Michael Fryd wrote:

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
I'm going off of a lawyer's explanation of biographical use and it was very clear about portfolio and web use.

Which state's law was the lawyer describing?

Let's take a simple example.  In the waiting room of my studio I hang various photos as examples of my work.  Do I need a release?

The answer varies by state.

In some states I don't need prior permission, but should the model ask me to take down the image, I am legally obliged to do so.

Obviously, if it is a large print, that costs me a lot of money to make/frame, I might want to get a release prior to this "portfolio" use.

While there are general rules of thumb for what requires a release, the specifics do vary from state to state.


There are uses that require a release and ones that don't.   The trick is knowing what the courts will do in a particular case.

For instance, what if the ad just said "The Smith family uses me."   Is that enough to require a release?  Is the answer the same for every state?

Remember, the correct answer is not the one that logic predicts, but the one that the court decides.  This means that the outcome is rarely certain.  At best we can talk about likely decisions.

My position is that it is not always clear exactly where the line is.  Furthermore, should the issue end up in court, the court might not agree with you.  If you have a release, then there is no need to worry about this.

Let's take a different example for your workplace.

You buy a magazine, tear off the cover, do you need a release to hang it on the wall?

I'd love to see a precedent where a court said that a photographer couldn't hang a print of one of their own photos on the wall in their workplace because they didn't have a release and the model asked them to take it down.


I don't even believe you can find a genuine case of a model asking someone to take a photo they posed for off of their workplace wall regardless of the law.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Let's take a different example for your workplace.

You buy a magazine, tear off the cover, do you need a release to hang it on the wall?

I'd love to see a precedent where a court said that a photographer couldn't hang a print of one of their own photos on the wall in their workplace because they didn't have a release and the model asked them to take it down.


I don't even believe you can find a genuine case of a model asking someone to take a photo they posed for off of their workplace wall regardless of the law.

There's a good discussion of the issues at the Digital Media Law project.   You will notice that there are few definitive rules.  They frequently use words/phrases like "may", "most", "some courts have", "as a general matter", etc.   Very little is definitive.  There are general guidelines, lots of exceptions, and lot's of nuances that a court would need to look at.


There's a short discussion of the concept of using someone's likeness for "truthful advertising of your own work" and the "incidental use" doctrine.   This is not an absolute license to use someone's likeness when promoting your own work, but an exception for when the use of their likeness is incidental.   "One court has held that this doctrine applies to online activities", which suggests that in that state you may be able to use the image in an online portfolio.  It does not speak to the other 49 states.

The bottom line is that the rules do vary from state to state and they are not clear cut.   What is clear is that should you use an unreleased image on you web site, the model complains, and it ends up in court, there may be a reasonable chance that you will prevail in court.  Depending on the specifics of the situation (i.e. does the usage rise above "incidental"), there is a chance you will lose.

What is clear, is that if you have a proper release, you are likely in the clear.  Without a release, you might be in the clear, you might not, but you won't know until a court rules on your specific situation.



I'll see if I can find a hard reference for states where a model may prohibit an unreleased photo from being displayed in the photographer's place of business.

On March 24, the Arkansas Senate passed SB-79, “To Enact the Personal Rights Protection Act: and to Protect the Property Rights of an Individual to the Use of the Individual’s Name, Voice, Signature, and Likeness.” This bill expands the individual’s Right of Publicity to an unprecedented extreme.

SB-79 would require still and motion photographers to get explicit written consent to include any individual’s likeness — not just celebrities but anyone — in a photograph that is used for virtually any purpose within the state of Arkansas except those uses specifically exempted as Fair Use within the bill.

The implications of this bill are staggering. For example, an image showing recognizable people posted to the Internet for a use that would not require written consent anywhere else in the world could leave you open to a lawsuit just because someone in Arkansas could view it online.

By the way.  The Colorado chapter of the ASMP publishes a Photographer's Portfolio Release.  This strongly suggests that they believe that there is value to having a release when using images in a photographer's portfolio.  If such a release was not beneficial, the ASMP would say so, and not provide suggested verbiage.


I'm still trying to track down a specific reference for displaying unreleased images in a photographer's studio.

Michael Fryd wrote:

There's a good discussion of the issues at the Digital Media Law project.   You will notice that there are few definitive rules.  They frequently use words/phrases like "may", "most", "some courts have", "as a general matter", etc.   Very little is definitive.  There are general guidelines, lots of exceptions, and lot's of nuances that a court would need to look at.


There's a short discussion of the concept of using someone's likeness for "truthful advertising of your own work" and the "incidental use" doctrine.   This is not an absolute license to use someone's likeness when promoting your own work, but an exception for when the use of their likeness is incidental.   "One court has held that this doctrine applies to online activities", which suggests that in that state you may be able to use the image in an online portfolio.  It does not speak to the other 49 states.

The bottom line is that the rules do vary from state to state and they are not clear cut.   What is clear is that should you use an unreleased image on you web site, the model complains, and it ends up in court, there may be a reasonable chance that you will prevail in court.  Depending on the specifics of the situation (i.e. does the usage rise above "incidental"), there is a chance you will lose.

What is clear, is that if you have a proper release, you are likely in the clear.  Without a release, you might be in the clear, you might not, but you won't know until a court rules on your specific situation.



I'll see if I can find a hard reference for states where a model may prohibit an unreleased photo from being displayed in the photographer's place of business.

If you have an image on your website, the model complains, and you don't take it down, you deserve to end up in court regardless of whether or not you have a valid release.

Unless they're complaining as a form of harassment, you're putting a single photo ahead of some issue in their life, and there's no one who's only able to make a living because of one specific photo in their portfolio.

Michael Fryd wrote:
The The Colorado chapter of the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has a warning about an Arkansas bill on it's way to becoming law.  Under this bill a Photographer anywhere in the US would likely need a release to use an image on his website, if the website was viewed by a person in Arkansas.


By the way.  The Colorado chapter of the ASMP publishes a Photographer's Portfolio Release.  This strongly suggests that they believe that there is value to having a release when using images in a photographer's portfolio.  If such a release was not beneficial, the ASMP would say so, and not provide suggested verbiage.


I'm still trying to track down a specific reference for displaying unreleased images in a photographer's studio.

Of course having a release is "valuable" even if you don't need it. That's why lots of people don't bother to worry about whether they need, one and just get one any time they can.

That's not what's being discussed though. The discussion is which situations need them.


