[Andi Lo]

I just shot my first wedding (second shooter) recently for free and while I'm sure the couple will give me permission and sign a release to put their pictures in my website, I don't think it would be possible to get releases from all the guests that I took a photo of. In this case are the pictures of those guests a lost cause for personal advertising purposes? Thanks in advance

[innershell]

Subscribed. Good question and I'm curious about the answer as well.

[MrApollinax]

When I hired a photog for my wedding every single one we interviewed had a statement in their contracts saying that they (the photog/company) would own the copyright for all images taken during the event and reserve the right use any one of those images for marketing purposes. When I asked about the statement each one told me it is pretty much a standard and that if they would use the pictures they would notify us. They did offer an option to buy the copyright which in turn negated the above statement giving us the ability to print and distribute pictures as we so desired. We went to 5 photogs/companies and only 1 (mostly a commercial shooter that did maybe 1-2 weddings a year) did not have this clause.

[davemdsn]

You don't need a release to display your work for purposes of promoting your work. Some people may have working in their contracts that says they have the right to use the images for promotion purposes, but that's more just to let the client know about it, the right already exists.

You need permission from the subject if you are going to profit directly from the image they are in. If you sell the image to an ad company selling cell phones for instance. Using the image in a motivational poster. Things like that. Showing your previous work to other potential clients is well within your rights.

Note: I don't know if this same rule applies outside the US so you may want to hear from some of our Canadian members.

[FullertonImages]

Correct. In fact, you don't even need model releases if you profit from your work editorially. It's only for advertising and commercial work that you need releases. As far as you're concerned, you can do whatever you want. You coud go to a wedding you're not invited to, take pictures until you get kicked out, then put them up on your website for self promotion. It wouldn't be good for usiness, but you could, and they would be pretty hard pressed to find any legal ground to make you take them down.

[Leaf Fan]

From researching IStock membership, IIRC you would need a model release from each and every person in a photo to sell it or profit from it in any way.

[innershell]

Correct. In fact, you don't even need model releases if you profit from your work editorially. It's only for advertising and commercial work that you need releases. As far as you're concerned, you can do whatever you want. You coud go to a wedding you're not invited to, take pictures until you get kicked out, then put them up on your website for self promotion. It wouldn't be good for usiness, but you could, and they would be pretty hard pressed to find any legal ground to make you take them down.

Interesting...
I did go to a wedding uninvited to take photos and I left before getting caught. :P

[innershell]

From researching IStock membership, IIRC you would need a model release from each and every person in a photo to sell it or profit from it in any way.

Selling and marketing are two different words. Using it to market yourself (i.e. no digital rights transferred) is different than selling it for profit (i.e. transferring digital rights to somebody else).

[MJB DIGITAL]

if I was using a photo for self promotion, I could totally get nailed. Advertising photos are the one's that bring the money....

but are you guys talking about just carrying around a book/portfolio or uploading to flickr?

to me, using photos for self promotion means flyers, magazine pages, etc etc

[FullertonImages]

From researching IStock membership, IIRC you would need a model release from each and every person in a photo to sell it or profit from it in any way.

I would sasume iStock does that just as a blanket policy, instead of having to go throug the confusion of you need one for this, but not for this, and for this you need one, but only if you use it in this way... It's easier for them to just say you need one for everything.

[George Lama]

In many situations, you do not need a model release from every person in a photo, particularly if that photo was taken at a place where there is no expectation of privacy. There's a fair use guideline which could require a lawyer, a constitutional law review board, and a donkey to understand, but it's worth reading up on.

As an example, if you're photographing a sports event and you capture the audience or the entire team on the bench, you are not expected to get model releases from all.

Example - Michael Jordan's last shot as a Bull - hundreds of collectors sell these and I can guarantee you that not one of those few hundred people were asked their permission:

[PeteyJ]

Example - Michael Jordan's last shot as a Bull - hundreds of collectors sell these and I can guarantee you that not one of those few hundred people were asked their permission

But if you look on the back of sports tickets, there is usually a fine print statement saying that if your picture is taken, the image is copyrighted by the team, league, photographer, blah blah blah, and can be used in any way imaginable.

[opfor]

I recently came across some guidance here in the UK for people to add to their release agreements that the person signing the agreement is giving the photographer permission to photograph any children that are at their event. That way it is the person signing the agreement's responsibility to notify anyone attending the event that a photographer will be present and taking photos.
People over here are getting way to crazy.
Hopefully they won't lump photographers in the new legislation that requires anyone working with "children" to go through a mandatory background check. Most people will have to pay for it themselves (unless they are a teacher or medical professional where their employer with do it) and have the documentation available to anyone who wants to verify the person has it. No news on how often the check would have to be repeated.

[George Lama]

But if you look on the back of sports tickets, there is usually a fine print statement saying that if your picture is taken, the image is copyrighted by the team, league, photographer, blah blah blah, and can be used in any way imaginable.

True, though the only disclaimer I've seen at the events I've attended are the dire warnings about photography being prohibited or restricted in some way. Perhaps the example wasn't relevant enough and should have stuck to the topic at hand.

In my case, as part of my event/wedding contracts, I have a specific clause that requests the use of wedding photos for advertising/promotion/competition/etc, with a specific clause stating that no images will be sold to 3rd parties without their consent. As the bride and groom are the ones hosting the party, they are the ones giving me permission to use images of their event, with the understanding that their guests fall under this umbrella and that anyone can be photographed.

As to the legalities of whether someone has the right to request their face not be used in a photo, which technically could mean the bride couldn't get her photo either, is something I haven't encountered yet. When I do, I would consult with the folks at the PPA legal department for the best advice.

[Wheatfield]

Since you are in Canada, you need to deal with Canadian law, not US law or UK law. Getting a release may well be moot, since you may not be first owner of copyright.
Under Canadian copyright law, the first owner of copyright is the person who commissioned the work, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary.
A verbal agreement is only worth the paper it is written on, so don't be fooled by a handshake agreement.
The first owner of copyright of the pictures is the person who asked you to take photographs.
That is also the person who would be needing a release.
Note, no money need change hands for ownership to be decided. It's your decision to work for free or for pay, so that isn't part of the equation. All that matters is who asked you to take pictures. That person owns them.

However, under Canadian law, you only need a model release if the picture is published for commercial gain. If you are just putting the shots on a personal website with the only intent being to show off how smart you are with a camera you don't need a release. If you are using the pictures to advertise your work in the hope of garnering more work then that may well fall under commercial gain, at which point you need a release.
However, before any of this becomes important, you need to decide who is the legal owner of the work.