One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.
Quite simply, it's not that simple!
Whether you are photographing people who know they are being photographed, buildings you have been allowed to photograph or shooting 'on the fly'. If you want to place those images with a stock agency, sell them, syndicate them or publish them you are going to have to make sure that you have a signed model/building release form.
Rules on when you need this vary greatly from country to country and you can never expect a signed release form to be a fail-safe security blanket.
However, it's a vital first step into protecting yourself from expensive litigation.
they are three forms available here to cover the three basic requirements, a model release for adults, one for minors and one for buildings.
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: one of the other big mistakes photographers make is assuming that blanket statements cover every country's laws.
Yup, what about countries that don't require a model release? Because they don't have a Right of Publicity, or similar law that allows people to control how their likeness is used commercially? (which is basically the right that a model release waives).
Glen Berry
Posts: 2,757
Huntington, West Virginia, US
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.
One mistake some photographers make when they take photographs of other people, or of property they don't own, is to believe that they can use those photographs wherever and however they wish.
Yes. When I offer a legal opinion and people ask me where I went to law school, I'll just say "Law school? Who needs law school? I studied at Model Mayhem!"
Have you seen many photographers here claim they have a right to use images in ways they don't?
I rarely see that. I see photographers argue about whether or not they should get a release as a matter of course, even if it may not be needed, I see photographers who don't know how the issues vary from country to country, but it's rare I see a photographer claim that just because he has copyright, he can use the photo for anything he wants.
I see models who misunderstand their rights realted to photo use, much, much more often.
Regarding stock - simply submitting images will tell one quickly enough whether or not their submissions follow the rules, including the rules related to model releases. Not all the stock companies have the same requirements regarding releases either.
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.
Quite simply, it's not that simple!
Whether you are photographing people who know they are being photographed, buildings you have been allowed to photograph or shooting 'on the fly'. If you want to place those images with a stock agency, sell them, syndicate them or publish them you are going to have to make sure that you have a signed model/building release form.
Rules on when you need this vary greatly from country to country and you can never expect a signed release form to be a fail-safe security blanket.
However, it's a vital first step into protecting yourself from expensive litigation.
they are three forms available here to cover the three basic requirements, a model release for adults, one for minors and one for buildings.
There is a sizable portion of fail in some of what you wrote.
Others more schooled than I will likely be along and set you straight.
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.
Who believes that, if not a minority of new photographers who got somehow misinformed!?
I'm a freelance newspaper photographer, and I'VE been threatened with arrest and lawsuits more times than I can remember. But I do know the law in the good ole US of A. If you have a legal right to be there.. You have the right to take photos of anything in plain view... With the inside of a courtroom and military facilities being some of the few exceptions. My camera encodes my exact position via GPS so I can prove my photos are taken from public property. Where you get into illegal is if you use a massive zoom lens from public property to look into a private home thru a window where an expectation of privacy exists..that makes it illegal.
SoCo n Lime
Posts: 3,212
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
it is how the pictures and content are used that will provide the level of risk if you are talking about complaints being brought against you. common sense and even verbal agreements are enough.
if you intend to use that persons likeness for a purpose (commercially or to illustrate something) you would be advised to get permission and a model release form signed
for instance taking a picture of some random female having her lunch on a park bench out in the public area is fine in itself as you dont need permission to do so.. you can display as a good aesthetic picture. however if you then use or allow the use of this image to illustrate a story about obesity or how dodgy the neighbor hood has gotten or use it to illustrate an area where that person is not from then your starting to raise the risk of that person having an issue with how it is used if they indeed ever see it.. thats when your problems start.
companies using someone's likeness and knowing this information will understand that to be on the safe side of any issues being raised they may indeed ask for a model release form so that it then has no come back to them whats so ever (risk management).. some companies do some don't.. some individuals (aswel as photographers) will also have the same thinking that its better to have a model release and permission than not. but i can assure you there is no immediate need to ask anyones permission unless they are under age (school age) which means asking them and their parent/guardian cause of all the BS fever over any guy with a camera are upto no good. In the UK you pretty much have to make all the parents aware whats going on in any school event (in other words if anyone objects your shafted) or the school has to think about excluding that pupil from the event
shooting in public it tends to be fair game unless its age related
if its a private area then as long as you have permission to shoot in that area or to cover your butt even further you can put a visible sign up notifying that you are taking pictures in that area and they maybe recorded. just like the CCTV signs all over venues that use them
at the majority of any organized gig there is a level of expectancy that cameras will be and are used unless a blanket ban is in place so there is more to it than a sweeping statement. being aware and lowering the risk of issues arising are helpful but at the end of the day very few people will object to being recorded in an image. and even less will ever see the picture they're in. taking away the pictures taken by press photographers out of all the pictures taken in one day all round the world how many do you think will ever get back to the subject unless it was already pre arranged (very few i would suggest)
Where you get into trouble is when the person who buys the photograph uses it out of context.. I don't remember the case name right now.. But a case that happened years ago is a great example. A child model, with parental permission, posed for a photographer. Later that photo was purchased by a magazine and used in an article about "Children with AIDs". The model did not have aids, but was perceived to be because of the article.. The parents sued the photographer and the magazine.. The court fight went to just one level short of the Supreme Court who refused to hear the case.. The court of appeals ruled that the photographer was not liable because he had no control of how the photograph would be used after he sold it. And the magazine was not liable because of a lack of malice on their part. But it was an experience for all involved.