The ASMP publishing a release doesn't suggest that they think there's a need for one, it suggests they think their members want one.

When you drive and wear a seatbelt and don't get in an accident, there was no "value" to wearing the seatbelt. Suggesting doing something as a form of insurance doesn't mean it's valuable it's a simple way to reduce risk and eliminate the need to asses risk.


All the "may" and "might" is necessary because people don't always communicate well or accurately. The law is always clear cut. It's the contexts that aren't. The time needed to get someone to clearly communicate a scenario accurately is prohibitive, so people make generalizations and then hedge them with may/might so that no one is accidentally misled.


If you find an example of an unreleased image being displayed in a photographer's studio, it's not going to be a simple story where the photographer shot a photo, made a print and hung it, then the subject saw it and asked to have it taken down. There will be some other dynamic that led to the conflict - probably some kind of communication issue or money issue, but not a simple take it down because it's not legal. That's never happened because the vast majority of the time there's a positive relationship or the subject is flattered. And when there's a relationship that goes bad, the subject isn't dropping by the studio to say hello or for another shoot.

There will never be a precedent set that tests a narrow scenario that would define the law because it won't be financially worth it to anyone to take it that far.

What photographer would spend thousands in legal fees when they could just take the photo down?

There won't be any cases that fit our discussion in the way we've been having it.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Of course having a release is "valuable" even if you don't need it. That's why lots of people don't bother to worry about whether they need, one and just get one any time they can.

That's not what's being discussed though. The discussion is which situations need them.

The ASMP publishing a release doesn't suggest that they think there's a need for one, it suggests they think their members want one.

When you drive and wear a seatbelt and don't get in an accident, there was no "value" to wearing the seatbelt. Suggesting doing something as a form of insurance doesn't mean it's valuable it's a simple way to reduce risk and eliminate the need to asses risk.


All the "may" and "might" is necessary because people don't always communicate well or accurately. The law is always clear cut. It's the contexts that aren't. The time needed to get someone to clearly communicate a scenario accurately is prohibitive, so people make generalizations and then hedge them with may/might so that no one is accidentally misled.

We seem to have a difference of opinion on whether or not the law is always clear cut.  Sometimes it is ambiguous.  Sometimes the court misinterpret the law.  Sometimes the facts of the situation are in dispute.

I like having a release because it moves the situation from one where you might be in a grey area, to a situation where the answer is obvious.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
If you find an example of an unreleased image being displayed in a photographer's studio, it's not going to be a simple story where the photographer shot a photo, made a print and hung it, then the subject saw it and asked to have it taken down. There will be some other dynamic that led to the conflict - probably some kind of communication issue or money issue, but not a simple take it down because it's not legal. That's never happened because the vast majority of the time there's a positive relationship or the subject is flattered. And when there's a relationship that goes bad, the subject isn't dropping by the studio to say hello or for another shoot.

Not necessarily. Imagine a scenario where the photographer invested a lot of time and effort into creating a shoot.  Props were built, makeup artists were hired, a location and equipment was rented, permits were obtained, the weather was perfect, the flowers were in bloom, etc..  The result was a fabulous shot for his portfolio.

The model decides she doesn't like it.   

The photographer doesn't have to be an asshole to have a strong preference for continuing to use the expensive image.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
There will never be a precedent set that tests a narrow scenario that would define the law because it won't be financially worth it to anyone to take it that far.

What photographer would spend thousands in legal fees when they could just take the photo down?

There won't be any cases that fit our discussion in the way we've been having it.

There are two separate issues:
1) Would the situation ever make it to court?
2) If so, how likely is the court to decide one way or the other?

The fact that something might never make it to court, is independent of how the courts might decide should it make it that far.

if your position is that these sorts of issues rarely make it to court, I will agree.

If you position is that should they make it to court, the outcome is uniformly clear across all 50 states, then I disagree.




By the way, PDN Online has a quick overview of when one needs a release.  Of interest to me is the assertion that, when it comes to releases, there are many grey areas in the laws.  Also of interest is the specific discussion of publishing "samples of your work" on your web site.  Their conclusion is that a strict reading of the law says you do, but the courts have not addressed this. Thus we do not have a reliable answer.  They feel exposure for not having a release is low, as in many cases you can make the matter go away by taking down the image when requested.

Unfortunately, today is a legal holiday, and I don't have access to some of my research materials.

Michael Fryd wrote:
The The Colorado chapter of the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has a warning about an Arkansas bill on it's way to becoming law.  Under this bill a Photographer anywhere in the US would likely need a release to use an image on his website, if the website was viewed by a person in Arkansas.


By the way.  The Colorado chapter of the ASMP publishes a Photographer's Portfolio Release.  This strongly suggests that they believe that there is value to having a release when using images in a photographer's portfolio.  If such a release was not beneficial, the ASMP would say so, and not provide suggested verbiage.


I'm still trying to track down a specific reference for displaying unreleased images in a photographer's studio.

There are agencies that are actually doing this also (granting self-promotional / social media usage for those testing in writing), which is essentially a limited release. It's not the norm yet, but with all the Internet generated confusion about releases and usage, it may very well progressively become more prevalent.

studio36uk wrote:
IN RESPECT OF NY LAW [ONLY]

NY Code - Section 50: Right of privacy [statute language] - note that here it can be a criminal offence. A low level of criminal offence, to be sure, but certainly potentially attracting a criminal sanction e.g. a fine.

"A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Failing to comply with a C&D letter could lead to this within the civil claims framework of an unconsented photographer's use [statute language] - - -

NY Code - Section 51: Action for injunction and for damages [extracts - two parts]

"Any person whose name, portrait, picture or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of this state against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, portrait, picture or voice, to prevent and restrain the use thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained by reason of such use and if the defendant shall have knowingly used such person’s name, portrait, picture or voice in such manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by section fifty of this article, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages. ... "

[break in text]

"... nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation, practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting in or about his or its establishment [see end note**]  specimens of the work of such establishment, unless the same is continued by such person, firm or corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been given by the person portrayed; ..."

The following notes come from a legal blog on the subject of these NY statutes - - -

Damages

Section 51 provides for both injunctive relief and compensatory damages. A plaintiff can seek an injunction against continued use of their identity, and can recover monetary damages to compensate for the harm caused by past uses. The damage award primarily compensates for emotional distress. See Garis v. Uncut-RawTV, No. CV 06–5031, 2011 WL 4404035, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y, July 5, 2011).

