HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2012, 6:12 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 11,815
My understanding is that you definitely need the model release if you want to license the photo for advertising or stock purposes. You don't need the release for documentary or artistic purposes, but people are often advised to get the release anyways because the lines can be blurred (ie: sell many prints of a photo in which someone's face is prominently shown).
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2012, 7:15 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 20,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
My understanding is that you definitely need the model release if you want to license the photo for advertising or stock purposes. You don't need the release for documentary or artistic purposes, but people are often advised to get the release anyways because the lines can be blurred (ie: sell many prints of a photo in which someone's face is prominently shown).
what if it's not a celebrity? For example a street shot has one person prominently seen in the photo and they are a complete stranger, I'm not even sure how you'd get a release....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2012, 7:22 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 11,815
You have to walk up to them and ask. Basically it doesn't matter unless you're using the photo in an advertisement or submitting it to a stock agency. You can post it online or hang it in an art gallery no problem.

I never get model releases for my pics (partly due to laziness and mostly due to the fact that I hardly ever sell any photos )
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2012, 7:26 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 20,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
You have to walk up to them and ask. Basically it doesn't matter unless you're using the photo in an advertisement or submitting it to a stock agency. You can post it online or hang it in an art gallery no problem.

I never get model releases for my pics (partly due to laziness and mostly due to the fact that I hardly ever sell any photos )
It's funny, I've never asked anyone either. I've never heard of anyone having legal issues over it, but I could see the issue happening for an advertisement. Especially if it's in a national magazine, etc..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2012, 4:15 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surrealplaces View Post
Just curious if anyone has had issues regarding taking people's pictures in a public area? Not so much issues taking the photo, but issues when selling the photo......issues such as having someone sign a release or anything like that? I have no idea what the rules are.

Recently I sold a photo that had actress Annabella Sciorra in it and after the fact, someone told me I might need to get her to sign a release....has anyone come across this situation?
The laws do vary by country. However, pretty much every country has people doing this type of photography, even when the law isn't on your side, and you don't really hear of them being locked up behind bars because of it. Why, though? It's not that big an issue on most people's radar.

In the U.S., you'll find endless information on the web about this, but long story short, it is definitely legal to do this type of photography, so long as it is, as other say, not for direct commercial gain (advertising, etc.). Canadian law is a bit more vague (except Quebec), but it is generally accepted that it is legal as in the U.S.

Quebec passed a law in 1998, however, requiring model releases for published (this includes just photos on your flickr page) after a teenage girl was made fun of by classmates because of a candid photo of her on a Montreal street being in a newspaper. Despite this, candid snaps of people still do come out of Montreal, Quebec City, etc. and there has been no prosecutions on the matter since 1998.

France, Germany, Denmark, and Switzerland (among others) have similar laws to Quebec. Despite the law technically not being on your side, a quick glance on the net will reveal many great photographers from Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, etc.

In short, if you are doing this for artistic or documentary purposes, in public spaces, you're going to be ok, even in France or Quebec. Although a bit of a grey area, you can technically sell prints/books/cards/etc I think, as long as they are for artistic benefit (even if making profits). Think about it, how else would you be able to buy prints of Fred Herzog's photos or books of Henri Cartier-Bresson's photos? Or perhaps less artistic, how do unflattering pictures of Angelina Jolie and Ben Affleck and Lindsay Lohan end up plastered of Celebrity magazine rags? I highly doubt they would approve of such photos of them if they were given a choice.

Of course, I do recommend you consult a lawyer or do your own research just to be sure if you are this curious about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2012, 7:40 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 31,553
any instagram users here? take note of their new policy coming january 16th - they can now sell your instagram pics without paying you or you even knowing that they have done so

if you think this policy change sucks you have until january 16th to delete your acocunt, after that date all your photos become theirs to sell...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...l-your-photos/

Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

In its first big policy shift since Facebook bought the photo-sharing site, Instagram claims the right to sell users' photos without payment or notification. Oh, and there's no way to opt out.
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2012, 7:42 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 31,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
My understanding is that you definitely need the model release if you want to license the photo for advertising or stock purposes. You don't need the release for documentary or artistic purposes, but people are often advised to get the release anyways because the lines can be blurred (ie: sell many prints of a photo in which someone's face is prominently shown).
i don't know if its changed since i took photography at college but if the picture is to be published you neet the model release as well, and all that you needed the persons name and you had to tell them that this picture was going to get printed in the school paper in our case or be used in a class at school and that they were okay with that

now in the digital age places like forums, flickr, would count as being "published" and pics with people in them really should have model releases as well
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2013, 1:18 AM
wrab's Avatar
wrab wrab is offline
Deerhoof Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,660
In the US, if the photographer is taking photos of the public in the public realm where one has no reasonable expectation of privacy, then permission from the subject isn't necessary. This is true even even for children and for cops (as long as you aren't interfering with their police work).

But you should be prepared for interference nonetheless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2013, 8:53 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
i don't know if its changed since i took photography at college but if the picture is to be published you neet the model release as well, and all that you needed the persons name and you had to tell them that this picture was going to get printed in the school paper in our case or be used in a class at school and that they were okay with that

now in the digital age places like forums, flickr, would count as being "published" and pics with people in them really should have model releases as well
I highly doubt Fred Herzog was strolling Robson in 1969 handing out model release forms when he made his photographs there.

Sure a model release is nice if you want to be super-duper-squeaky-clean safe, but absolutely not necessary if you want to publish it for non-commercial purposes. If you're going for candid photography, it is incredibly hard to chase down people after the fact and explain and ask for a release. In fact, that's just a bit over the top. A great treasure trove of photography wouldn't exist if such ludicrous laws were de facto.

Even in news programs, there are often people shown live where clearly they are not signing releases. From your own city: this well known photograph from the Riots in 2011 didn't have the couple signing model releases or any other nonsense.

This is the same in all of the Anglosphere as far as I'm aware. Even in places like France with stricter privacy laws, many street photographers are able to go on photographing people unscathed. In cases where the act was brought to court, many judges have sided with the photographer despite the strict privacy laws in France.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2013, 4:41 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 11,815
We live in a CYA society, so model releases are probably a good idea, but they really aren't necessary if the photo is for non commercial use.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.