Model release Question #2

[sk66]

Voted maybe.

Not enough info - a person who's just shooting for fun, using an image as a BG or as one rotating image in a fullscreen BG layout is no different than someone putting an image in a Flickr album.

Depends on who the person is and their relation to the photographer. Family/friend or random person?

If the photographer is a working pro, or aiming to be and selling their service, it's another matter.

Ah, I did not realize I left that vagary... In this context it is a photographer's website with intent to market services and/or sell images...

[sk66]

The answer to this question is a pretty solid YES.
Designing your site around the image (as the page BG) or using it as the sole "defining image" on the main page of a site intended to sell service or product would be a violation of their right of publicity. The right of publicity is the "commercial use" right. The main "test" for this is if it could be determined the individual in the photograph is advocating/promoting the product/service. Because there is only one individual along with your logo etc that could be argued to be the case. The more images used (i.e. homepage slideshow) the connection becomes less distinct and the image use becomes more "fleeting or incidental" which is not protected/actionable.

However, not all states have a separate publicity law (~1/2); in those cases it is considered part of the right of privacy. Specifically the right against "Appropriation of name or likeness" which is the use of an image (or voice/video) for personal gain.

[Jim Bryant]

Even through it a verbal contract, it's still best to get it in writing. Your word against her's and I bet she's a hell of a lot prettier than you, so in a court of law, she'll have the advantage, unless you have a witness there during the shoot who can say that she did indeed agree.

[sk66]

Although only around half of the states require a release be in writing, if one is required I would always get it on paper and signed.