Model Releases

[Nicole]

This is a question that comes up a lot in these forums, so I've put together a bit of a primer on the subject with links to relevant sites and previous discussions.

Let's start with the basics.

What is a model release?

A model release is basically a contract that says that you're allowed to to publish a photograph. It is something that you have the subject sign to show that they are ok with it. Read up on Dan Heller's primer (http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html) on the subject for more information.

So, what does this model release look like?

Model releases don't have to be complicated, but they can be, especially when people start requesting particular things (like a clause that says you can't photoshop the image). There have been several threads discussion the actual model release document.

Model releases... are they really needed? (http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2087) (has a complicated example in the first post)
Model releases (http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1738) (talks about a non-photoshop clause and gives an example of a model release)
Examples of actual model releases:
Sisk Photography (http://siskphotography.com/releases.aspx) (Adult & Child Releases)
Apogee Photo (http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag4-6/adultlon.htm) (Adult Release)
Sime's Model Release (http://www.gtvone.com/dps/modelrelease.pdf) (Adult & Child on same form)Do I really need a model release?

That question is not nearly as clear as the first one. The answer is that it depends. The more complete article (http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html) by Dan Heller explains that there are 4 questions (http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#4) you should ask yourself. But there are several other things you should probably look at as well, including whether or not the image is being published, or if it's being published commercially.

Model Releases: A primer (http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag4-6/mag4-6model_releases.shtml)
Photographing strangers (http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37)
Do you own images of yourself? (http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3074)
Copyright and model release advice (http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2971) (what happens when someone else publishes a photo that you don't have a release for?)
Anonymous People (http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1929)
Photographing People When Traveling (http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/photographing-people-when-traveling/)This is one of those questions that has no easy answer unfortunately, so it requires a lot of thinking about your particular situation.

Are there any other situations where I need releases to take a picture?

Short answer: Yes.
Long Answer: Yes, and it depends on what or where.

Property releases (http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#8.2) are another form of release that you might need. You should be aware of what the local rules are though about trespassing and privacy and your rights as a photographer (http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=803).

So, if you're not totally confused by now, congrats. If you are, well, that's ok too, because lots of people have the same sort of questions. So, keep asking, and feel free to add any other knowledge about model releases you have to this thread. :)

[tekla]

... NOW i really understand why they call you "my hero" :)

[Darren Rowse]

great stuff Nicole - I might pop this up on the blog as I'm sure the wider community will appreciate it too!

[Nicole]

You're more than welcome to :) I know it's a popular topic.

[Hagar]

Noticed in the article that in relation to Commercial gain " Also excepted are photographs of public figures which are deemed to be newsworthy or informative, even if profit is derived from them." Does this mean that photos in magazines and appearing on the internet are ok to be used.

I have posted a couple of mine on Flickr - Johnny Depp, George Clooney - would these be ok to sell or Iam infringing ?

[bjamestown]

A lot of great information!

Thanks : )
Beth

[Megs Sixx]

my photography teacher gave me one of these.

I need to take one with me for Slash to sign (photographing him in coupla months hopefully)

[charliere]

Helpful information, somebody saids "You have to know the rules if you want to broken it"

[Olddawg]

Hi Nicole Thanks for the informtion and examples Olddawg

[Dr. WooD]

I'm having problems with pictures of people. A company is interested in some of my surf shots. I have no way to get a release from some of the surfers. A few are local, and have bought surf shots from me, but I cant even get them to return emails. I hate to let an opportunity slip by, but I know if these people saw their picture in a mag or ad somewhere I could be in hot water.

[tuxcomputers]

Australia is different than what this thread makes me believe about the US.

Model releases are only required if the person is recognisable AND it is used to endorse a product or service.

I could take your photo enlarge it and then sell it, commercial gain = yes, endorsing a product = no, therefore no model release is required.

If I was to use that same photo on a flyer to advertise my gallery showing where I was selling it then that would be endorsing the showing and I would need a model release.

If I took your photo and then altered it so that you could not tell if it was you or Aunt Betsy then I don't need a model release because you are not recognisable.

As for the surf shots, it depends what the company wants to do with the shots:
1. use it for an ad on surf wax = endorsing product = model release required,
2. in an article inside the mag about surfers and their habits etc = editorial = model release not required.
3. use it on the front cover of the mag = endorsing the mag and enticing people to buy it = model release required

I am so glad I live in Oz not the US, I get to publish any street photos I take with no model releases.

