ask yourself what you would do if it was you on the other end of the camera - and move on. Street photography is all about respect, if there is something that is boarder line - ask or move on.

I have moved on in many instances and due to my innate inability to broach the question and I may have lost a few shots. This is something I will continue to work on - getting the "intestinal fortitude" to ask the question is the hardest thing to overcome. Do not despair about those who threaten you - they are not to be taken seriously - self-aggrandizement is a disease that can be over come by ignoring the self involved.

Please do not let the voice of one or two misguided individuals take the spontaneity from your pursuit of photography. Just be ready to ask, either on a one to one encounter or just use gestures - it is not hard - and the rewards out weight the "no's". Cover the basics, ask the proprietor of the venue about any restrictions and let the connections flow. Ignore the noise - that is what is - move to the quiet and connect.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[JamesD]

Good morning, elitist.

It seems to me that if you have to send out bodily cues (i.e. motioning to a potential subject that you would like to photograph them and seeking their approval), you've lost the one thing you had been hoping to capture: spontaneity. Think of some of the great photojournalism images we've all seen from Weegee and Cartier Bresson. Had they asked permission (even non-verbally) of their subjects, the images that would have resulted would have been greatly reduced. In fact, many of those images would not have been made at all. I think of that one image of Weegee's where the beggar lady is outside the theater as two high society women enter in their furs and tiaras. The expression on their faces was priceless... one of the great moments in photography. This would have been impossible had he sought their permission.



Besides that... I'm simply too shy a guy to go about it in that manner. To do this sort of photography, I would need a long lens and remain inconspicuous. And even then, I would worry about possible altercations, rejections, anger and the remote possibility that someone like John would end up suing me. I don't want my so-called day in court so even the possibility that it "could" become that is enough to dissuade me from engaging in this type of photography.

Recently Roe put some street shots in one of the threads here. The one shot that grabbed my attention is of an older gentleman alone at a table while a crowd of younger folk are having a good time in the background. It was a classic PJ shot and one that could possibly be objected to by the family of the older gentleman. I doubt that would happen, but here in America? It could.

So, I'll leave the PJ to you and I'll go seek some mushrooms to "work with". LOL

All the best to you.

[PDL]

Sorry, I beg to differ - Weegee was not only a PJ he was a paparazzi. In the image displayed - the patrons expected him to be there, the "beggar" did not. The image was shot in public where the expectation of privacy is zero. These "patrons" wanted to have their pictures in the newspaper, but were most likely unhappy that Weegee was the guy who got them.

As for the use of long lens, well if that is the only way you can catch spontaneity then so be it. Remember Weegee was using a speedgraphic (3x5 cut film, no roll film, and no 35mm) with flashbulbs; it is kind of hard to be inconspicuous with that setup.

The legal rules for PJ’s are not the same as "normal" people. If you are worried about altercations - then "they" win - and you will miss out on meeting and interacting with some very interesting people. A camera is a great ice-breaker, it is a little sad that the voice of a single individual located 1/3 of the country away from you can force you into narrowing your vision.

Now as for my version of street photography - You can see some truly poor examples at my site (just click on my name and click on the website). I really do not shoot many scenes where people are in the mix, I have not shot many people up close, but when I have I have always tried to get their permission - it is just being courteous.

The Elitist – formerly known as PDL

[JamesD]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. The shot by Weegee is but an example of my point. You readily admit that the bag lady was not expecting his picture. Had he sought "her" permission, the shot would not have been what is was. To seek permission, while courteous, also takes away spontaneity and tends to result in simply posed shots. I'm not interested in that other than with my own family. Anyhoo... neither of us is really going to change his habits (or mind it would appear) in this regard. I'm sticking with mushrooms and yes... they've won.

All the best to you, fellow Pentaxian.

[JamesD]

btw... great photography at your site. I didn't see many examples of what we were discussing but I did see many wonderful images.

