| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/13/2004 03:12:01 PM · #1 |
I̢۪ve heard that you̢۪re supposed to be able to use them for journalism purposes and that you aren̢۪t supposed to sell them... is this true? What about grey zones like contests? Could you enter a non-model-released image into a dpchallenge contest? What about a paid contest or a professional portfolio? If you can̢۪t contact the subject are there any options?
Message edited by author 2004-09-13 15:12:57. |
|
|
|
09/13/2004 04:58:36 PM · #2 |
The rule of thumb is to get a release but even that won't guarantee you rights to use the photo. Sound confusing? It is. My last challenge entry had two total strangers to me but since you can't see their face and no real defining features I used it. Even with defining features I still post pictures. I submitted a picture of two children from Kiribati and it was used on the Weather Channel's website in a gallery. I thought the chances of those children seeing their picture on the Internet (where they have no electricity let alone computers) was about 0% so I used it. This is a very sensative area for most photographers and I modeled a release (no pun intended) after one I found online via a thread I posted a while back. I can try and dig up the thread for you if you want. Heck I can even send you a generic PDF that I made from the web version. Of course, if you use it and get busted, I take no responsibility. :)
|
|
|
|
09/13/2004 05:02:13 PM · #3 |
I can't help much with where you can use a non-released photograph, but I've read the same thing about not having to use a release for a photo used in journalism.
As far as releases go, I use the ones here: Photographers Forms |
|
|
|
09/13/2004 05:06:38 PM · #4 |
Print it and put it on your wall!
|
|
|
|
09/13/2004 05:24:20 PM · #5 |
Depends on the country. Here in canada, even for journalism you still need a release, especially if the model is under-age.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2004 06:17:04 PM · #6 |
| Greg, I'd love to get that pdf or a link from you. thanks- Daniel |
|
|
|
09/13/2004 06:25:37 PM · #7 |
| food for thought: so does an organization like national geographic get all the people in their magazine to sign model releases? obviously nobody's too upset if they're breaking rules... |
|
|
|
09/14/2004 01:21:46 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by teknon42:
Greg, I'd love to get that pdf or a link from you. thanks- Daniel |
I totally forgot to send it to you after I made some minor modifications. I had the date printed in there and that will do you little use. Otherwise, it's the same form and I'll mail it out to you tomorrow as I do not have a copy here.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 01:47:11 AM · #9 |
Laws definitely vary from country to country on this issue, and I believe it can get very complex.
Here, Australia, I can take a photo of you walking down the street and without your consent publish it in the paper, win the "International Bestest Ever Photo Ever" award, submit it to the "Bed-Hair of the Month" web site etc etc etc.
With model shoots you tend to get releases to cover yourself.
In France though I believe if you take that bestest ever photo of the stranger in the street you can't publish it without their permission.
Message edited by author 2004-09-14 01:48:25.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 08:00:07 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by teknon42:
food for thought: so does an organization like national geographic get all the people in their magazine to sign model releases? obviously nobody's too upset if they're breaking rules... |
it's all about money....if some lawyer/parent or money hungry model gets the idea that he/she/they can zap something from you they will.
as for National geographics, and others, they get special persmissions from the the Gov. of what ever country their in.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 08:07:41 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
Depends on the country. Here in canada, even for journalism you still need a release, especially if the model is under-age. |
what??? no...
If it is in a public place, you can take pictures till your hearts content. If you are going to use them for jounalism, ie. the newspaper, then no release is necesary.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 08:22:22 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by leaf:
Originally posted by Gil P:
Depends on the country. Here in canada, even for journalism you still need a release, especially if the model is under-age. |
what??? no...
If it is in a public place, you can take pictures till your hearts content. If you are going to use them for jounalism, ie. the newspaper, then no release is necesary. |
Nooooo! not if it's going into a "for profit" publication you can't!
even the news has to show the legs of kids when they go into a highschool since 1999.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 08:33:10 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by leaf:
Originally posted by Gil P:
Depends on the country. Here in canada, even for journalism you still need a release, especially if the model is under-age. |
what??? no...
If it is in a public place, you can take pictures till your hearts content. If you are going to use them for jounalism, ie. the newspaper, then no release is necesary. |
Nooooo! not if it's going into a "for profit" publication you can't!
even the news has to show the legs of kids when they go into a highschool since 1999. |
well... kids, perhaps is a different story, adults are not.
adults are a free for all with the news. (assuming they are not being accused of something, or shown in a defamitory situation)
|
|
|
|
09/14/2004 10:10:49 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by leaf:
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by leaf:
Originally posted by Gil P:
Depends on the country. Here in canada, even for journalism you still need a release, especially if the model is under-age. |
what??? no...
