What’s Your Preference?

tuxcomputers · #11 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 05:17 AM

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™ · #12 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 01:43 PM

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 · #13 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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" ]

Get her to ring the Arts Law Centre of Australia and tell them that they got this brochure wrong.

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

Sime™ · #14 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 12:04 AM

"
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/SampleCont...delRelease.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 · #15 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sime™

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:

Quote:

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™ · #16 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuxcomputers

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?..

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuxcomputers

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuxcomputers

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

..well done?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuxcomputers

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuxcomputers

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 · #17 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sime™

...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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sime™

..well done?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sime™

...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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sime™

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sime™

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 · #18 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 11:55 AM

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