Do I need a release?

[lost]

This may be a dumb question, but what the heck, I'm good at those...

I recently did a shoot for pageant contestants at my local college (all girls over 18). The pics are for the school paper (where I am the layout editor), as well as the pageant flyers, ads, etc. that they (pageant promoters) will use.

My question is, all of the girls and the pageant advisor know and agree to the fact that I am going to use them in my personal portfolio, but do I need to get them to sign releases to that effect? So far, my magazine work has not required it, so I have no experience in this area and really don't want to step out of bounds here.

[Lowell Goudge]

in simple terms a release is necessary if you intend to publish photos for profit. The local paper does not require a release because it is news. I am not so sure about the flyer for the show, but there may have been a general release signed by the girls as part of participation in the show.

For your own benefit, it would not hurt, if you intend to use these shots in your portfolio, because you never know when you will want to use one commercially, only to find that you a) you didn't have a release, and b) cant remember the girls name.

[jmbower]

Is your portfoilio now or possibly in the future going to be used in conjunction with a money making enterprise? i.e. are you going to be showing the work to potential clients to attract business?

I don't want to overstep my bounds in terms of my brief knowledge of precedent applied to such cases, but I'd say if at any time those pictures may even be RELATED to a business venture, you should have releases.(i.e. even if you're not selling the pictures themselves) If they're just going to be part of a portfolio you use for a job application, or for your personal enjoyment, it probably isn't necessary, but still a good idea. But if they're going to be part of a sales pitch to a client or on a website other than just a personal gallery, then yes.

Are all the girls of legal age? If not, make sure you have a guardian sign the release. Word of mouth agreements CAN be legally binding (implied oral agreement, oral contract, etc), but why take a chance. It would be highly based on context and their understanding of the nature of the subsequent use, which, again, would be tenuous. Best to cover the bases. It will be good experience handling the legal documents anyway.

[lost]

Thanks for the quick responses. Yes, all of the girls are of legal age, so I will get them to sign a release just to make sure I am covered. At the moment, the pics are just for the girl's personal use, pageant promoters, and my personal collection of work I have done. In the future who knows, the way things are going lately I may want to use them to show prospective clients so I will cover my bases.
That's actually why I haven't posted any for critique here, because I do not have their written consent to do so.

[ryan s]

Do it just in case, can never be too careful these days

[*isteve]

Originally Posted by lost

This may be a dumb question, but what the heck, I'm good at those...

I recently did a shoot for pageant contestants at my local college (all girls over 18). The pics are for the school paper (where I am the layout editor), as well as the pageant flyers, ads, etc. that they (pageant promoters) will use.

My question is, all of the girls and the pageant advisor know and agree to the fact that I am going to use them in my personal portfolio, but do I need to get them to sign releases to that effect? So far, my magazine work has not required it, so I have no experience in this area and really don't want to step out of bounds here.

Strictly speaking you do not need a model release if the photographs are part of your portfolio, displayed in a gallery or sold as artwork in a book or in print. All such use is regarded as editorial and as long as no-one objected to having their photo taken at the time, and you had permission implied or otherwise, the subject has little recourse.

A release will be required if you intend selling the pictures to a stock agency or for use in advertising or promotion where the subject may be used in association with a brand, organisation or belief. For this reason stock sites and agencies will insist on a release.

Using them to advertise your own business is however a bit of a grey area. Portfolios are OK, but if you made a flyer with someones face and your logo, then this is promotional use and would require a release because you imply that they endorse your business.

If you live in the US you may find this article longwinded but useful.

The Model Release

The primer is more concise:
Model Release Primer

The relevant extract is below:

"Speaking of the First Amendment, artistic exhibitions (and publications) are considered editorial and are usually protected. This means that you can exhibit your photos of recognizable people in galleries, public fairs, photo contests, and coffee table books (or books of any sort, so long as it's not one that's distributed with a product, like a camera's manual). In fact, art can be printed without a release, regardless of the medium in which it is printed. You can also sell these pieces because, as you may recall from Model Release Primer, profit has nothing to do with whether a release is required.

The only question at hand is whether the subject of the photo can be perceived to be an advocate or sponsor for an idea (religious, political, or etc.). In fact, the law that talks about whether a release is necessary uses this sort of definition. "Commercial use" is interpreted to be when such an assocation can be made between the subject of the photo and his sponsorship for an idea. People have the right to be compensated for when their likeness is used to support or advocate a product or service, and this is called their "Right of publicity."

Using them to advertise your own business is however a bit of a grey area. Portfolios are OK, but if you made a flyer with someones face and your logo, then this is promotional use and would require a release because you imply that they endorse your business.

Again an extract....

"Photos on a web site fall under the same contexts as other kinds of publishing: editorial, commercial, or artwork. If you put your photos on your own website, this is a case where you are the publisher. However, publicizing photos as being "for sale" does not require a model release so long as you are only selling the photos, not promoting a third party product or service from yourself. Nor can you attribute (or imply) that someone (in a photo) advocates your business, an idea, or anything. You can sell these photos too, although the buyer's use of the photos need to be considered. Again, see Model Release Primer for a detailed discussion.

[lost]

Wow, there's a lot to read there. I will have to take some time to look more closely at it, but just by a quick skim of the material it seems that as far as these images go I would be OK.

Thanks for that info!