Are Model Releases Always Necessary?

JamesD · 11-11-2007, 09:06 PM

I've noticed some walk-about shots... downtown shots... restaurant shots... all of which had people clearly recognizable. I wondered what the rules are regarding taking public shots of folks that you do not know. When does a person need a model release and when is it all right to eliminate it? I understand that if shots are used for commercial purposes, model releases are required. But if I wanted to simply go downtown and shoot away for my own pleasure (as I've seen many images here in this forum), do I still need this release?

One of the reasons I ask bears upon the following.

Last Pascha (Easter) my wife made some images on her prosumer camera in church. She put a short video on YouTube (since many churches had done similarly) and made a short slide presentation complete with music on YouTube. Our priest told her to remove it immediately for liability reasons. We complied of course and have been very hesitant at including any people in our random shots since that time. So what are the rules?

Thanks for your input.

little laker · 11-11-2007, 10:55 PM

James,
I don't know if this will help you but,

When I'm photographing a public event for the newspaper I don't require any model release.

However if I'm photographing a private event for the same newspaper i do require them.

Since your church is located on Private Property I suppose that it could be considered as a private event. Although some people might argue.
Personally I feel that she might try talking the priest into showing it at some church event.
I'm sure that other members would love to see it, and might want a disk for themselves.

I won't comment on street shots. I do it the odd time, but will never try selling the shots.
It's more of a challenge than anything.

MPrince · 11-12-2007, 03:52 AM

You do not need a model release to take a photograph. You do need a release in order to publish a photograph if the photo is to be used for commercial purposes. The circumstances under which you need a release are subject to legal interpretation.

Go here: Photos/Pictures of The Model Release for more information.

TaoMaas · 11-12-2007, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by MPrince

You do not need a model release to take a photograph. You do need a release in order to publish a photograph if the photo is to be used for commercial purposes. The circumstances under which you need a release are subject to legal interpretation.

Go here: Photos/Pictures of The Model Release for more information.

True. Mostly it depends on how the photo will be used and whether or not it was taken on public property. There's editorial useage and commercial useage. If you're taking pictures of something public and it will be used in an editorial fashion, (to illustrate a news article, for example) releases aren't needed. But if that same picture were to be sold for advertising purposes, then you'd need a release. Also, just standing on public property isn't enough to absolve you from needing a release, even if the picture is to be used for editorial purposes. You can't stand on the public sidewalk and photograph someone through their window, for example. But, if you're out in public, taking pictures for your own pleasure, with no intentions of selling those photos...then there's very little restriction upon what you can and can't shoot.

JamesD · 11-12-2007, 08:05 AM

Thanks, Gentlemen, but I have to tell you... I'm entirely confused. Let's return first to the YouTube event. The slideshow simply cosisted of two dozen (or so) images put to music. Many of the folks were seen with their backs to us although a few faces were recognizable. If you go to YouTube, you see literally thousands of church events and celebrations. I'm still confused why our priest would think there were "liability" issues and demand the slideshow be removed.

Secondly, I've seen some great street images from Mike Cash and from James in Melbourne. I'm guessing neither one asked those people they photographed, to sign a release form so that they could show their images here on the worldwide web. So... are they liable "if" those same folks discovered their images had been published here on the Pentax forum? If not, then am I at liberty to go out and shoot images of people in public places without having them sign release forms provided I have no intentions of making commercial use of those images?

jfdavis58 · 11-12-2007, 08:26 AM

A model release is not permission and vice-versa. While it may seem silly to sign a release and not grant permission one may get permission and still not have a release. You need permission to photograph private property-or on private property. You need a release to sell images. The release indemnifies the purchaser from financial claims--you did pay the model right???---it's (model release) a contract: you get AND GIVE tangible value.

Your priest is worried about "reasonable expectation of privacy". Prayer is a conversation with God; most folks consider that very private. He may be obsessive if the church event is a carnival or fiesta or other 'open to the public' fun event; masses and ceremonies are 'open to the public', but only in a limited sense and the priest generally knows that situation the best and is certainly responsible for enforcing any written or unwritten (traditional) boundaries.