Section 51 also provides for punitive or exemplary damages, if certain conditions are met. A plaintiff can recover exemplary damages if the defendant knew that the plaintiff had not consented to the use of their identity. Id. at 4-5. Courts may award exemplary damages if necessary to deter future violations of Section 51.

My additional note - - -

The purpose of the [in writing] C&D is in fact to put the photographer on timely notice. Thereafter, if the unauthorised use continues unabated, the photographer can be said to have, and shown to have, the relevant knowledge needed to meet the punitive or exemplary damages test and to provoke a prayer asking the court to award additional punitive or exemplary damages relief within the body of the claims generally.

We are not going to find case law here in part because in clear cut cases the lower courts will generally rule and the case will not be "reported" [published] unless it happens to subsequently go to appeal. Where a claim is clear cut then an appeal is often a case of throwing good money after bad. Even then, on appeal, it might not be reported where it is not a case of first impression [novel claims]. But to say that there is no case law would be wrong. There may have been hundreds of cases over the years but they have just not been reported / published cases. That would be true, also, in other states with similar statutory language and straightforward claims. I can suggest that the very same [non-reported] situation would likely occur with, for example, straightforward CA §3344 claims in that state; or, in MA where the statute there is virtually identical to that in NY.

Note** - As I mentioned earlier in the thread the phrase used "... in or about his or its establishment ..." may NOT apply to on-line [Internet] use, subject to interpretation by the courts. For reference, however, the term "establishment" includes, among other things: building; business; edifice; facility; inhabitation; store; (and) structure [source: Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton.] tending to indicate some fixed place of business is what is being contemplated, not the Internet.

Studio36

Everything you posted refers to advertisements.

Hanging a print in your studio is not illegal, nor does it require a release.

Michael Fryd wrote:

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Of course having a release is "valuable" even if you don't need it. That's why lots of people don't bother to worry about whether they need, one and just get one any time they can.

That's not what's being discussed though. The discussion is which situations need them.

The ASMP publishing a release doesn't suggest that they think there's a need for one, it suggests they think their members want one.

When you drive and wear a seatbelt and don't get in an accident, there was no "value" to wearing the seatbelt. Suggesting doing something as a form of insurance doesn't mean it's valuable it's a simple way to reduce risk and eliminate the need to asses risk.


All the "may" and "might" is necessary because people don't always communicate well or accurately. The law is always clear cut. It's the contexts that aren't. The time needed to get someone to clearly communicate a scenario accurately is prohibitive, so people make generalizations and then hedge them with may/might so that no one is accidentally misled.

We seem to have a difference of opinion on whether or not the law is always clear cut.  Sometimes it is ambiguous.  Sometimes the court misinterpret the law.  Sometimes the facts of the situation are in dispute.

I like having a release because it moves the situation from one where you might be in a grey area, to a situation where the answer is obvious.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
If you find an example of an unreleased image being displayed in a photographer's studio, it's not going to be a simple story where the photographer shot a photo, made a print and hung it, then the subject saw it and asked to have it taken down. There will be some other dynamic that led to the conflict - probably some kind of communication issue or money issue, but not a simple take it down because it's not legal. That's never happened because the vast majority of the time there's a positive relationship or the subject is flattered. And when there's a relationship that goes bad, the subject isn't dropping by the studio to say hello or for another shoot.

Not necessarily. Imagine a scenario where the photographer invested a lot of time and effort into creating a shoot.  Props were built, makeup artists were hired, a location and equipment was rented, permits were obtained, the weather was perfect, the flowers were in bloom, etc..  The result was a fabulous shot for his portfolio.

The model decides she doesn't like it.   

The photographer doesn't have to be an asshole to have a strong preference for continuing to use the expensive image.



There are two separate issues:
1) Would the situation ever make it to court?
2) If so, how likely is the court to decide one way or the other?

The fact that something might never make it to court, is independent of how the courts might decide should it make it that far.

if your position is that these sorts of issues rarely make it to court, I will agree.

If you position is that should they make it to court, the outcome is uniformly clear across all 50 states, then I disagree.




By the way, PDN Online has a quick overview of when one needs a release.  Of interest to me is the assertion that, when it comes to releases, there are many grey areas in the laws.  Also of interest is the specific discussion of publishing "samples of your work" on your web site.  Their conclusion is that a strict reading of the law says you do, but the courts have not addressed this. Thus we do not have a reliable answer.  They feel exposure for not having a release is low, as in many cases you can make the matter go away by taking down the image when requested.

Unfortunately, today is a legal holiday, and I don't have access to some of my research materials.

To save you energy I will agree now and in advance of all future discussions that a scenario can be described that will make my or any position wrong. I don't find hypothetical situations that are unlikely and haven't happened to be relevant for the type of discussion we're having which is what the law says/means, not what would be the smartest practice.


In your scenario the model would have to dislike the image so much that it caused her enough distress to ask the photographer to take it down and if she's spending money on a lawsuit, there's something about that image that's extremely upsetting. You can choose the word to describe someone who continues to use an image they know is causing that much distress.

If the model was asking for the image to be taken down out of spite - say the photographer used a different model for a job that the model in the photo had wanted, then I wouldn't be critical of the photographer's behavior, but the smart move is still to take it down. If they absolutely must use it, then they can rehang it.


While we're discussing unlikely scenarios, imagine one where there's an ironclad release, jointly writing by judges from all 50 states and the model wants the photo taken down. The model asks, the photographer says no. The model hires a lawyer and files a suit saying she was coerced into signing the release. Now the photographer is spending money on a legal defense and may or may not win.


In the end it will always be about the interpersonal relationships more than the release because that's what drives every action.


While we're at it is it also your position that in certain states you can't make a print and hang it in your home without a release?


Why does the print being in a work place change it from art to an advertisement (assuming there's no ad copy making it an ad)?

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
To save you energy I will agree now and in advance of all future discussions that a scenario can be described that will make my or any position wrong. I don't find hypothetical situations that are unlikely and haven't happened to be relevant for the type of discussion we're having which is what the law says/means, not what would be the smartest practice.


In your scenario the model would have to dislike the image so much that it caused her enough distress to ask the photographer to take it down and if she's spending money on a lawsuit, there's something about that image that's extremely upsetting. You can choose the word to describe someone who continues to use an image they know is causing that much distress.

Let's take a simpler situation.  I shoot a model TFP and don't get a release.  I love on of the images, and spend $200 getting a large framed print for my studio waiting room.  The model sees the print, and decides that she doesn't like that particular shot.