[Sime™]

firstly - tux, are you sure? [I read your comment to an Aussie lawyer friend of mine, she almost spat her coffee trying to say "thats not right" ]


Pasky and I were shooting some guys playing footy in a public field yesterday, The photos are being used for a property developers brochure, we asked if we could shoot, we asked them to sign releases afterwards... there were about eight guys, four of them signed, four of them disappeared. What to do?... Well, when you don't have a release signed and you "on sell" the photo to a publisher / agency / magazine etc for use in something like i've mentioned above, they can take a view and decide if they'd like to include the guys in the photos they use, or not. The legal position is passed on to the publisher with the sale of the photo - if the person in the photo decides to take action, they can so against the publisher - though, the publisher then will usually come after you as the photographer to recover costs... Make sure you have indemnity in your contract when you onsell photos?... Nic, would that work?...

[tuxcomputers]

firstly - tux, are you sure? [I read your comment to an Aussie lawyer friend of mine, she almost spat her coffee trying to say "thats not right" ]

Get her to ring the Arts Law Centre of Australia (http://www.artslaw.com.au/) and tell them that they got this brochure (http://www.artslaw.com.au/_documents/files/StreetPhotographersRights.pdf) wrong.

Once she has corrected them and they produce a new brochure let me know.... (BTW I won't be holding my breath)

[Sime™]

"
by Arts Law Centre of Australia
PDF Download
15 pages
**CURRENTLY AVAILABLE**
As there are no privacy laws in Australia, there are no specific laws preventing a photographer from taking photographs of people and private property from a vantage point on public property. However, other Australian laws do incidentally restrict the use that can be made of photographs of people and their property.
For this reason, it is recommended that all photographers use a written release when photographing individuals or private property in order to prevent any infringement of the peoples' rights. Such a release needs to be unambiguous and to clearly authorise use of the photographs in the way in which the photographer contemplates."



from here - >http://www.artslaw.com.au/SampleContracts/GeneralAgreements/PhotoModelRelease.asp

Incidentally - it does specifically say in that brochure that you list above "photo for a commercial purpose - get a model release" .... I'd have copied it, but, the text was upside down....

[tuxcomputers]

However, other Australian laws do incidentally restrict the use that can be made of photographs of people and their property.
For this reason, it is recommended that all photographers use a written release when photographing individuals or private property in order to prevent any infringement of the peoples' rights.

I am aware of the very few uses that you can't put the photos to without a model release and the recommendation is only so that those restrictions are not an issue.

I could publish a 500 page book of street photography and the ONLY model release I would need is for the people on the cover because that would be used to advertise the book etc.

You can copy and paste that text it appears right way up, I have bolded what you may have misunderstood:
Complications arise if your photographs are used for a “commercial purpose” and you don’t have consent from the persons in the photograph. “Commercial purpose” involves using the photograph to sell something other than the photograph itself.

It is exactly as I said, I can photograph, enlarge, bind, frame and sell a photo of you or anyone else. That is the definition of 'publish' isn't it? At least it was when I went to school....

If there is no commercial gain/purpose, like publishing the photo on my web site, then it falls outside the restriction as well.

[Sime™]

I am aware of the very few uses that you can't put the photos to without a model release and the recommendation is only so that those restrictions are not an issue. hey.. if you'd rather be in legal trouble - go right ahead, I'm not a lawyer, but I was advised by one... Are you?.. or?..

I could publish a 500 page book of street photography and the ONLY model release I would need is for the people on the cover because that would be used to advertise the book etc....If you're selling a book, with photos of people in it, at some point you're going to run into trouble... but, hey... go right ahead! :)

You can copy and paste that text it appears right way up, I have bolded what you may have misunderstood:..well done?


It is exactly as I said, I can photograph, enlarge, bind, frame and sell a photo of you or anyone else. That is the definition of 'publish' isn't it? At least it was when I went to school.......oh, I should google it, maybe?.. no need to be sarcastic mate - we're here to help each other, I was merely letting you know what an australian lawyer told me... hell, why should I listen to her?!.. [She's only an IP specialist..pffft]

If there is no commercial gain/purpose, like publishing the photo on my web site, then it falls outside the restriction as well....Yep, no worries.

No hard feelings mate, this is a forum, people are here to learn and offer suggestions. I apologise if you are a lawyer and specialise in Australian intellectual property... my bad, but otherwise - it's all good eh.

Sime.

[tuxcomputers]

...If you're selling a book, with photos of people in it, at some point you're going to run into trouble... but, hey... go right ahead! :)
I don't understand your logic. The Arts Law Council specialises in Art and the Law, they say I can take photos of people in public places, they say I can sell those photos. Now I believe whether they are single individually framed or all bound in a book is irrelevant.

