Street Photography Contest: Lens Culture

[Shadowman]

I was reviewing the rules for submitting images for this contest and was surprised that a model release was needed (4.3) for candid imagery but rule was vague for images considered photojournalism (4.4), the only stipulation for photojournalism was the ethical rules established by nppa.org and unicef.org. I can see why the model release would be necessary as any winning image will later be used for commercial purposes but if the image is considered photojournalism the model release stipulation seems to be relaxed.

https://www.lensculture.com/photo-co...mpaign=SP18-EN

[Merlin52]

HI John,

The way I read it is that rule 4.3 applies to any and all submissions.

4.3. You confirm that each person depicted in the photograph has granted permission to be portrayed as shown—and has the right to grant that permission. Any costumes, props or other materials used must be rented or borrowed with the permission of the owner, and all other relevant permissions must have been obtained.

Whereas Rule 4.4 is a further rule specifically applying to "news" et al type images.

4.4. Images that purport to be “news” photographs, reporting, photojournalism, or documentary photography, should comply with the ethical guidelines of the National Press Photographers Association (https://nppa.org/code-ethics) in general, as well as those proposed by UNICEF for ethical reporting on children .......

Quite how street photographers will obtain permission from (identifiable) members of the public in their images is beyond me, this sounds like a legal clause to cover LensCulture's onward use of the images and prevent them being liable if anyone in the picture takes out any action against them.

It's a shame that photography has now come to this imho, I expect it is the 'Net and the explosion of digital photography with images everywhere which has bought focus on the legality of snapping away on the street. Enjoy it while you still can...

[Shadowman]

HI John,

The way I read it is that rule 4.3 applies to any and all submissions.

4.3. You confirm that each person depicted in the photograph has granted permission to be portrayed as shown—and has the right to grant that permission. Any costumes, props or other materials used must be rented or borrowed with the permission of the owner, and all other relevant permissions must have been obtained.

Whereas Rule 4.4 is a further rule specifically applying to "news" et al type images.

4.4. Images that purport to be “news” photographs, reporting, photojournalism, or documentary photography, should comply with the ethical guidelines of the National Press Photographers Association (https://nppa.org/code-ethics) in general, as well as those proposed by UNICEF for ethical reporting on children .......

Quite how street photographers will obtain permission from (identifiable) members of the public in their images is beyond me, this sounds like a legal clause to cover LensCulture's onward use of the images and prevent them being liable if anyone in the picture takes out any action against them.

It's a shame that photography has now come to this imho, I expect it is the 'Net and the explosion of digital photography with images everywhere which has bought focus on the legality of snapping away on the street. Enjoy it while you still can...

Hi John,

I agree that obtaining releases could be tedious and putting the burden on the photographer does lessen the risk for the publisher to a degree. Regarding photojournalism it would appear, and I've read some legal arguments attesting; that newsworthy images are exempt from requiring releases and I would think it near impossible to obtain during some events, but this also brings forth the question as to where the line is drawn between newsworthy and typical candid shots. I think in some instances newsworthy and candid are one and the same, an example would be a street demonstration or parade.

[Manfred M]

John - if you look at the "Competition Gallery" you can see how most of the photographers have gotten around the model release requirement. My understanding is that a model release is only required when the subject's face is clearly identifiable. Take a look at the shots where the face is either not visible at all or obscured to the point where it would be a stretch to suggest that the face is identifiable. There are a couple of shots that would seem to fall into pure "news" shoots (the ones with the police officers in them, for instance) and a few others, so again, no model release would be necessary.

Also, while on the subject of model releases, don't forget that if you are shooting minors, then the model releases have to be signed by a parent or guardian.

[billtils]

John

This has been discussed here and in other sites a fair bit. There are two problems with any advice: 1) what is allowed will vary by jurisdiction and context (as in the journalism example), and 2) what is allowed is only allowed until someone sues successfully

In the UK the general rule is that any "ordinary person" in a public place is in a public place and can be photographed without express permission and the photograph used provided this is not done in a misleading manner. If the person is what we may loosely describe as a personality then they have a right to protect that investment.