If it is in a public place, you can take pictures till your hearts content. If you are going to use them for jounalism, ie. the newspaper, then no release is necesary. |
Nooooo! not if it's going into a "for profit" publication you can't!
even the news has to show the legs of kids when they go into a highschool since 1999. |
well... kids, perhaps is a different story, adults are not.
adults are a free for all with the news. (assuming they are not being accused of something, or shown in a defamitory situation) |
yeah yeah, I was talking about kids. But we're not doing the news...and we are not "allowed" to use pics of people for commercial endeavor without "express written permission". Remember that guy that published a book of pictures of "street people" in 1997, turns out there was one vagrant that had a brother who was a lawyer, and the brother recognised his long lost halfling.....so the "loving brother" found is vagrant family member...had him sign a piece of paper...which entitled "good brother" to file suit in his name....for 90% of the revenue of course.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 06:26:10 PM · #15 |
thanks for your thoughts all
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 18:33:27. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 06:46:37 PM · #16 |
basically it varies form country ot country, however there is a general rule of thumb:
these days ALWAYS get a model release signed by the parents when photographing kids - to take snapshots of them in the street can even make you end up in the slammer for kiddie porn - its happened!
When photographing adults in a public area, if you can approach them and have a release on you - its always best to ask in case they're maybe on a witness protection program and there's a damn good reason they wouldn't want their picture used.
Usually though if you can't get a signature, there's no HARM as such in doing whatever you want with the photo - just always bear in mind, you might get a call from the subject one day, or even their lawyer- especially if the photo makes any money. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 07:33:44 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by leaf:
Nooooo! not if it's going into a "for profit" publication you can't!
even the news has to show the legs of kids when they go into a highschool since 1999. |
What's the deal with showing the legs? I can't think what they are trying to do there, but there must be a reason behind it.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 08:23:24 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Natator:
Originally posted by leaf:
Nooooo! not if it's going into a "for profit" publication you can't!
even the news has to show the legs of kids when they go into a highschool since 1999. |
What's the deal with showing the legs? I can't think what they are trying to do there, but there must be a reason behind it. |
Some weird Canadian fetish. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 08:53:04 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by leaf:
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by leaf:
Originally posted by Gil P:
Depends on the country. Here in canada, even for journalism you still need a release, especially if the model is under-age. |
what??? no...
If it is in a public place, you can take pictures till your hearts content. If you are going to use them for jounalism, ie. the newspaper, then no release is necesary. |
Nooooo! not if it's going into a "for profit" publication you can't!
even the news has to show the legs of kids when they go into a highschool since 1999. |
well... kids, perhaps is a different story, adults are not.
adults are a free for all with the news. (assuming they are not being accused of something, or shown in a defamitory situation) |
yeah yeah, I was talking about kids. But we're not doing the news...and we are not "allowed" to use pics of people for commercial endeavor without "express written permission". Remember that guy that published a book of pictures of "street people" in 1997, turns out there was one vagrant that had a brother who was a lawyer, and the brother recognised his long lost halfling.....so the "loving brother" found is vagrant family member...had him sign a piece of paper...which entitled "good brother" to file suit in his name....for 90% of the revenue of course. |
I worked for a paper for 4 years and I NEVER EVER needed a model release. I also freelanced for several mainstream newspapers, and also NEVER needed a model release. Even for kids. As long as you are not reselling photos for profit outside of the media, that includes not selling the newspapers stock photos for advertisements within the media.
Also, you do not need model releases from anyone within the "public eye" ie: stars, politicians, felons, ect... but you are not allowed to resell those photos for commercial and/or advertising purposes, unless you get permission.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 03:47:04 PM · #20 |
I'm going to jump into the fray ... if there ever was anything so misunderstood about photography!
Gil P ... you are really off track.
The laws in Canada are more along the lines of ...
Natator Here, Australia, I can take a photo of you walking down the street and without your consent publish it in the paper, win the "International Bestest Ever Photo Ever" award, submit it to the "Bed-Hair of the Month" web site etc etc etc.
And ericlimon is absolutely correct. I worked for a paper for 4 years and I NEVER EVER needed a model release. I also freelanced for several mainstream newspapers, and also NEVER needed a model release. Even for kids. As long as you are not reselling photos for profit outside of the media, that includes not selling the newspapers stock photos for advertisements within the media.
Also, you do not need model releases from anyone within the "public eye" ie: stars, politicians, felons, ect... but you are not allowed to resell those photos for commercial and/or advertising purposes, unless you get permission.
I have sold my stock photos (and written 4 books on the subject) for over 20 years ... and RARELY have ever had to obtain releases.
The reason many contests ask for releases is that they are taking the extra step (often unnecessary) to protect their butts. It's no work for them to include the extra clause.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 08:01:15 AM EDT.