If I had a release, I could explain to the model that in this business she doesn't get to choose which images get used.

If I am in NY without a release, I take down the image because the law is on the side of the model, and I am out the $200 I spent on a large framed print.


Are you suggesting that even with the release I should take down the print?

I do a lot of catalog work.  We get releases.  If a model sees herself in the catalog and doesn't like a particular image, should we recall the catalog?

Generally, model's don't get final say over the images that get used.  Why should things be different for the images used by the photographer for promoting his own business?

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
If the model was asking for the image to be taken down out of spite - say the photographer used a different model for a job that the model in the photo had wanted, then I wouldn't be critical of the photographer's behavior, but the smart move is still to take it down. If they absolutely must use it, then they can rehang it.

Are you suggesting that the print be taken down, and then rehung after the model leaves?

In terms of relationships with a model, I think the photographer is better off with a release and telling the model that this is how the business works.  This leaves the door open for the photographer to work with the model again.

On the other hand, telling the mode one thing, and then doing another can be problematic.  If the model finds out, then you have lost her trust.  She can no longer rely on your word.  If she tells her friends, it will hurt your reputation in the community.  It will be difficult to work with this model again in the future.

Of course, this is just my opinion.  When it comes to my business, I prefer to be honest.  The model may not be happy with my decision to use the image, but there is no misrepresentation.   I make it clear that she doesn't get to choose the images that I use, and this is confirmed by the release that she signs.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
While we're discussing unlikely scenarios, imagine one where there's an ironclad release, jointly writing by judges from all 50 states and the model wants the photo taken down. The model asks, the photographer says no. The model hires a lawyer and files a suit saying she was coerced into signing the release. Now the photographer is spending money on a legal defense and may or may not win.

Yes.  There are no guarantees.  The best that you can do is try to stack the odds in your favor.  Having a release goes a long way in stacking the odds in your favor.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
In the end it will always be about the interpersonal relationships more than the release because that's what drives every action.

Yes, interpersonal relationships are important.  I like a release because it helps make sure that the model and I are on the same page as to what I can/will do with the images.   Misunderstandings can be bad for interpersonal relationships.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
While we're at it is it also your position that in certain states you can't make a print and hang it in your home without a release?

The fact that you live somewhere is not a relevant issue.  What's relevant is whether or not the usage requires a release in your state.

If your state requires a release for using the image in your studio waiting room, the fact that you lived in your studio would not be relevant.   The question is not about whether or not you live there, but about whether or not the image is being used to promote your business.


I do not live in my studio.  I do not make a habit of inviting clients to my home.  In general, I would not need a release to hang an image in my home.  Such usage would generally fall into the "fine art" category, not the "commercial" category.  Of course, if I had a release, that would not be a problem.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Why does the print being in a work place change it from art to an advertisement (assuming there's no ad copy making it an ad)?

That's an excellent question.  If we had a clear and concise answer then this thread would have ended long ago.  Generally the question is not whether or not something is an "advertisement", but whether or not the usage triggers the requirement for consent.  The specific criteria vary from state to state.

One needs to look at the purpose and the context of the use.  Is the usage intended to get increase the sales of my products and services?  If so, then in many states a release would be in order.



An advertisement doesn't need any words.   A photo of someone obviously enjoying a bottle of Coca-Cola can make an excellent ad, with any any text whatsoever.   The local amusement park only needs an image of kids having fun on a roller coaster.  A restaurant can use an image of their signature dish.

An advertisement can be very effective with an image that simply shows the quality of the product.  When you are a professional photographer, that's exactly the purpose of your portfolio.

The line between "advertisement" and "sample of your work" can be very blurry.  Depending on what state you are in, that blurry line is the difference between needing a release and not needing a release.


These things rarely end up in court.  The reason is that they are usually settled out of court.  If there is a release, it is settled in favor of the photographer.  Without a release it, it is settled in favor of the model.    Personally, I like having a release.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Everything you posted refers to advertisements.

Hanging a print in your studio is not illegal, nor does it require a release.

N.Y. CVR. LAW § 51 : NY Code - Section 51: Action for injunction and for damages wrote:
nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation, practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting in or about his or its establishment specimens of the work of such establishment, unless the same is continued by such person, firm or corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been given by the person portrayed - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/51#sthash.K7G6g28A.dpuf

NY Law specifically addresses the issue of a photographer exhibiting his work at his place of business.  If he doesn't have a release, and the model requests he not display her image, he must take it down.

This section applies anytime a NY Photographer displays his images at his place of business, whether or not that usage would is an "advertisement".

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Everything you posted refers to advertisements.

Hanging a print in your studio is not illegal, nor does it require a release.

No, it most certainly is not limited to advertising. You need to read it again and carefully. Especially that part of §51 which carves out a limited, but conditional, exception.

Studio36

Michael Fryd wrote:

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
To save you energy I will agree now and in advance of all future discussions that a scenario can be described that will make my or any position wrong. I don't find hypothetical situations that are unlikely and haven't happened to be relevant for the type of discussion we're having which is what the law says/means, not what would be the smartest practice.


In your scenario the model would have to dislike the image so much that it caused her enough distress to ask the photographer to take it down and if she's spending money on a lawsuit, there's something about that image that's extremely upsetting. You can choose the word to describe someone who continues to use an image they know is causing that much distress.

Let's take a simpler situation.  I shoot a model TFP and don't get a release.  I love on of the images, and spend $200 getting a large framed print for my studio waiting room.  The model sees the print, and decides that she doesn't like that particular shot.

If I had a release, I could explain to the model that in this business she doesn't get to choose which images get used.

If I am in NY without a release, I take down the image because the law is on the side of the model, and I am out the $200 I spent on a large framed print.


Are you suggesting that even with the release I should take down the print?

I do a lot of catalog work.  We get releases.  If a model sees herself in the catalog and doesn't like a particular image, should we recall the catalog?

Generally, model's don't get final say over the images that get used.  Why should things be different for the images used by the photographer for promoting his own business?

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
If the model was asking for the image to be taken down out of spite - say the photographer used a different model for a job that the model in the photo had wanted, then I wouldn't be critical of the photographer's behavior, but the smart move is still to take it down. If they absolutely must use it, then they can rehang it.

Are you suggesting that the print be taken down, and then rehung after the model leaves?

In terms of relationships with a model, I think the photographer is better off with a release and telling the model that this is how the business works.  This leaves the door open for the photographer to work with the model again.

