DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Myths about Photo releases
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 5 of 5, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/29/2016 06:49:48 PM · #1
Can anyone shed some insight on this??

One of the members from another group posted this, I found it quite interesting..

I am not sure what to think about this

Myths about photo releases
02/29/2016 07:04:44 PM · #2
It all sounds about right to me. Very sensible article.
02/29/2016 07:23:00 PM · #3
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It all sounds about right to me. Very sensible article.

With some impracticalities ... while the (legal) burden of having/obtaining a release may fall with the ultimate publisher of the image, most designers will not license a stock image unless the release has already been obtained, and therefore stock agencies require the photographer to obtain releases for images for which releases could required before accepting them.

You might want to review this thread ...
Originally posted by Skip:

first, if you haven't read bert krages' Legal Handbook for Photographers, you should, especially if you are shooting, selling, or giving advice...

second, i'll venture a few blanket statements, even though 1) these cases are all pretty much decided on their own specific merits, and 2) the actual laws vary from state to state (let alone from country to country). keep in mind, there are many differences between knee-jerk reactions, good taste, common sense, and what the laws and courts allow.

typically, "commercial gain" has nothing to do with it. "commercial use" generally takes two forms: 1) using someone's image or likeness to promote something, or 2) using someone's image on a mass-produced, mass-marketed product. an example of the first instance would be licensing an image to a company for use in an advertising campaign. an example of the second instance would be to put an image on 1000 coffee mugs or postcards that would be sold at truckstops and souvenir shacks.

a website is generally considered to be a virtual representation of a physical gallery. just as you can put a non-released image in your storefront window as an example of your work, you can put a non-released image in your online portfolio or on your homepage. however, just as you cannot put that same non-released image on a 1000 postcards and mail them out, you also cannot use that non-released image in an email campaign.

just as you could sell prints to people who walk into your gallery, you can sell prints to people who visit your site. the problem arises when you cross the line between selling one-off prints and mass-producing a print. the courts have held that producing and selling limited editions is protected, but mass-production is not (unless you have a model release).

even though there are plenty of exceptions, a key tenet of our court system is that it looks for reasonable behavior. if you have an online gallery, post a disclaimer to the effect of "these images were shot in public and are available for viewing or purchasing for personal use only. if you find yourself in an image and would like to purchase a copy, great! if your find yourself in an image and for whatever reason would like the image removed from the gallery, please let us know and we will do everything we can to accommodate you." if someone claims that your image of them is giving them heartburn, do what you can to be reasonable and accommodate them; however, if they're being unreasonable (like they're one in a crowd of a hundred and they're included in hundreds of images), you might politely let them know that you can't help them.

another way to safeguard yourself is by using a gallery system that allows you to make your galleries private. i use Exposure Manager; others use smugmug or similar sites. if you shoot a bunch of kiteboarders, you can approach them and let them know where they can see the images and what the password is. or you can get someone's email address and let them put the word around. doing it this way makes it less likely for someone to be able to come after you, because you're being reasonable and taking measures to protect their privacy.

lastly, the easiest way to handle this is to get model releases. krages' book includes a simple model release, one that could be printed on an index card. keep a stack of those in your bag and get comfortable using them, and you can avoid a lot of headaches and nightmares.
02/29/2016 10:03:08 PM · #4
thanks so much!!
03/05/2016 08:04:38 AM · #5
thanks for reposting that, paul :D

to expand and summarize, the reality is that you can do pretty much whatever you want until you are told to stop by someone with the authority to stop you. that someone may be a property owner, a security guard, a police officer, or a court of law. if you know your rights and feel what you are doing is within your rights, then you decide how far you want to push the point (or how much money you want to spend and whether it is worth it).

as to releases, i can mostly agree with heller's points. as the liability for misappropriating someone's image is squarely on the image publisher, they would prefer to push their obligation down to the point of origin: when the photographer takes the photo. this request can come directly from the publisher, or through the licensing agency - which is why stock agency's require model releases!

so, go shoot! be happy! and don't worry about the paperwork unless you are planning on selling stock photos through an agency requires it.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 07:14:48 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 07:14:48 AM EDT.