I see that you are a Windows admin. My wife's son works for MS. He was one of the developers of the registry for Windows.. then moved on to the X-box... then the Zune... now back with the X-box 360. He's actually quite highly placed and recently given the title of distinguished engineer. Only 33 have ever received this award at MS. The two of you, I imagine, would have many wonderful coding discussions! LOL

Anyway... all the best to you. Didn't mean to take such a stubborn stand. I'm generally not this animated.

[stewart_photo]

Originally Posted by JamesD

(snip) It seems to me just not worth the hassle and aggravation to go through this street photography business. That's why after reading all these responses, many of which are contradictory, I've decided to simply skip it for other avenues for my hobby.

You missed the point in my message. Again, a model release is simply a protection for yourself in the event of a possible lawsuit. If there is little chance of a lawsuit, there is little need for a model release.

Therefore, when deciding when a model release is needed, it is simply a matter of asking yourself when or where a lawsuit might be possible. The most obvious is when money is exchanged for the photograph, such as advertising photography. The subject in the image may eventually want a share of that money and is likely to sue to get it. A model release protects you and the commerical client in that lawsuit, which is why a model release is typically required for commercial/advertising work. Another example might be a photograph of a subject in a potentially embarrassing or compromising situation. In this case, a model release prevents the subject from later saying the image was taken without knowledge or claiming damages from the photograph.

In many other situations (travel pictures, a person at a public beach, a person walking down the street, a person sitting in a resturant, and so on), there is almost no threat of a lawsuit, so again almost no need for a model release. The same is true for persons incidental to the photograph, such as a person on a public street in the background of an image featuring another subject (except for advertising, where a model release is usually required from absolutely any person in the image).

Common sense and decency plays a role here as well. If the person clearly does not want his/her image taken, be decent enough to walk away. If you would not want to be photographed in some situation, be polite enough not to photograph of another person in that same situation.

None of this is all that difficult, therefore it shouldn't really prevent anyone from participating in street photography.

Publishing a photograph is an entirely different matter. In this case, you're the publisher, not just the photographer. As such, you had best be aware of the laws and legal precedents governing the publishing industry before publishing that image, or simply have a model release - which is why most publications outside of the news industry almost always demand a model release from any key (not incidental) subject before accepting an image for publication. There are exceptions to this, such as limited self-promotion or peer review, but most are too complicated to really discuss here.

stewart

[JamesD]

Hello, Stewart

Actually, I didn't miss the point of your message. I understood it from the git-go. It's just that I don't want to have to consider the "possibility of a lawsuit" ... period. When you say, "Therefore, when deciding when a model release is needed, it is simply a matter of asking yourself when or where a lawsuit might be possible," I say to myself, "Why do I want to ask myself this question?" I recognize that some may see my reluctance to do this as severely limiting myself as a photographer and that may, in fact, be the case. But it doesn't really concern me that much. I was never really "into" street photography anyway so it won't be a noticeable loss to me. This entire exercise was to help me better understand the issue of model releases. From what I've learned, making money from another's image is the crux of the matter. Also, using an image to defame someone is not only ethically wrong but could also result in a lawsuit.

Anyway... all the best and thanks for taking the time to educate me.

[JahJahwarrior]

Originally Posted by jfdavis58

FYI: Personally, I'd slam your carcass with a massive lawsuit if you put my image or my family images on ANY internet venue regardless of where you captured the image.

Um...have we established that I do have the right to take jfdavis58's picture in public places, without a model release, and publish them on the internet? Or am I mistaken?

[Frogroast]

Per this discussion, the next time I snap a photo of lunch-time pedestrian traffic in Manhattan or during the morning commute at Grand Central Station, I'll have to be mindful of the 25-50 possibly identifiable faces show up in the image...

[zook]

I do not have much to say on this matter, I take pictures of people in the streets, I like candid shots of regular people doing regular things even amazing things.

There was a photographer named Henri Cartier-Bresson, he would often wrap his Leica up in a handkerchief so that his subjects would not even notice he was taking a photo. Many of his photos were of random people in the street.
I am not sure if anyone slammed his carcass with a massive lawsuit, and a lot of his shots are brilliant.