On the other hand, telling the mode one thing, and then doing another can be problematic.  If the model finds out, then you have lost her trust.  She can no longer rely on your word.  If she tells her friends, it will hurt your reputation in the community.  It will be difficult to work with this model again in the future.

Of course, this is just my opinion.  When it comes to my business, I prefer to be honest.  The model may not be happy with my decision to use the image, but there is no misrepresentation.   I make it clear that she doesn't get to choose the images that I use, and this is confirmed by the release that she signs.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
While we're discussing unlikely scenarios, imagine one where there's an ironclad release, jointly writing by judges from all 50 states and the model wants the photo taken down. The model asks, the photographer says no. The model hires a lawyer and files a suit saying she was coerced into signing the release. Now the photographer is spending money on a legal defense and may or may not win.

Yes.  There are no guarantees.  The best that you can do is try to stack the odds in your favor.  Having a release goes a long way in stacking the odds in your favor.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
In the end it will always be about the interpersonal relationships more than the release because that's what drives every action.

Yes, interpersonal relationships are important.  I like a release because it helps make sure that the model and I are on the same page as to what I can/will do with the images.   Misunderstandings can be bad for interpersonal relationships.


The fact that you live somewhere is not a relevant issue.  What's relevant is whether or not the usage requires a release in your state.

If your state requires a release for using the image in your studio waiting room, the fact that you lived in your studio would not be relevant.   The question is not about whether or not you live there, but about whether or not the image is being used to promote your business.


I do not live in my studio.  I do not make a habit of inviting clients to my home.  In general, I would not need a release to hang an image in my home.  Such usage would generally fall into the "fine art" category, not the "commercial" category.  Of course, if I had a release, that would not be a problem.



That's an excellent question.  If we had a clear and concise answer then this thread would have ended long ago.  Generally the question is not whether or not something is an "advertisement", but whether or not the usage triggers the requirement for consent.  The specific criteria vary from state to state.

One needs to look at the purpose and the context of the use.  Is the usage intended to get increase the sales of my products and services?  If so, then in many states a release would be in order.



An advertisement doesn't need any words.   A photo of someone obviously enjoying a bottle of Coca-Cola can make an excellent ad, with any any text whatsoever.   The local amusement park only needs an image of kids having fun on a roller coaster.  A restaurant can use an image of their signature dish.

An advertisement can be very effective with an image that simply shows the quality of the product.  When you are a professional photographer, that's exactly the purpose of your portfolio.

The line between "advertisement" and "sample of your work" can be very blurry.  Depending on what state you are in, that blurry line is the difference between needing a release and not needing a release.


These things rarely end up in court.  The reason is that they are usually settled out of court.  If there is a release, it is settled in favor of the photographer.  Without a release it, it is settled in favor of the model.    Personally, I like having a release.

-------------------------------------quotes seem to be broken in this post-----------------------------
Why can't you decorate your studio with fine art?

Do you need a release to hang someone else's photo? Isn't that now an ad for your services even though it's misrepresentation? Any photo hung in a photo studio must be an ad, right?


I'm not suggesting lying to the model about taking down the print and rehanging it. I'm making the point that taking it down right away doesn't mean that it has to be down permanently. I'm not going to bother inventing an example that makes my point because we all know by now that it's always possible to make up a hypothetical example that fits.


You twisted my question about hanging a print in your home to hanging a print in a studio you live in.

I want to know if you believe that there's a state that requires you to have a release for a photo you've shot in order to make a print of it and hang it in your home. By home I mean the place you live and it has nothing to do with the place you work.

Michael Fryd wrote:

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Everything you posted refers to advertisements.

Hanging a print in your studio is not illegal, nor does it require a release.

NY Law specifically addresses the issue of a photographer exhibiting his work at his place of business.  If he doesn't have a release, and the model requests he not display her image, he must take it down.

This section applies anytime a NY Photographer displays his images at his place of business, whether or not that usage would is an "advertisement".

That doesn't say you have to have a release to display the photo.

That would also apply to a photo that has a release where the release doesn't specify that the release is irrevocable.


Basically your position is that everyone should get a release so that you can continue using someone's likeness when they don't want you to. That's the only example you've give of why a release is needed.

studio36uk wrote:

No, it most certainly is not limited to advertising. You need to read it again and carefully. Especially that part of §51 which carves out a limited, but conditional, exception.

Studio36

That specifies and you highlighted "continued use".

If you're using it, they demand in writing that you take it down and you comply, they're not being given the right to sue for damages/relief for the period of time it was used.

It's no different from having a release that has a termination clause.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Why can't you decorate your studio with fine art?

Do you need a release to hang someone else's photo? Isn't that now an ad for your services even though it's misrepresentation? Any photo hung in a photo studio must be an ad, right?


I'm not suggesting lying to the model about taking down the print and rehanging it. I'm making the point that taking it down right away doesn't mean that it has to be down permanently. I'm not going to bother inventing an example that makes my point because we all know by now that it's always possible to make up a hypothetical example that fits.


You twisted my question about hanging a print in your home to hanging a print in a studio you live in.

I want to know if you believe that there's a state that requires you to have a release for a photo you've shot in order to make a print of it and hang it in your home. By home I mean the place you live and it has nothing to do with the place you work.

I am not aware of any state's right of publicity law that would require a release for a fine art print you hang in your home.

However, there might be a circumstance where other issues would require permission before displaying an image in your personal residence (i.e. the private place where you live, and not a place where you conduct business).

Suppose you shoot boudoir photos of an elementary school teacher which she will give to her husband.  The client's expectation was that the images would remain private.  You decide to hang one of these images in your home.  You invite some friends over, and it turns out that one of them is the principle of the boudoir client's school.  He recognizes her in the picture and fires her for inappropriate behavior.

Without permission from the model, you might have liability for violating the model's privacy.


Obviously, this is not a common occurrence.   As a general rule you don't need a release for a fine art print displayed in your home, but the rule is not absolute.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Basically your position is that everyone should get a release so that you can continue using someone's likeness when they don't want you to. That's the only example you've give of why a release is needed.

The other side of that coin is that no one ever needs a release because one should never use an image in a way that the model doesn't want.

A more conservative viewpoint would be that a model release helps to head off misunderstandings, and gives the photographer flexibility should the model change her mind.

Suppose you pay a model $500 for a one hour shoot.  Your understanding with the model is that you can exploit the image commercially, and she is OK with that.  Your state requires a written release, but you don't bother because the model is OK with you using the image however you want.

