"Legal" question

[Digital]

This question has probably been addressed previously in CiC; however I am in need of an answer.
I have recently opened a website, and would like to post pictures on this site for advertising only.
Do I need to obtain permission from the subject of the photo before posting on the website?

Common courtesy would dictate that I address this with the subject of the photograph. That is a given in my mind.
However if you can not locate the subject am I legally within my right to post the photo anyway.
I have put a statement on the website notifying the viewer that the photos presented are for advertising only.
Any assistance concerning this matter would be greatly appreciated.



Bruce

[Manfred M]

Bruce - I'm not sure if we have any lawyers (and more specifically lawyers that understand intellectual property law) as members, as this would be a question for them.

One thing that I can tell you is that no major corporation would post / publish a picture of a subject that they do not have a signed model release for, for commercial purposes. That is the only way they would have to prove that they have the model's permission to use the image. It certainly sounds like your use deal with "commercial purposes".

I had worked on an internal company project that involved videos and images of company employees that we were developing for employee communications and training purposes. Our corporate legal people made us get signed model releases for any employees that we shot and might be used in the material we were producing.

[Digital]

Manfred, thanks for your response. You are correct in assuming that this advertising is for commercial purposes. I fully realize that if I attempted to sell these photos to a third party for whatever use they had in mind, that I would definitely need a model release. I may need to consult an attorney that is familiar with the particular issue I am dealing with.

Bruce

[Shadowman]

Does your advertisement suggest that the model represents a specific product? If so, then yes it would be a commercial venture and would need a model release. The linked website will provide additional info for reference.

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

[Digital]

John, your response was very helpful. It appears that I will need a model release or at least written permission from the subject that I can use his/her photo for my photography business. If I understand correctly each photo would represent a "product" - my photography business, and all that it entails.


Bruce

[Digital]

For anyone interested in this topic I downloaded a model release last evening. For $15.00 USD I received unlimited use of the release.

Web address: www.LawDepot.com

Bruce

[Cantab]

For anyone interested in this topic I downloaded a model release last evening. For $15.00 USD I received unlimited use of the release.

Web address: www.LawDepot.com

Bruce

Bruce, I hope the release works out for you. But I'll make a comment that I've made in other threads. Laws vary from country to country and, in federal states such as the US and Canada, can vary even within the same country. What may be a correct statement of the law in country/state X may or may not be correct in country/state Y. I'm retired lawyer; if I need legal advice on something important, I pay to see a practising lawyer.

[Digital]

Bruce, I hope the release works out for you. But I'll make a comment that I've made in other threads. Laws vary from country to country and, in federal states such as the US and Canada, can vary even within the same country. What may be a correct statement of the law in country/state X may or may not be correct in country/state Y. I'm retired lawyer; if I need legal advice on something important, I pay to see a practising lawyer.

Bruce, thanks for commenting. I agree with you entirely. I should have clarified in my earlier post that the model release is "apparently" tailored to my particular state (Georgia). Also the Better Business Bureau (BBB) give this site an acceptable rating. I do not know whether the legal forms available on this site would be applicable in other countries. I should have clarified that. After reviewing I am satisfied that this release certifies that I have the right to use the photo I took for any legitimate reason (e.g. advertising).

Bruce

[Manfred M]

Bruce, I hope the release works out for you. But I'll make a comment that I've made in other threads. Laws vary from country to country and, in federal states such as the US and Canada, can vary even within the same country. What may be a correct statement of the law in country/state X may or may not be correct in country/state Y. I'm retired lawyer; if I need legal advice on something important, I pay to see a practising lawyer.

Quite right Bruce - in Canada, property rights are under Provincial jurisdiction and copyright law is Federal. The boundaries between jurisdictions can be quite murky. I'm not a lawyer, but did a fair bit of work (before retirement) with my company's IP lawyer, the moment you cross international borders, especially in countries with legal systems not based on Common Law; well I'm just glad there are people out there who are experts.

[DebraM63]

Hi:

I have posted to the forums about photo releases before and am still confused. If it is, lets say, a horse park and you are there as a "freelance" photographer by permission of the property owner to take photos of the event to post on your website for sale to the participants in the event, reading what it says in the link you posted, it sounds like I don't need a model release.

QUOTE: "Placing photos on websites for the purposes of selling them does not require a model release. It is what courts have called a vehicle of information (that the photo is for sale). The buyer of the photo may need a release if and only if the nature of its publication would trigger the need for a release."

So I don't need a release if I was given permission by the property owner to shoot photos of the event with the intention of increasing my portfolio and selling photos to those who want to purchase as I understand it. Correct?

[Cantab]

Debra, I've read the two sentences you quoted. I have no idea what they mean in practical terms and I have no idea whether it's good law in California, where you live. All I can suggest is that you see a California lawyer.

[DebraM63]

Debra, I've read the two sentences you quoted. I have no idea what they mean in practical terms and I have no idea whether it's good law in California, where you live. All I can suggest is that you see a California lawyer.

