Do I Need a Model Release (different setting)

[AnneWynne]

Indigo's question and the subsequent responses brought up a question pertaining to a different situation.

I took some photos on the beach of a child and then a family group wading in a tidal pool. None of the faces are facing the camera and they are essentially anonymous, probably only identifiable by the adult female in the group. On top of that, I have manipulated the photo to make it a bit more unrecognizable by photoshopping it to look like a watercolor print.

When my s-in-l found out I was intending to sell the prints, she stated I could not sell them because of the subjects. I replied that I could because it was taken in a public place, and besides they were anonymous in that you could not identify the subjects. That calmed her down, but

• now I am wondering about the right to sell prints of photos that include random people, anonymous or not. This is particularly pertinant to the possibility of selling the photos to magazines or other publications.

Bear in mind that I am not going to use photos of people that is derogatory to them or even remotely scandalous. But I do want to continue to create scenic photographs of the local lifestyle and locals, and they will contain people who will not be aware they are being photographed (or why). Certainly, if someone approaches me, I will offer a print or low-res negative, or simply erase the photo of that person (there are so many opportunities out there that it is not worth the fight).

So, what is the consensus?
Anne

[candidrachel]

I would think it would be very unrealistic to expect you to get model releases from everyone you photograph out in public. That's just ridiculous.

What is it with your sis in law?? I read another one of your posts recently. I suspect she's just jealous!

[Jim Poor]

No model release is required when selling prints as art EVEN if they subjects are recognizeable.

Selling a print is NOT commercial use in terms of copyright, trademark or first amendment law, and therefore does not affect right to publicity or right to privacy.

All that said . . . ask a lawyer. I did.

[Eastree]

Argh ... I could easily write a good bit on the topic, and leave you confused. But I'll try to narrow it down considerably.

Basically, you'll be fine publishing the photographs. Not only is street (or anywhere in public) photography legally protected (complete with recent legal precedent), but also the people's faces aren't recognizable. In the short end of things, that's the full extent of your concern.

====

In the long run, if the photographs happen to be seen by the people in them, they'll have to prove that they are the ones in the photograph, and not just people who look like the ones in the images from behind (or whatever onscuring angle).

But again, things fall in your favor. If you're not implying their support of a business, group, or any other organization, etc., you're in the clear. It goes right back to the legal precedent defending public photography.

[LeeR]

I agree with the comments above. As a matter of fact, generally speaking, photographers never need to get a model release for their own purposes. Model releases are required for publishing, not for artistic or editorial use of an image. That being said, the photographer is in the best position to get the release signed so the reality is that publishers generally require photographers submit a release along with an image if the person is recognizable.

I just saw a funny story about a magazine that used an image without the subject's approval and the steps he took to recover 'damages.' Check it out here.

[AnneWynne]

Originally Posted by candidrachel

SNIP
What is it with your sis in law?? I read another one of your posts recently. I suspect she's just jealous!

I don't think the s-in-l is jealous, but she is a _very_ controling person. I don't want to portray her as moralistic-she absolutely respects others differences and their right to be different-but she seems to be worried that what she (and others she is "responsible for") do the right thing. She is actually a very kind person, but too wrapped up with doing what other people expect of her. Unfortunately it sometimes rubs me the wrong way...most of the time I blow it off and just accept it as her way of showing that she cares. Just wish she did not worry so much.

Oh, and I am definately intruding on her territory for a much longer period of time that ever before. Saint Simons is a small community she has been a part of all of her life and I think part of her worry is that I do something to embarass her...like infest her sister's house (where I have been house sitting) with fleas (which I did about a month ago)....but her sis and b-in-l have been incredibly understanding and taking it in stride. But I am sure it is also embarassing my s-in-l even though I have offered to pay for the exterminator and have vacuumed, and more.....accidents happen and you pick up the pieces and go on (which her sis and b-in-l are doing).

Thanks everyone for the opinions...it falls in line with what I have interpreted in my readings. And Jim, you are absolutely right to suggest consulting a lawyer for a final answer.

Anne

[candidrachel]

Sorry to hear about the fleas. I had to chuckle a little because my mother in law is INCREDIBLY house proud like you could eat your dinner of the bathroom floor and recently had to have her beloved cat put to sleep. Now, everytime I stayed there over the years I got bitten! Well now, recently my brother in law told her that he killed 5 fleas and showed them to her and she was horrified and deemed that an insult to her house keeping skills when we all know that getting fleas is just something that animals get no matter what flea treament you use.

She got Renokil out immediately and was given instructions after the fumigation not to vaccuum for 3 weeks. We don't know if she could hold on for that long.... lol!