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: thks for reaction it that lately it start getting an big issue just trying to protect our photographers on M&M
well its just your statement is overly general and quite honestly not accurate in many parts of the world. You also included selling images to stock agencies and and for own personal use and even those two things are not the same in the least.
I'd like to comment but I'm in the middle of creating a thread in the Retouching forum to inform everyone on the laws of digital manipulation and usage worldwide.
Michael Fryd
Posts: 2,819
Miami Beach, Florida, US
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.
...
The other big mistake people make is to believe that without a model release the image can't be used at all.
The truth lies in between. There are many contexts where a release is required, and many where they are not. The exact rules vary from state to state and country to country.
Consult an attorney for reliable advice. Don't rely on advice from the web.
The other big mistake people make is to believe that without a model release the image can't be used at all.
The truth lies in between. There are many contexts where a release is required, and many where they are not. The exact rules vary from state to state and country to country.
Consult an attorney for reliable advice. Don't rely on advice from the web.
But if it is written on the web, and especially Model Mayhem isn't it true?
Michael Pandolfo wrote: I'd like to comment but I'm in the middle of creating a thread in the Retouching forum to inform everyone on the laws of digital manipulation and usage worldwide.
I really wonder why people blow in with threads that proclaim what "the law" is when they really don't know what they're talking about. This OP isn't the first and won't be the last though. It's puzzling.
At least qualify your statements with, "In my country ... ." Then maybe there won't be anyone here - a heavily US- and UK-centric site - who knows how wrong you are to correct your inaccurate information.
Edit: the one thing I'll say in the OP's slight defense is that there are plenty of US site members who do the same thing. It's not just a question of other countries' members making these blanket statements.
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.
Quite simply, it's not that simple!
Whether you are photographing people who know they are being photographed, buildings you have been allowed to photograph or shooting 'on the fly'. If you want to place those images with a stock agency, sell them, syndicate them or publish them you are going to have to make sure that you have a signed model/building release form.
Rules on when you need this vary greatly from country to country and you can never expect a signed release form to be a fail-safe security blanket.
However, it's a vital first step into protecting yourself from expensive litigation.
they are three forms available here to cover the three basic requirements, a model release for adults, one for minors and one for buildings.
In the United States it comes down to Usage, Editorial usage is pretty wide open. Commercial is were releases come in. So it really depends on which country you are based in.
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.
I thought it was that they think every picture they take is really valuable and worth a lot.
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.
Quite simply, it's not that simple!
Whether you are photographing people who know they are being photographed, buildings you have been allowed to photograph or shooting 'on the fly'. If you want to place those images with a stock agency, sell them, syndicate them or publish them you are going to have to make sure that you have a signed model/building release form.
Rules on when you need this vary greatly from country to country and you can never expect a signed release form to be a fail-safe security blanket.
However, it's a vital first step into protecting yourself from expensive litigation.
they are three forms available here to cover the three basic requirements, a model release for adults, one for minors and one for buildings.
Neither the photographer nor the stock agency has a legal need for any of these documents, only a practical one. It's the stock agency's customer that has the potential need.
In practical terms the service of clearing the photos is part of what they are paying for.
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.
Quite simply, it's not that simple!
Whether you are photographing people who know they are being photographed, buildings you have been allowed to photograph or shooting 'on the fly'. If you want to place those images with a stock agency, sell them, syndicate them or publish them you are going to have to make sure that you have a signed model/building release form.
Rules on when you need this vary greatly from country to country and you can never expect a signed release form to be a fail-safe security blanket.
However, it's a vital first step into protecting yourself from expensive litigation.
they are three forms available here to cover the three basic requirements, a model release for adults, one for minors and one for buildings.
It sounds like this was intended as spam to promote three specific legal documents the OP has somewhere (although he forgot to link to the products he was trying to promote - good one).
One mistake some photographers make when they take photographs of other people, or of property they don't own, is to believe that they can use those photographs wherever and however they wish.
There, that's better.
it all depends if you are making money and the if actual owners see that, otherwise photographers like myself are not worries since my pics of the girl next door aren't going in Playboy.
Erebus Media
Posts: 205
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, US
Let's see if I can get this answered...
So at a music video shoot I take a photo of someone...I email them the photo for noncommercial use...that photo ends up in a newspaper article...photo credit is not given to me...
is there legal issue that I am not seeing there? would it even be worth it?
pixel dimension ilusion wrote: they are three forms available here to cover the three basic requirements, a model release for adults, one for minors and one for buildings.
I have a devil of a time getting buildings to sign the releases. Effin' Divas!
| 
| 
| edu