You say nay, I will get into trouble... why? You have me baffled as to what you think I am running foul of. Read the entire brouchure again and explain what restriction you think I am breaking.


..well done?
I put that there because I thought the same thing as you did.


...oh, I should google it, maybe?.. no need to be sarcastic mate - we're here to help each other, I was merely letting you know what an australian lawyer told me... hell, why should I listen to her?!.. [She's only an IP specialist..pffft]

Sorry about the sarcasm, I just don't like being told I can't do something when I have it from multiple reliable reputable sources that say I can. Get her to look up and quote specific laws or cases that say otherwise and I will change my mind.


No hard feelings mate, this is a forum, people are here to learn and offer suggestions.
I respect that you are urging caution and that people should cover their arse 'just in case'. No hard feelings at all, it's dicussions like this that either help me clarify my postion or make me change my mind.

In my case the suggestion to get model releases from the subjects of my photography restricts my creativity and expression. To even try would be a nightmare. I can take up to 50-100 photos in an hour, imagine having to stop each and everyone of them, explain what it's all about and get them to sign? Sometimes there is not only the main subject in the photo but dozens of other people in the background as well!!!!

I would need an assistant just to carry all the paper required and another to keep track of it all.

While I was getting a single model release 20-50 other potential subjects would have have walked past.... pfft I don't need the model release and trying to get one unreasonably limits what I do.

My suggestion is know your rights and don't let people restrict your creativity and expression when you know dam well they have no right to.

I apologise if you are a lawyer and specialise in Australian intellectual property... my bad, but otherwise - it's all good eh.

i am not a lwayer and I don't need to be a lawyer to know what I can and can't do with my photography or my driving, not being a lawyer does not automaticlly make me ignorant of the law.

[blissfullife]

I have wrote up a model release form but I really need some comments. I live in Texas and I would like to know if this will be suitable.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df6j2j52_171dn2285hq

[Sime™]

It looks ok, The one I use can be found here -

http://www.gtvone.com/dps/modelrelease.pdf - if you'd like to have a look :)

Sime.

[blissfullife]

It looks ok, The one I use can be found here -

http://www.gtvone.com/dps/modelrelease.pdf - if you'd like to have a look :)

Sime.

thank you I think I might use the same now that I have reviewed it.

[blissfullife]

This is my situation:

I asked my friend if she would let me take photographs of her and her girls for some experience. She agreed and I told her that if she liked them she could buy the prints.

Do I need her to get her and the girls to sign a model release form or a Photograph release form? is there a difference?

[Mr Guy]

Very short answer: No with a "but": You don't need one, but if you are intending to sell them to somewhere else, it will help to get one.

Slightly longer answer: Yes with an "if": In other words, it's for additional protection you technically shouldn't need, but unfortunately in our litigatious world it's much more cost effective to have that protective signature than it is to fight for your rights later, if you do intend to sell them or display them, and it will make it easier to sell them if you do have that signature to provide to anyone who does wish to publish them.

Long answer: No with a "but" and an "and":
The point tuxcomputers makes above is a sound one. Most of the advice here seems to be oriented around covering your butt the most fully in order to be able to sell pictures with the greatest of ease. It still all comes around to you, personally, not "needing" a release at all. No country I've yet been made aware needs any kind of permission to either take photographs or to sell them for commercial use, assuming you took the photo legally (Ie, trespassing laws, peeping tom laws). All the legal mumbo jumbo is about permission to USE the photograph in commercial means, meaning it's the publisher who is ultimately responsible. What you'll find here, however, is a lot of people who have apparently had run ins with either ignorant lawyers, shady lawyers, or lawyers using scare tactics to threaten them, or know people who have, and have come to the conclusion that being legally within their rights is not as important as avoiding potential legal hassle and expense to prove they were in the right later.

[andyw]

I have just joined this forum through seeing it quoted on another site.
Discussions re model releases, copyright and rights will always go on and everyone will have different views.
Mainly because there are different rules (laws) depending which country you are in.
In the UK, where I am based, there is no requirement for a model release to publish, display, copy or sell on your shots.
Even for commercial purposes.
There is an exception when it was a private hire (i.e. a wedding or family portrait session).

In general any shot I take of a member of the public can be sold on.
I do not (by law) require a model release as in the UK the individual has nothing to release.
The person could have a comeback if the shot was used in a way which was libelous or held them up to ridicule but that comes under different laws.

In practice, if I am doing a shoot with a model then I will get a general release signed as the majority of publication and stock agencies now require this mainly to cover their axxxxs.