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.

Originally Posted by JamesD

Thanks, Gentlemen, but I have to tell you... I'm entirely confused. Let's return first to the YouTube event. The slideshow simply cosisted of two dozen (or so) images put to music. Many of the folks were seen with their backs to us although a few faces were recognizable. If you go to YouTube, you see literally thousands of church events and celebrations. I'm still confused why our priest would think there were "liability" issues and demand the slideshow be removed.

Secondly, I've seen some great street images from Mike Cash and from James in Melbourne. I'm guessing neither one asked those people they photographed, to sign a release form so that they could show their images here on the worldwide web. So... are they liable "if" those same folks discovered their images had been published here on the Pentax forum? If not, then am I at liberty to go out and shoot images of people in public places without having them sign release forms provided I have no intentions of making commercial use of those images?

bymy141 · 11-12-2007, 08:46 AM

I guess you have the "luck" to live in the USA.

We have hearing all kinds of crazy stories here in Europe on the US liability problems, and of outrageous sums paid to people who cannot think for themselves but blame some supplier, or of people making a wrong suggestion and end up bankrupt because of a sexual harassment claim, etc. etc. etc.

When travelling we've noticed that in some countries taking pictures of strangers is not polite. It seems mostly culture dependent.
However, if it is just a scene of the streets than in general it is ok, otherwise you pay them 50 cents / a dollar or so.
I guess these street rates in the US are somewhat higher

Are you not wondering where the US society is moving since you guys have to worry about these things?

- Bert

jfdavis58 · 11-12-2007, 08:58 AM

I do consider myself lucky to live in the USA; very fine place!

And NO, I am not worried about our culture or society. I am concerned about how some people abuse our freedoms and damage others with their own greed. I want to know who is using my image and how--and that seems very reasonable to me.

Originally Posted by bymy141

I guess you have the "luck" to live in the USA.

We have hearing all kinds of crazy stories here in Europe on the US liability problems, and of outrageous sums paid to people who cannot think for themselves but blame some supplier, or of people making a wrong suggestion and end up bankrupt because of a sexual harassment claim, etc. etc. etc. Mostly hogwash-you should NOT put much credence in hearsay.

When travelling we've noticed that in some countries taking pictures of strangers is not polite. It seems mostly culture dependent.
However, if it is just a scene of the streets than in general it is ok, otherwise you pay them 50 cents / a dollar or so.
I guess these street rates in the US are somewhat higher Interesting you use the US terms for money-your rates are spot on--even in the USA.

Are you not wondering where the US society is moving since you guys have to worry about these things?

- Bert

TaoMaas · 11-12-2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by JamesD

Secondly, I've seen some great street images from Mike Cash and from James in Melbourne. I'm guessing neither one asked those people they photographed, to sign a release form so that they could show their images here on the worldwide web. So... are they liable "if" those same folks discovered their images had been published here on the Pentax forum? If not, then am I at liberty to go out and shoot images of people in public places without having them sign release forms provided I have no intentions of making commercial use of those images?

No, there's no liability for Mike or James when they post street scenes online because there's been no commercial useage. Even though the pics may be online, that's still considered personal useage. The link that Matt provided earlier pretty much covers everything, if you have the time to read it. Here's a section that applies to posting pics on the web:

Everyday people who simply take pictures as a hobby.
If you have no intent to ever sell or license your photos, you have nothing to worry about. (If you are still worried, go back and read the entire chapter.) Yes, you can even post these photos on a website. Where you can get into trouble is if you say something incorrect about the person or otherwise misrepresent him, and if this somehow damages him or his reputation, you're probably going to get a legal spanking.

bymy141 · 11-12-2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by jfdavis58

I do consider myself lucky to live in the USA; very fine place!

And NO, I am not worried about our culture or society.

John, I'm happy for you that you are.

