Possibly a Stupid question about model releases?

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by Mandy73

Yes I agree I haven't wanted to delve into copyright law before which is probably why I'm asking this question here (instead of a lawyer).

But if I want to tackle my portfolio properly then I'll have to sort it out?

Thanks for the advice!

well you mention portfolio, portfolio isn't for commercial purposes so it should be fine just be sure to include a note anywhere you display it online publicly about its not being used for commercial purpose and only for portfolio usage.

[Mandy73]

Ah right, would that be like a Creative Commons Non Commercial licence?

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by ChrisAdval

well you mention portfolio, portfolio isn't for commercial purposes so it should be fine just be sure to include a note anywhere you display it online publicly about its not being used for commercial purpose and only for portfolio usage.

Do you have that from an authoritative source? I've read conflicting opinions about whether a portfolio used to generate business was commercial use.

[ArmySoldier777]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

Do you have that from an authoritative source? I've read conflicting opinions about whether a portfolio used to generate business was commercial use.

That may differ from state to state. The lawyers I've talked to in NC say that I can use photos without model releases in a portfolio, even if the portfolio is designed to bring in business.

[itsnoelb]

You can use it to show your talent, no release needed. SELL IT! gotta have a release.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by itsnoelb

You can use it to show your talent, no release needed. SELL IT! gotta have a release.

Nope! Selling an image rarely, if ever, requires a release. About the only time you need a release is when an image is published commercial. Commercial in this case doesn't refer to exchanging money, it refers to advertising.

[AndyM2020]

Copyright (usually, there are exceptions, mainly with music IIRC) lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. So in theory, the designs of many old buildings should now be exempt...

But it doesn't work like that and some places will need a property release (not a model release!) or other such licence/permission. If it's something like a monument or museum, then you usually have to get permission for commercial use. I think someone once said the rule of thumb was that if they charged an entry fee, then you would need permission.

And has been said earlier, Copyright does vary at least slightly between countries, and I don't know (without looking) if India is a signatory to the Berne copyright convention.

It also depends upon the use - for portfolio use, editorial and possibly selling products with images of the Taj Mahal on (prints, mugs and so on), you should be OK. But it's unlikely you would if you were using that image to endorse or advertise a product or service.

The best (safest?) thing would be to ask the relevant people if and what is needed for commercial usage.

[MattG]

As stated before, you will need to check with the particular UK laws, however I believe there is some confusion and misinformation being bandied about here.

All the reading I have done on this matter states that you do not need a property release for a picture of a building, whether being used for personal, image sale or commercial purposes. The main reason is that buildings are not accorded the same legal protection as people for privacy and publicity laws.

There are two caveats though; firstly the location where you shot the image from may be governed by certain conditions that you have agreed to by entering, i.e. Sydney Foreshore requires a commercial licence to be paid prior to using any images of the Sydney Opera House made from the Sydney Foreshore area, and secondly, where there is a visible trademark that could confuse a person into believing an endorsement of the brand, rather than of the building. This appears to be considered as a vague area and many people consider it acceptable where the logo does not constitute the majority of the image.

In your example of the lighthouse, as you took the image from a public beach and the majority of the image is not a logo, I would happily bet that you do not need a property release.

An excellent resource for this and other questions is Dan Heller's website which though US centric is a good starting point in my opinion.

[dakwegmo]

Don't confuse property rights with copyrights. The designs of buildings are covered by copyright, but there's an exception for photography, so you can't infringe an architect's copyright by taking a picture of it. A property owner's rights, though, are unrelated to copyright. If the owner of a property can be identified from the photo, then you need a release to use the photo commercially.

[melsam]

Hey guys,
While we're on the subject of model releases, I just want to point out one fun and easy way to get them - instead of carrying around a stack of paperwork, use a Model Release app on your smartphone or tablet. Your "model" will usually enjoy the signing experience more, strike up a friendly conversation about your geekyness, and it's easier to do this on a device you already carry rather than with extra paperwork, pens, binders, envelopes etc.

The app I want to recommend is this one: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id494732564. It works on iPhone and iPad equally well.

Full disclosure: I know the developer and helped beta test it. There are others as well, but this one seems to be the best designed imho. It does both - model releases (for people) and property releases (for buildings, such as the Taj Mahal).

Give it a try, or search the App Store for other model release apps.