Good manners and legal safety would suggest it is wise to ask permission rather than forgiveness. It would appear that the competition organisers are coming down on the side of safety

[Manfred M]

Bill - you are quite correct in the interpretation of who can be photographed in many countries. The issue isn't about what one is allowed to photograph, but rather the rules around publishing those images. When it comes to publishing, there are generally two high level distinctions that can be blurry at times. If the use is deemed to be commercial, then a model release is required. If private property is used for the shoot then a second release specific to using the property is often also required.

A commercial shoot will be when a third party uses the image; on-line ads, billboards, advertising, commercial publication tend to have those requirements. If one is using the image for personal use; posting on a website, selling a print, this tends to not require a model release. This is where the "ordinary person" filter can click in.

The other issue is jurisdiction. Here one has to comply with the rules of country where the publisher will be using the image, so if it is not your home country, the rules may not be known to the photographer and guidance from the publisher would apply.

[Shadowman]

John - if you look at the "Competition Gallery" you can see how most of the photographers have gotten around the model release requirement. My understanding is that a model release is only required when the subject's face is clearly identifiable. Take a look at the shots where the face is either not visible at all or obscured to the point where it would be a stretch to suggest that the face is identifiable. There are a couple of shots that would seem to fall into pure "news" shoots (the ones with the police officers in them, for instance) and a few others, so again, no model release would be necessary.

Also, while on the subject of model releases, don't forget that if you are shooting minors, then the model releases have to be signed by a parent or guardian.

Hi Manfred,

Somewhat aware of the laws regarding minors, should also include that a minor cannot contract with a photographer to do headshots, modeling work; at least that's the law in the U.S. as minors cannot enter into a legally binding contract.

Regarding the visible faces in the crowd, I think there's a test or analysis of the image used to determine if any one particular person might be conceived as the center of interest and this sort of puts me to mind of an earlier conversation on the "photographer's intent", when photographing a crowd of people is it possible to determine a photographer's intended subject or is the crowd as a whole the subject?

[Shadowman]

John

This has been discussed here and in other sites a fair bit. There are two problems with any advice: 1) what is allowed will vary by jurisdiction and context (as in the journalism example), and 2) what is allowed is only allowed until someone sues successfully

In the UK the general rule is that any "ordinary person" in a public place is in a public place and can be photographed without express permission and the photograph used provided this is not done in a misleading manner. If the person is what we may loosely describe as a personality then they have a right to protect that investment.

Good manners and legal safety would suggest it is wise to ask permission rather than forgiveness. It would appear that the competition organisers are coming down on the side of safety

Hi Bill,

I thought it worth bringing the subject back to the forum as it is timely based on the submission date for this particular contest and the rules of engagement are clearly (although still there's some vagueness and wiggle room) stated on the need for a release or as the John (Merlin52) stated, puts the emphasis of responsibility solely on the photographer. It isn't spelled out whether or not the releases are needed to collect the prize but I'm sure the organization might require some form of proof or argument that the photos qualify as photojournalism before the organization uses them in any promotional campaign.

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred,

Somewhat aware of the laws regarding minors, should also include that a minor cannot contract with a photographer to do headshots, modeling work; at least that's the law in the U.S. as minors cannot enter into a legally binding contract.

In other words it has nothing to do with photography, but rather that a minor cannot enter any legal contract. It's not just the USA, it is a common thread that runs through countries that use a Common Law. That's just a fancy way of suggesting a legal code that started in England and spread to its colonies and was continued after their independence.

Regarding the visible faces in the crowd, I think there's a test or analysis of the image used to determine if any one particular person might be conceived as the center of interest and this sort of puts me to mind of an earlier conversation on the "photographer's intent", when photographing a crowd of people is it possible to determine a photographer's intended subject or is the crowd as a whole the subject?

