Model Releases...Is it really needeed?

[sagelike31]

Okidoke, I'm going to be heading out soon and start taking portraits of regular people on the street.

This is something that would like to add to my portfolio. Plus I'm kinda getting tired of the general nature/environment/macro/landscape shots.

Now I have been reading Beyond Portraiture: Creative People Photography by Bryan Peterson. And he touts when you ask anyone to take photographs ask them to sign a model release if you are looking to put it in your portfolio.Now, I have read these model releases and I don't like the way they are written.

Here is an example:
For valuable consideration received, I hereby grant to , and his legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of me, or in which I may be included, for editorial trade, advertising and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; and to alter the same without restriction. I hereby release photographer and his legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs.

Now I know as a person walking the street and minding my business to have someone ask me for a photo of myself is weird enough. Then when someone asks me to sign this form where it says "and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; and to alter the same without restriction"; it just doesn't seem realistic for anyone in this day and age of photoshop for some one to want me to take their shot at that point.

What I figured I would do is go up strike up conversation, ask to take a picture, explain I am a aspiring photographer and give them a business card with my info if they would like a print.

But I have been hearing a lot of grumbling about having people sign these model releases.

Any thoughts?

[higabyte]

not much of an insight, but its all i got...

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2067

[Tiberius]

here's a few links I found regarding model releases.

http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer

And a much more in depth article: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

[23pixels]

I think it would be wise to get a model release form. It will not only protect the person being photographed but will also protect you.

[Tiberius]

My advice is this:

if in doubt, get a model release. if it turns out you don't need it, then all is good. And if you do need it, then you're covered.

[23pixels]

If you are interested in getting into stock photography, you will be required to attach a model release form with your work.

[FotoME]

this is a tricky one the more you dig deeper - because its diffcult to say whether the subject feels differently once you have decided to use the image to sell to others or to exhibit, despite the subject having given you verbal consent whilst you were taking a photo pf them.

I love street photography, and from my small collection so far there are a couple of gems which i would like to display at a friend's cafe (i dont mind if they sell either!) the images were taken at a local market and no model release was requested. (I would end up spending a ridiculous amount of time doing this than taking the actual photos! which takes the fun out of walking around the streets hoping to find something interesting to shoot). i too have a delimma - i do not know how to find this person again, and if this is displayed, will they be upset (it is not offensive or out of context from a market scene), and will they have any rights to the image or any monies made from it... i live in England and the principles here do not appear to be much differet from the website suggested by one of the other replients........maybe i too can have some advise? afterall look what happened to Dorothea Lange's famous migrant mother portrait - the family tried to sue for the use of this iconic photo, not to mention the proceeds it generated. Is is a risk we often take when we stumble across street scenes that are of interest to us and may occassionally have a commercial or artistic value? :confused:

[Nicole]

I love street photography, and from my small collection so far there are a couple of gems which i would like to display at a friend's cafe (i dont mind if they sell either!) ...i live in England and the principles here do not appear to be much differet from the website suggested by one of the other replients........maybe i too can have some advise?
Best advice is probably to find yourself a solicitor who can offer you real legal advice. :p I hate to say things like that, but given the kind of things you're worried about, it's probably better to get someone who can give you real advice that applies to your country's laws and your particular situation. Especially if you want to sell the photos.

That being said, a lot probably depends on how easy it is to identify the person in the picture. Meaning is their entire face shown, etc. Aside from that, my response goes back to the first paragraph :p Sorry.

Best of luck to you in your photo display and potential sales. I'm sure they are some really intriguing pictures.

[pamroth]

But I have been hearing a lot of grumbling about having people sign these model releases. Any thoughts?

I sell microstock via my online gallery, and so I spent some time a while back researching this, because there's so much conflicting info on the subject out there. I ended up buying a legal handbook for photographers written by an attorney who specializes in intellectual property rights which contained alot of valuable information on the subject. According to the book, for your own legal protection, you should obtain a model release if you plan to publish, sell, or do anything with a photo of people other than retain it for personal use. However, one thing this attorney pointed out was that the model release should actually be as short and simple as possible, which surprised me. He said many photographers believe they need to use lengthy, complicated model releases (such as the excerpt you posted above), and this kind of model release could actually end up causing you more legal problems than protection, depending on the court's interpretation of it. He said the courts will consider the clarity of the wording, the likelihood that the model indeed understood the entire scope of the release, and any possible intent to deceive, among other things, of course, and this could work against the photographer. He did provide a sample release in the book, and it was bare minimum, only about a paragraph and required only the date and signature from the model. I personally use one slightly longer, but I've tried to keep it simple, to the point, and easy to understand. However, *when* a model release is required is a whole other topic, I suppose. For instance, (according to the book), you can photograph street scenes with people in the photo, provided it is obvious that the subject of the photo was an event or location and that the people are only incidentally included in the photograph. I think it would be best to do as you're doing, that is, get as much info as you can about the subject and then just decide for yourself.

[Tiberius]

I ended up buying a legal handbook for photographers written by an attorney who specializes in intellectual property rights which contained alot of valuable information on the subject.

What's the book?

[pamroth]

Legal Handbook for Photographers, the Rights and Liabilities of Making Images, 2nd Ed. by Bert Krages, Esq., publisher Amherst Media

[sagelike31]

Yeah I might have to pick that up.
Thanks for that.

But again the overall problem with me is that I would be going to into places where I might get more than a dirty look if I first, ask to take their picture and second, ask them to sign a form that says I have legal control over it.

Eh......

[Ed.]

But again the overall problem with me is that I would be going to into places where I might get more than a dirty look if I first, ask to take their picture and second, ask them to sign a form that says I have legal control over it.

Eh......

I am only looking into this myself at the moment but having talked to people i think alot of photographers take the photo first then ask for the release not ask for the photo first as the moment is lost... A photo can always be deleted if it causes too many problems... However - i you don't want to get yourself shot/beat up either. Having said that if asking will get that response surely them discovering there face somewhere without permission will be worse still for you?

[Major_Small]

I generally use a slightly modified version of the istock (www.istockphoto.com/docs/modelrelease.pdf) release.

Of all the releases I've come across, it requires the most information from the model, which is nice because some agencies require certain things on their releases (a witness signature, for example).

Another reason is this part:use the Images in any Media for any purpose (except pornographic or
defamatory)...

I think that puts most people's fears to rest right there.

Personally, if I take a picture of a person, I do what I can to get a release. Even if I'm not really sure I'll end up using it anywhere. Especially if I'm using it in a portfolio.