Please Release Me
[by Blake Discher]
Many photographers forget that their websites are a form of advertising and as such the individuals in the images must be released. ASMP has Property and Model Releases on it’s site, available to anyone, at www.asmp.org/releases. I keep copies of the simplified release in my camera bag and in my car’s glovebox. That way, even if I’m carrying a point and shoot while visiting a park with my son, I have releases handy.
6 Responses to 'Please Release Me'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Please Release Me'.
Very interesting. At The Center For Digital Imaging Arts at Boston University, the Professional Digital Photographer program provides a lot of discussion about Model Releases weaved throughout the curriculum. Every instructor emphasized that for self-promotional purposes — including business cards, promo cards, and websites — that NO RELEASE was necessary. We learned that releases were only necessary if the we transferred usage to another party for any purpose, commercial or not. It was also said that photography collections published in book form also did not require any releases so long as all the photos were copyright of the photographer.
So, with two very strong, competing opinions, where can we find primary references that concretely define if photographs used for self promotion of the photographer require a release or not?
Thank you.
??? So, if you’re a wedding photographer, and you want to post a group photo on your website, you need to get model releases from everyone in the photo?
I do not believe that to be accurate. It has been decided in several high courts that showing the work that one creates falls under fair and editorial use. While the work may be considered “advertising” by those who do not understand the difference, without croosing the line of third party endorsement, any and all photographs take legally by me are fair use for me to show as the product of my art and craft.
Can you imagine the potential law suits on Flickr, Picassa, Yahoo, MySpace, FaceBook et al? You are saying that a kid who posts a picture of him and his buddies hangin’ around the park would be an actionable and litigious event if he didn’t have the necessary releases. Nope.
I can show a photograph taken by me as my work product on my website. If I show cindy lou with text that says “I’m cindy lou and I think don is the best photographer in the world”, then that is considered third party endorsement and would cross the line into advertising.
However… I am a photographer, and that is how I make a living. Photographs are my work product, and without the ability to show it to potential clients wishing to hire me, I would be unable to continue business.
Like I say, I know this has been decided on several levels by several courts, but I was unable to find them through tonites locations slow internet speeds.
@Boston Portrait Photographer: For clarification, allow me to put this another way, if you are a professional photographer, AND, if your website is used to attract potential clients or customers, it is a commercial advertising vehicle. Your use of the likeness of any person on your website would likely be deemed an advertising use, and might violate right of privacy/publicity laws. These laws vary from State to State and there are exceptions, but not many.
The need for a model release does not depend on whether the image was transferred to a third party or not. Quite simply put, if you or anyone is using a person’s likeness for potential gain, you would be wise to secure a model release.
Worth noting, because the question will likely come up, is the question of editorial use. My friend Leslie Burns put it rather eloquently recently: “The reason that editorial usually doesn’t require releases is that the courts have decided that, in the balance, the freedom of the press is more important than an individual’s right to privacy/publicity. That’s it. Not because of anything dealing with profits.”
So unless you are a media outlet, if you are using a person’s likeness on your website, you should have a release on file for them.
——–
@Tom: Strictly speaking, yes. Keep in mind though that I am assuming you mean that group shot is on a publicly accessible page of your website and the website exists to get you more business.
The need for model releases can be boiled down to a very simple principle, and it really isn’t about advertising or money or third party endorsements.
It’s that we each have the right to control the use of our own likeness. When someone uses our likeness, without our permission, there is a violation of that right.
There are certain exceptions, like for newsworthy events, but it’s generally much more narrow than any of us realize.
Someone wrote me offline: “Self promotion is NOT a form of advertising as defined in copyright. Advertising is a third-party endorsement use of an image.”
Copyright law has absolutely nothing to do with the law regarding releases. Releases fall under the laws relating to an individual’s Right of Publicity.
At the end of the day, my advice is: get releases, always. I tell other photographers in my lectures: You’ll never have to say no (because the person is not released) to [insert big company here] when they see your great shot on Flickr of your mountain-climbing buddy and want to license it for an ad. It’s happening, companies are licensing images they find on crowd-sourcing photography sites. You never know!
“It’s that we each have the right to control the use of our own likeness. When someone uses our likeness, without our permission, there is a violation of that right.”
That’s not the case in the UK, I feel sorry for you if it is true in the US! I’m surprised US law is so different and restrictive.
In the UK you can use pictures of people on your website without their permission (there is an exception for commissioned wedding photography, you need the permission of whoever commissioned you, normally the bride and groom.
Simon