The legal argument has nothing to do with the photographer's intent, but rather legal precedent as established by the legal system. Common law, once again. While as photographers, we look at intent, the legal system tends to look at what the photographer has produced. Shoot the person from the back, and there will be no doubt that the person is not identifiable. Shoot a partially obscured face that has identifying features and things can get a bit trickier.

Just look at Competition Gallery in your link and in most cases, the situation is quite clear cut. The only real issue we face is we do not know whether or not model releases were presented with these images. That's something only the photo editor at the site would know for sure.

[William W]

. . . The issue isn't about what one is allowed to photograph, but rather the rules around publishing those images.

I concur.

The Competition requitement (for the Photographer to have and provide a "Model Release") is to allow the Competition Owners to PUBLISH those images for their COMMERCAIL PURPOSES.

So on the emotive issue - is really NOT about "it is a shame Photography has now come to this" - the "this" is not referring to the MAKING of the Photograph but is solely referring a person giving permission for the PUBLICATION of their image for the commercial gain of a third party.

I think it is a fundamental right that we should have control over what we appear to COMMERCIALLY endorse by any publication of our own image.

*

On the side topic regarding Minors and whether they can enter into contracts or not - in some countries it is a little more complex than simple "Minors cannot".

These variations (in lay terms) range from "cannot" to "can" and in the middle ground "may, but the contract will remain voidable by the Minor"

As a concrete example, for models' Portfolio Shots, some agents will accept signature of a youth aged between 16 to 18 years (still a "minor" where I work) - the point is, whilst that contract remains voidable by the Minor - why would the Minor want to void it unless they didn't want work?

WW

[Shadowman]

I concur.

The Competition requitement (for the Photographer to have and provide a "Model Release") is to allow the Competition Owners to PUBLISH those images for their COMMERCAIL PURPOSES.

So on the emotive issue - is really NOT about "it is a shame Photography has come to this" - the "this" is solely referring a person giving permission for the PUBLICATION of that person's image for the commercial gain of a third party.

I think it is a fundamental right that we should have control over what we appear to COMMERCIALLY endorse by any publication of our own image.

*

On the side topic regarding Minors and whether they can enter into contracts or not - in some countries it is a little more complex than simple "Minors cannot".

These variations (in lay terms) range from "cannot" to "can" and in the middle ground "may, but the contract will remain voidable by the Minor"

As a concrete example, for models' Portfolio Shots, some agents will accept signature of a youth aged between 16 to 18 years (still a "minor" where I work) - the point is, whilst that contract remains voidable by the Minor - why would the Minor want to void it unless they didn't want work?

WW

Bill,

I think the answer to your last question "why would the Minor want to void.." and I think the answer would be to simply not pay for the images if they are contracting for head shots. And why would the Minor not want the headshots, maybe they got a better or free deal somewhere else.

[William W]

Bill,

I think the answer to your last question "why would the Minor want to void.." and I think the answer would be to simply not pay for the images if they are contracting for head shots. And why would the Minor not want the headshots, maybe they got a better or free deal somewhere else.

My meaning was not a matter of paying for the images or getting out of paying for the images. There are essentially two "contacts" in this situation.

Firstly, the contract to make the images - that's akin to buying a service and that would be with the Photographer: for example me. How I'd organize to receive the payment is up to me: and in my case that would be pre-paid, fully or at least 50% then 50% on completion. This is akin to a Minor coming into a movie theatre and the Minor buying a ticket to see a movie - that's buying a service and typically when a Minor has entered into a contract to buy a service (or good) then that contract is typically NOT voidable simply because the purchaser is a Minor.

The Second "contract" (the one to which I was referring) is the "Model Release" and that is for an ongoing provision for the Agent (or Photographer) to use the Images for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. If the Minor chose to void this contract, then simply the Agent (or the Photographer) would not have the necessary tools (nor the inclination) to send the Minor any work.

WW