A local company ends up paying you $25,000 to license the image (you tell them that you have a release).  The model finds out and decides she wants half the money.

If you had a written release, you could hold the model to the original agreement, or you could choose to give her more money.

Without the release, you better pay the model.

If you are going to have an understanding with the model, what's the harm in having that understanding in writing?   If the model wants the ability to revoke her approval, I want to know that.  I might treat the image differently if I know the model can make me take it down if she hooks up with a jealous boyfriend.

studio36uk wrote:
No, it most certainly is not limited to advertising. You need to read it again and carefully. Especially that part of §51 which carves out a limited, but conditional, exception.

Studio36

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
That specifies and you highlighted "continued use".

If you're using it, they demand in writing that you take it down and you comply, they're not being given the right to sue for damages/relief for the period of time it was used.

It's no different from having a release that has a termination clause.

Go back up to my post and see the part that I extracted from the legal blog on the subject of §51 on damages. Un-consented use is subject to damages for continued use after notice but also for compensatory damages arising from past un- consented use; but not punitive / exemplary damages which hinge on notice having been given and not complied with, Continued use after notice is what triggers the latter but it is not necessary for the former. The lawyers opine, and probably with good reason, that ANY un-consented use could involve some sort of damages claim for past use EVEN IF the images were taken down / off display after a notice was served.

You take from this what you will.

The following notes come from a legal blog on the subject of these NY statutes - - -

Damages

Section 51 provides for both injunctive relief and compensatory damages. A plaintiff can seek an injunction against continued use of their identity, and can recover monetary damages to compensate for the harm caused by past uses. The damage award primarily compensates for emotional distress. See Garis v. Uncut-RawTV, No. CV 06–5031, 2011 WL 4404035, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y, July 5, 2011).

Studio36

Michael Fryd wrote:

The other side of that coin is that no one ever needs a release because one should never use an image in a way that the model doesn't want.

A more conservative viewpoint would be that a model release helps to head off misunderstandings, and gives the photographer flexibility should the model change her mind.

Suppose you pay a model $500 for a one hour shoot.  Your understanding with the model is that you can exploit the image commercially, and she is OK with that.  Your state requires a written release, but you don't bother because the model is OK with you using the image however you want.

A local company ends up paying you $25,000 to license the image (you tell them that you have a release).  The model finds out and decides she wants half the money.

If you had a written release, you could hold the model to the original agreement, or you could choose to give her more money.

Without the release, you better pay the model.

If you are going to have an understanding with the model, what's the harm in having that understanding in writing?   If the model wants the ability to revoke her approval, I want to know that.  I might treat the image differently if I know the model can make me take it down if she hooks up with a jealous boyfriend.

A model release is to define what the agreed usage is just like a photo usage license.

That way when the ad campaign is expanded to a wider territory or extended in time, the original fee is expanded also.

It's the imagined "what if" or the idea of selling photos to stock agencies that's created the belief that a release is a blanket agreement covering all uses.



Assuming the model has a legitimate reason for you to not use an image, why would you use it anyway? On a human level it's a terrible thing to do. Who cares about how much money it cost? There was no guarantee that you'd end up with a great photo, so don't take the risk of ending up without anything at the end of the shoot if you can't afford it - I'm talking about things having nothing to do with the model - the weather for instance. If you can afford the loss, then what reason is there that when someone is so upset by a photo for you to continue using it?

May be/might be/what it there's a reason? Like you're not very good and you can only get work because of that one photo, then go ahead and keep using it.

Michael Fryd wrote:

I am not aware of any state's right of publicity law that would require a release for a fine art print you hang in your home.

However, there might be a circumstance where other issues would require permission before displaying an image in your personal residence (i.e. the private place where you live, and not a place where you conduct business).

Suppose you shoot boudoir photos of an elementary school teacher which she will give to her husband.  The client's expectation was that the images would remain private.  You decide to hang one of these images in your home.  You invite some friends over, and it turns out that one of them is the principle of the boudoir client's school.  He recognizes her in the picture and fires her for inappropriate behavior.

Without permission from the model, you might have liability for violating the model's privacy.


Obviously, this is not a common occurrence.   As a general rule you don't need a release for a fine art print displayed in your home, but the rule is not absolute.

The client's imagined expectation? You don't need a release to display the photo in your home.

The client's expectation that they verbalized and you agreed you wouldn't show them? That's a breech of contract.



Absent an agreement, there's no physical object that you can own legally that you can't display on the walls of your home without a release.

If you buy a magazine, you can glue it to the wall. If you buy a photo book, you can cut it up and glue the pieces to some paper and stick it on the wall. You can buy a poster of Obama, draw a mustache on it and hang it on your wall. You can shoot a photo, make a print and hang it on your wall.

studio36uk wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
No, it most certainly is not limited to advertising. You need to read it again and carefully. Especially that part of §51 which carves out a limited, but conditional, exception.

Studio36

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
That specifies and you highlighted "continued use".

If you're using it, they demand in writing that you take it down and you comply, they're not being given the right to sue for damages/relief for the period of time it was used.

It's no different from having a release that has a termination clause.

Go back up to my post and see the part that I extracted from the legal blog on the subject of §51 on damages. Un-consented use is subject to damages for continued use after notice but also for compensatory damages arising from past un- consented use; but not punitive / exemplary damages which hinge on notice haveing been gioven and not complied with, Continued use after notice is what triggers the latter but it is not necessary for the former. The lawyers opine, and probably with good reason, that ANY un-consented use could involve some sort of damages claim for past use EVEN IF the images were taken down / off display after a notice was served.

You take from this what you will.

Studio36

So since the law doesn't say what you want it to, read a legal blog that's an opinion?

There's nothing that says someone is entitled to damages without continued use. The only exception is if the defendant knew that the person had not consented to the use.


But so what? What's your point, that it's smarter to have a release than to not have one? Of course and no one in the history of the world has ever argued that it's better to not have a release than to have one.


How about this scenario. You've got a properly written release and the model sues you. What if/maybe/might be/coulda/shoulda/woulda the model bribes the judge and you lose even though you did the right thing?


If your point is to define when a release is needed, then spell it out that way without maybes and might bes.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
...
Assuming the model has a legitimate reason for you to not use an image, why would you use it anyway? On a human level it's a terrible thing to do. Who cares about how much money it cost? There was no guarantee that you'd end up with a great photo, so don't take the risk of ending up without anything at the end of the shoot if you can't afford it - I'm talking about things having nothing to do with the model - the weather for instance. If you can afford the loss, then what reason is there that when someone is so upset by a photo for you to continue using it?
...

