Close
Close

View Poll Results: Is a model release required to put a picture of a person in a gallery on your website

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 50.00%
  • No

    4 50.00%
Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. #11
    sk66's Avatar
    sk66 is offline Lovable Contrarian
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    15,285

    Default

    Ok, the short answer to this one is "No." By default the photographer automatically has 5 distinct rights.
    By law ( Title 17 of the U.S. Code ) the photographer has the following exclusive rights:

    (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies;
    (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
    (3) to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
    (4) to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
    (5) to display the copyrighted work publicly

    The only way you would not have the right to display the image in your portfolio is if it broke one of their rights to privacy. If the image was taken "legitimately" and the photographer had even a modicum of professionalism there would be no risk.

    You could violate the right to privacy:
    1) if you "stole" the image. I.e. took it thru their home window or some other place you shouldn't have been. That would be "Intrusion upon seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs"
    2) If it was a nude/risqué picture of your significant other obtained "privately" (meaning allowed to you as the SO and not as a photographer) That could be "Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts"
    3) The image was a boudoir shot and you put the image up in a gallery titled "whores and skanks." That would be "Publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye" and possibly "Appropriation of name or likeness" which is "misuse" of an image...
    The bolded phrases are the four rights of privacy an individual has without consenting to a model release.
    Last edited by sk66; 01-12-2013 at 04:56 PM.

  2. #12
    sk66's Avatar
    sk66 is offline Lovable Contrarian
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    15,285

    Default

    It is interesting to note that not all states treat the rights to privacy the same. Some states recognize all of them and some states don't recognize any (* I've found many references to this, but no state specifics)...But if you observe all of them you're golden. I should also note that I have only researched U.S. law. YMMV.

    DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER!
    Last edited by sk66; 01-12-2013 at 03:45 PM.

  3. #13
    sk66's Avatar
    sk66 is offline Lovable Contrarian
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    15,285

  4. #14
    sk66's Avatar
    sk66 is offline Lovable Contrarian
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    15,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dakwegmo View Post
    The question then is whether a web gallery is more analogous to a brick and mortar gallery, or whether it's nothing more than a self hosted advertisement.
    It is called called a "vehicle of information," and has been established by the Illinois Appellate Court in the case of Brown vs. Corbis" upholding previous lower court rulings of the same. It does not require a model release.
    Last edited by sk66; 01-13-2013 at 12:13 AM.

  5. #15
    dakwegmo's Avatar
    dakwegmo is offline instigator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sk66 View Post
    It is called called a "vehicle of information," and has been established by the Illinois Appellate Court in the case of Brown vs. Corbis" upholding previous lower court rulings of the same. It does not require a model release.
    Right, but that case applies to a company saying "We have these images for sale/license." What about when you aren't using the website to show your stock of photos, but to attract new business?
    [¯Ô¯] marcus
    photoblog | Facebook | flickr | 5∞ px | G+

  6. #16
    sk66's Avatar
    sk66 is offline Lovable Contrarian
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA
    Posts
    15,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dakwegmo View Post
    Right, but that case applies to a company saying "We have these images for sale/license." What about when you aren't using the website to show your stock of photos, but to attract new business?
    It's the same deal (IMO). Clearly covered by your right to display the work in public...to use it as an example of your work, display for sale would be a weaker "defense" but has been upheld. Because it is in a gallery of your work there is no connection as far as the right of publicity (advocating a product/commercial use) or the right against appropriation of name or likeness (improper use for individual gain.)
    Note that only about 1/2 of the states recognize the right of publicity but instead lump it in with the later right....apparently some states respect none.

    I'll address the differences in the following questions/polls.

    Of course a lawyer will always tell you to get one, be happy to charge you for the advice, to make a release up for you...and still leave you on the hook if they are wrong.

    FWIW, I have found many examples saying the same, and many cases of violations etc, but none where a "display" in a gallery, online or otherwise, has been at fault...
    Your judge might decide differently...
    Last edited by sk66; 01-13-2013 at 04:49 AM.

Page 2 of 2 First 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in