I am going to speak with a lawyer about this specifically but generally as I read it, if you are lawfully in a place you can lawfully take photos. I am specifically interested in the rules of specific events.

I have had a situation where I was allowed to take photos for my portfolio only - no social media or outside sales - because it was a private working ranch. We worked that out and everything was fine.

I have another event that I want to take photos of and just spoke with the owner. It is fine I can take photos. She did mention something about a photo release. It seems like this should be part of the the show brochure so they know there will be a photographer on site taking photos.

These photo releases don't seem to be so much about someone giving you permission to take their photo as much as it is a release of liability for the photographer if someone in this "everything is on the internet" age gets a hold of a copyrighted photo and without the photographers permission uses the photo inappropriately somehow. The release that is signed keeps the photographer from being liable in a case like that. As I read it, I have the rights to the photos and to use them in a non commercial fashion, for my own business promotions, sales, fine art, etc.

Otherwise, in California, it seems pretty simple. Generally, according to AVVO, a lawyer referral site for California, "photographers are entitled to take photographs while standing in a public place of subject matter in plain view. Courts are loathe to recognize a right to privacy for persons and things in public. If you can lawfully be in a place, you can lawfully take a photograph of something in plain view."

However, if you are on private property, as I was on that ranch, the owner of the property can set the rules of photography. Which I complied with in that case.

So at this next venue, a horse park, I would expect that if the owners of that property says I can be there taking photos of any given event, it should be fine. I don't think this would be so much of a problem at specific events where people expect there might be a photographer. After that, if I have permission to be there and yet, someone doesn't want their photo taken for some reason, and they asked me not to, I wouldn't take photos of them.

I have always asked permission to be there and have not had any problems thus far.

But its still a bit of a gray area in my opinion.

[Digital]

Debra, I want to start off by saying I am not an attorney. That being said, I do not feel comfortable placing any person's picture on any media for any reason without asking their permission. In my very humble opinion, if the person does give you their permission, then they should have no problem in signing a model release. What I have stated, applies to me. Lately, I have been taking portraits of people to use on my website to advertise only. If the person does not want their photograph shown, I do not show it.
Your situation sounds different, and, as stated, I am not a legal expert.

Bruce

[William W]

I am going to speak with a lawyer about this specifically but generally as I read it, if you are lawfully in a place you can lawfully take photos. I am specifically interested in the rules of specific events. [etc through to end] . . .

Hi Debra –

I am not an expert in the laws governing all aspects of Photography in California, nor am I a Lawyer.

However I have worked as a Photographer and also a Technical Media Manager in Atlanta, Georgia (and for that matter also Victoria Canada) and in those roles I have been required to have a very good understanding of the broad aspects of the laws pertaining to Photography and also Usage.

(BTW I am in continual dialogue with close professional colleagues in California and as I understand, the Georgia State Laws are very similar in this regard).

That background now mentioned: it occurs to me that your last commentary reflects that you are still confusing the Laws applicable to a Photographer’s right to MAKE a Photograph, with the Laws governing the USAGE of a Photograph.

In your previous thread I have already outlined the general and main groups of the rules/laws which are applicable to Stills Photography in most Western Countries.

These are:

1. "Right to Photograph”
2. “Copyright”
3. “Model Release”
4. “Property Release”
5. “Usage Right”

For your convenience the link is here – Reference Post #40.

***

Also, it occurs to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding at the most; or at the least a misjudgement of what might be loosely termed: “usage for commercial purposes” and this is evidenced by your position which is stated here, (my bold for emphasis):

I have another event that I want to take photos of and just spoke with the owner. It is fine I can take photos. She did mention something about a photo release. It seems like this should be part of the show brochure so they know there will be a photographer on site taking photos.
These photo releases don't seem to be so much about someone giving you permission to take their photo as much as it is a release of liability for the photographer if someone in this "everything is on the internet" age gets a hold of a copyrighted photo and without the photographers permission uses the photo inappropriately somehow. The release that is signed keeps the photographer from being liable in a case like that. As I read it, I have the rights to the photos and to use them in a non commercial fashion, for my own business promotions, sales, fine art, etc.

My advice is that you seek advice to specifically define: “use them in a non commercial fashion” BEFORE you USE the photographs for “my own business promotions, sales,”

WW

[William W]

. . . I do not feel comfortable placing any person's picture on any media for any reason without asking their permission. In my very humble opinion, if the person does give you their permission, then they should have no problem in signing a model release.

Logical. A sensible "no frills" business approach.

***

. . . Lately, I have been taking portraits of people to use on my website to advertise only. If the person does not want their photograph shown, I do not show it.

Same, sensible "no frills" business approach. Extremely UN-likely you will ever ruffle any feathers.

There appears to be much "common sense" lurking in Carrollton Georgia.

Good luck with your business.

WW

[Digital]

Bill, thanks for your kind comments.


Bruce