Let's assume the model does not have a "legitimate" reason.

Perhaps she has changed her hair color and no longer wants people to see her with her old look?

Perhaps she has become a diva and has decided no one should use her likeness without paying her at least $500?

Perhaps she married an jealous attorney who want's to be her "white knight" and eliminate evidence of her past?

Perhaps she needs money and is under the impression that going after photographers is the way to do it.


A model release (or contract) may not be needed in situations where everybody agrees, but it can be quite useful in situations where people disagree.   While my experience is that most models are quite reasonable people, I have found that there are a few models (and photographers) who are not.

I prefer to get a release so that it is clear to the model what I am allowed to do with the image, this helps minimize misunderstandings.

I prefer to get a release so that in the rare case that the model changes her mind and becomes unreasonable, I am not legally obliged to follow her whims.

Even with a release, should a model make a reasonable request, I will typically honor it.  Not because I am legally obliged to do so, but because I believe it is the right thing to do.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
So since the law doesn't say what you want it to, read a legal blog that's an opinion?

Some day you may learn that the law doesn't always actually say what it means to say, or in words that are both clearly understood and apply to the facts of every case - judges, however, do pronounce on such things. And when they do it is no more and no less than an "opinion".

Legal blogs are useful in that they usually represent a distillation of knowledge arising from case law, often unreported cases, and the learned experience of the practitioners. I certainly do not dismiss them so easily as you seem to do.

Studio36

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
The client's imagined expectation? You don't need a release to display the photo in your home.

The client's expectation that they verbalized and you agreed you wouldn't show them? That's a breech of contract.



Absent an agreement, there's no physical object that you can own legally that you can't display on the walls of your home without a release.
...

Sometimes there is a misunderstanding between parties, or the parties have different recollections.

The client may have assumed that the boudoir photos would be private.  Not being a professional, she may have assumed that these sorts of images would always be private.

The photographer may have assumed that the client realized that he is proud of his work, and is free to show it as art.

The photographer may have told the client he would hang the images in his house.  She may have agreed.  However, if she loses her job, she may "forget" that conversation and go after the photographer's liability insurance.

The client may have told the photographer not to display the images, and the photographer may have "forgot" that request as he didn't see any harm in displaying them in his home.


The exact contents of any verbal discussions and agreements would be difficult to demonstrate to a court.  You would be relying on which party was most persuasive, not which party was most accurate.

On the other hand.  If the photographer had a release, there is a good chance he would prevail without the issue ever reaching the courts.



Signed written documents can be very helpful in a dispute.  They help establish the facts of the actual understanding.  This is true whether that dispute is a contract issue or a right of privacy/publicity issue.


In the US, Free Speech rights are not absolute.  For instance, if you have a fiduciary responsibility to protect a client's privacy, you may not violate it (even if the violation takes the form of fine art).  An outside accountant doing your taxes isn't allowed to reveal the details of your personal life.   Perhaps he left a copy of your tax return lying around his home and a dinner guest read it.  The accountant didn't publish the data, but he did allow third parties to see it. 

A photographer taking private boudoir images has similar concerns.  A release documents that the client had no expectation that the images would be private, and grants permission for their use.




Commercial "speech" does not enjoy the same freedoms as personal speech.  An artist displaying a fine art piece in a gallery has more latitude than someone selling thousands of posters of an image.  A sample of your work hung in your home is not the same as samples hung in your studio in order to help your business.

Mark Salo wrote:
For TFP/Portfolio use, take a look at this release:
https://asmp.org/tutorials/photographer … lease.html

THIS!!

(..and this..)

https://asmp.org/tutorials/adults-model-release.html

Michael Fryd wrote:
The The Colorado chapter of the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has a warning about an Arkansas bill on it's way to becoming law.  Under this bill a Photographer anywhere in the US would likely need a release to use an image on his website, if the website was viewed by a person in Arkansas.

That's a completely ridiculous take-away.

The Arkansas legal system has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over what I post on my website (assuming it's not hosted in Arkansas - which it most certainly isn't), irrespective of what Arkansas resident views it.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

That's a completely ridiculous take-away.

The Arkansas legal system has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over what I post on my website (assuming it's not hosted in Arkansas - which it most certainly isn't), irrespective of what Arkansas resident views it.

Whether they are correct or not, the Colorado chapter of the American Society of Media Photographers disagrees with you.

I think it is fair to say that there is disagreement on this issue amongst knowledgeable people.   If the issue was absolutely clearcut and straightforward, then we wouldn't see these disagreements.

Personally, I prefer to get a release.  It's pretty clearcut that the photographer is better off with the release.

Michael Fryd wrote:
Whether they are correct or not, the Colorado chapter of the American Society of Media Photographers disagrees with you.

I think it is fair to say that there is disagreement on this issue amongst knowledgeable people.   If the issue was absolutely clearcut and straightforward, then we wouldn't see these disagreements.

Personally, I prefer to get a release.  It's pretty clearcut that the photographer is better off with the release.

If the Colorado  ASMP disagrees, show me where they say that Arkansas has any jurisdiction over the conduct of people/entities outside Arkansas in this matter - this reaches a new level of sensationalistic absurdity even for you, to be promoting.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
If the Colorado  ASMP disagrees, show me where they say that Arkansas has any jurisdiction over the conduct of people/entities outside Arkansas in this matter - this reaches a new level of sensationalistic absurdity even for you, to be promoting.

According to the Colorado  ASMP'a web site: "SB-79 is written to apply to all images used in Arkansas and to all individuals, so it can be applied to any image that was captured of any person anywhere in the world as long as that image can be seen in Arkansas."

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
If the Colorado  ASMP disagrees, show me where they say that Arkansas has any jurisdiction over the conduct of people/entities outside Arkansas in this matter - this reaches a new level of sensationalistic absurdity even for you, to be promoting.

Michael Fryd wrote:
According to the Colorado  ASMP'a web site: "SB-79 is written to apply to all images used in Arkansas and to all individuals, so it can be applied to any image that was captured of any person anywhere in the world as long as that image can be seen in Arkansas."