- Bert

PDL · 11-13-2007, 01:51 AM

Take a look here:
The Law for Photographers / Travel Photography Law / Legal Issues of Taking Photos
Pay particular attention the section labeled "Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals"
Also go here and look through the various state level information
Photographers' Guide to Privacy
This section is of particular interest
9 Keys to Avoiding Invasion of Privacy Suits

There are many resources out there to research, but if you have a doubt - get a release. For instance - when you send an image to National Geographic for their "Your shot" submission - they clearly state that a person is recognizable, then you must also have a model release (they have a link to one you can use too). On PPG - they suggest that model releases should be available whenever possible. Even this site has the rule that you should be the owner of any image displayed and that any appropriate releases should be on hand if the case arises. This should be taken very seriously if underage individuals are included.

Also, in the case of the OP's U-Tube movie - particular attention should be noted about the copyright of the music included. With all the hoopla going on with pirated music - T-Tube is most likely pretty sensitive copyrighted music distribution.

As for photography, if you are in a public space and you are shooting people in that public space, you do not need model releases. However, as a general rule - when in doubt get permission in writing. If you shoot someone in a public place and they come after you, then get a good lawyer - and ask for triple damages, because they will lose.

Edit: As a photographer you do have some rights - download this document and enjoy.
Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
A photographer was awarded 8K USD for taking pictures of Police activities. The activates were on public property and he was not charged.
Search Results | Seattle Times Newspaper
The last sentence is of particular interest (at least with reference to police activities) "Caplan said the public has a right to observe and document police activity that occurs in a public location." (Caplan is Aaron Caplan of the ACLU)

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Lowell Goudge · 11-13-2007, 07:38 AM

I think some of us spend too much time on the 'net and not enough reading magazines. There have been several good summaries as to when a release is needed and when it is not in the past year in Popular Photography, Shutterbug, etc...

In addition, there is a very interesting comment here about getting permission BEFORE you shoot. That is simple courtesy. In obtaining that permission, you should explain what you will do with the images and you should stick to it. Note that there need not be a written release, because any agreement, written or verbal, forms a contract!

Additionally,

- At many church events, the priest/minister will explain exactly how and when photo's are to be taken. Weddings, Baptisms, etc are such events.
- Even in europe, where churches are, themselves tourist attractions, some prohibit photos totally, others, like Norte Damme will not allow photos of services, but otherwise allow photos of the surrounding areas even when a service is ongoing.

JamesD · 11-13-2007, 08:44 AM

The music in the video was the canned music that comes with Microsoft's Digital Imaging software. If you go to YouTube, you'll find literally thousands of such videos. We complied, quite naturally, with our priest's wishes and removed the apparently sensitive video immediately. He wanted the slideshow left on YouTube, but we decided to remove it as well. We're not evil people, John. We certainly would not want to offend you or your family by making images of you and them and then putting them online. I'm just trying to understand my rights as a photographer. Since it appears evident that I need releases before shooting people, I've no intentions of taking anymore portraits (with the exception of family and then only with their permission). And yes... if I decide to post them, I'll ask their permission. As for street photography, I've decided against it. No point in risking a confrontation nor a lawsuit. It's just not worth the hassle.

I'll stick with macros, landscapes and nature. I doubt some newt will sue my carcass.

Thanks for the information. It's still about as clear as mud but I'm glad I asked. I'll study the links a bit more.

Lowell Goudge · 11-13-2007, 10:15 AM

James

Don't stop shooting just because someone is concerned about a release. It is all about knowing when you need one, and if you have a shot that was done without a release, what are your limits in using that shot.

JamesD · 11-13-2007, 11:30 AM

Hi Lowell

The truth is, I haven't taken any street shots so to speak. My photography has been strictly nature and landscapes. It was only while browsing this forum that I noticed some images made by one of our fellow photographers down under that I thought: I wonder what the rules are concerning this sort of photography. The only exception to this rule was the above mentioned fiasco when my wife made her video and slide show on YouTube. She did it out of her love for the Church and the fact that so many hundreds of others had done the same thing. It came as a surprise to us both that there was a liability issue so we quite naturally complied with Father's request. That incident and the mixed signals I've received here, have pretty much cooled my ardor for delving into this type of photography. Hey... Lowell.. I live in the Excited States of America for crying out loud. We're a litigious people, going after anyone and everyone for the slightest provocation. I've no wish to engage in this if I can avoid it.