Yes, that is a kind of "long arm" provision in the statute. It may or may not have any real teeth in practical terms. IIRC Illinois has something similar. As does NY and other states. If an event occurs within the state [e.g the image is distributed there, say on an Internet page that can be viewed in their jurisdiction] they can also acquire jurisdiction on any dispute that follows from that and relies on a cause of action arising from the state's statute.

Getting their hands on the prospective defendant, if they do not reside in, or have other ties to, the state, is another matter altogether.

I've come across that once before in the Arkansas context where, and I won't go into the details, an Arkansas criminal statute claims the right to seek extradition of the accused from another state for a supposed offence that is committed in that other state [posting, shipping or causing to be made available certain materials] that results in the availability of that material by way of it's delivery in Arkansas and the particular supply of which breaches an Arkansas criminal statute, BUT where that is likely not an offence in the person's home state [or under any federal law]. I suspect that the proper response would be: "And good luck with that!" BUT, that said, if there is a criminal warrant issued, and that remains outstanding, I would also never want to have an encounter of any sort with law enforcement in Arkansas for any reason. Reason enough to avoid that state like the plague.

Studio36

Michael Fryd wrote:
According to the Colorado  ASMP'a web site: "SB-79 is written to apply to all images [i]used in Arkansas and to all individuals, so it can be applied to any image that was captured of any person anywhere in the world as long as that image can be seen in Arkansas.[/i]"

You do like to read things in their absolutely most ridiculously broad context.
"use" is the operative word here. My viewing an image on a website is not "use".
This likely is meant to apply to a scenario where an image's "use" is within Arkansas. Ie. it is published in an Arkansas publication or is used on a billboard or point-of-sale display within Arkansas. It's still a jurisdictional stretch, but you're misusing the meaning of "use" to further promote your agenda with this example.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
You do like to read things in their absolutely most ridiculously broad context.
"use" is the operative word here. My viewing an image on a website is not "use".
This likely is meant to apply to a scenario where an image's "use" is within Arkansas. Ie. it is published in an Arkansas publication or is used on a billboard or point-of-sale display within Arkansas. It's still a jurisdictional stretch, but you're misusing the meaning of "use" to further promote your agenda with this example.

Quoted from the Colorado ASMP's web site:

The implications of this bill are staggering. For example, an image showing recognizable people posted to the Internet for a use that would not require written consent anywhere else in the world could leave you open to a lawsuit just because someone in Arkansas could view it online.

SB-79 places an unprecedented burden on all photographers whose work could be viewed within the state of Arkansas to either get explicit consent from every individual whose likeness appears in all of their photographs or risk defending themselves in a lawsuit where they will have to shoulder the burden of proving the use of their photographs qualifies as an exempted use.

I think the ASMP's position is very clear.  Whether or not they are correct is a different issue.

Michael Fryd wrote:

Sometimes there is a misunderstanding between parties, or the parties have different recollections.

The client may have assumed that the boudoir photos would be private.  Not being a professional, she may have assumed that these sorts of images would always be private.

The photographer may have assumed that the client realized that he is proud of his work, and is free to show it as art.

The photographer may have told the client he would hang the images in his house.  She may have agreed.  However, if she loses her job, she may "forget" that conversation and go after the photographer's liability insurance.

The client may have told the photographer not to display the images, and the photographer may have "forgot" that request as he didn't see any harm in displaying them in his home.


The exact contents of any verbal discussions and agreements would be difficult to demonstrate to a court.  You would be relying on which party was most persuasive, not which party was most accurate.

On the other hand.  If the photographer had a release, there is a good chance he would prevail without the issue ever reaching the courts.



Signed written documents can be very helpful in a dispute.  They help establish the facts of the actual understanding.  This is true whether that dispute is a contract issue or a right of privacy/publicity issue.


In the US, Free Speech rights are not absolute.  For instance, if you have a fiduciary responsibility to protect a client's privacy, you may not violate it (even if the violation takes the form of fine art).  An outside accountant doing your taxes isn't allowed to reveal the details of your personal life.   Perhaps he left a copy of your tax return lying around his home and a dinner guest read it.  The accountant didn't publish the data, but he did allow third parties to see it. 

A photographer taking private boudoir images has similar concerns.  A release documents that the client had no expectation that the images would be private, and grants permission for their use.




Commercial "speech" does not enjoy the same freedoms as personal speech.  An artist displaying a fine art piece in a gallery has more latitude than someone selling thousands of posters of an image.  A sample of your work hung in your home is not the same as samples hung in your studio in order to help your business.

The fact that having a release could make some scenarios easier, doesn't have anything to do with whether there's a legal requirement.

I'm not interested in knowing whether there's a difference in hanging a sample of your work in your home or place of business, I'm solely interested in whether you believe that there is a time when you are legally required to have a signed release to hang a print of one of your photos in your home.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
The fact that having a release could make some scenarios easier, doesn't have anything to do with whether there's a legal requirement.

I'm not interested in knowing whether there's a difference in hanging a sample of your work in your home or place of business, I'm solely interested in whether you believe that there is a time when you are legally required to have a signed release to hang a print of one of your photos in your home.

You may not display images in your home and show them to guests when you have a legal responsibility to keep the images private.   

For instance, if a woman hires you to take boudoir photos intended solely for her husband, you may have an obligation to keep those images private.   Displaying them in your home, and then inviting guests for dinner may be a violation of that obligation.

A model release serves to document that you have permission from the model, that you are under no obligation to keep the images private, and that displaying the images is not a violation of her privacy rights.


So the answer is that while one generally would not need a release to display an image in your home, there are situations where you should get one.

Michael Fryd wrote:

You may not display images in your home and show them to guests when you have a legal responsibility to keep the images private.   

For instance, if a woman hires you to take boudoir photos intended solely for her husband, you may have an obligation to keep those images private.   Displaying them in your home, and then inviting guests for dinner may be a violation of that obligation.

A model release serves to document that you have permission from the model, that you are under no obligation to keep the images private, and that displaying the images is not a violation of her privacy rights.


So the answer is that while one generally would not need a release to display an image in your home, there are situations where you should get one.

You wouldn't need a release for photos you'd agreed to keep private since you wouldn't be hanging them.

Can you give an example of a time where you can not hang a print in your home without a release?

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

You wouldn't need a release for photos you'd agreed to keep private since you wouldn't be hanging them.

Can you give an example of a time where you can not hang a print in your home without a release?

Remember, that on a practical level, releases and contracts are needed when there is a disagreement. A release serves to document that you did not agree to keep the images private, even in situations where the model has forgotten that she gave you verbal consent.