Photograph ownership questions - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/06/2004 03:26:26 PM · #26

Originally posted by Digital Quixote:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yes, that was my point. You are being photographed at all times ...

Still, there seems to be a difference between being photographed at all time ... and what can be done with the photos. That's probably the real point of the thread.

Absolutely ... I tried to clarify the distinction as best as can be done without a specific case.

LindaLee

Canon EOS-40D

07/06/2004 06:53:00 PM · #27

Originally posted by TerryGee:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
You own copyright to the photographs, but could be liable for damages if you use them for "commercial purposes" without model releases from all recognizable persons in them.

-Terry

"commercial purposes"
That is the part I am trying to get more information on.
Does that include using photos on my website and business cards? Or is it strictly related to selling prints?
Also, is it illegal to take candids and post them on the internet without permission? Everyone does it, but that doesn't mean a thing.

I am in a situation of having prints for sale of a particular person, but no model release, and I, also, am trying to determine my "legal standing".

Several years ago I photographed a local reenactor who is very well known. I photographed him with his complete consent to all photographs. All photographs were taken at a public Civil War Days celebration. He said that there was no need for a model release because he gave me permission to do whatever I wished with the photos. I have prints of him that I offer for sale, and though no one has said anything to me, I found out that he was estranged from his entire family, but they live in this area. I am now concerned that the family might say or do something about my prints.

Any thoughts?

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/06/2004 07:23:03 PM · #28

Ihall - the family does not have standing to sue you unless the man is mentally incompetent. Otherwise, he or a company he's licensed his likeness to are the only ones with standing to sue you.

M

LindaLee

Canon EOS-40D

07/07/2004 05:21:21 AM · #29

Originally posted by mavrik:

Ihall - the family does not have standing to sue you unless the man is mentally incompetent. Otherwise, he or a company he's licensed his likeness to are the only ones with standing to sue you.

M

Thanks for the reply Mavrik. I forgot to add that the gentleman in question died this past winter, so there is no one to "back up" the fact that he gave me permission to use the photographs however I choose.

Also, I know for a fact that he never licensed his likeness to anyone.

My husband has suggested that I see an attorney in DC for advice on this. I have a lot of Civil War reenactment photos from public events, that I have been asked to sell, but obviously, due to the very nature of reenactments, have no formal model releases for.

I won't be seeing the atty. for several weeks, but will post what I find out from him.

Thanks!

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/07/2004 09:36:31 AM · #30

I'll give you a little bkgd for your visit with the attorney:

If this comes down to a matter of your word against theirs, an oral release will probably not save you. In court you would not be able to use his "it's ok" even to introduce as evidence. Heresay rules prohibit the words other people said to you from being used in court except under special circumstances.

However, if they sue you, you could always negotiate with them. Tell them what you'll give them, or explain the situation or ... there are always options.

Let me know how that meeting goes, but get written releases wherever you can.

M

LindaLee

Canon EOS-40D

07/07/2004 06:03:53 PM · #31

Thanks Mavrik! I agree that regardless of what comes of it,there are options. I'll get back to y'all after the lawyer meeting, just for curiousity sake.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/07/2004 06:16:16 PM · #32

Originally posted by mavrik:

Given the situation you were probably in, it's not at all impossible someone else (another reenactor?) heard you make the agreement with the gentleman in question ... their testimony as to what he said probably is OK to use ... also, if you made similar agreements with other reenactors it would lend credence to your position that this was your routine method of "doing business" with them, and that they had seen you shooting photos at the event, likely including the ones with which you're concerned.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

07/07/2004 07:14:10 PM · #33

Originally posted by GeneralE:

it's not at all impossible someone else (another reenactor?) heard you make the agreement with the gentleman in question ... their testimony as to what he said probably is OK to use

ACTUALLY
I was just doing a little light reading.

Words that form a contract are not hearsay. If model releases are contracts, she could use his own words.

However, if a model release is not a contract (doesn't seem to be - is it supported by any sort of consideration?), then my original answer stands, even to the other witnesses. Similar agreements with others would be evidence, but if other actors have a habit of agreeing to these releases and this one doesn't, it may not have much weight.

(Whoa, all that bar study may actually be helping!)

M

piercedJon

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

07/12/2004 11:12:25 PM · #34

In the UK, public events and people in public places are often reguarded as ok to shoot....

Public events and places may have thier own coverage rights, but it is up to them to enforce them either prior the event or the the contract of the sale of access to the venue, or the "you cant take that camera in there m8" style.

in the uk there is less of a right to privacy when in a public place, so a shot of a couple snuggling up infront of a cafe is ok to shoot... if they are a couple playing away from thier partners and the shot goes into every magazine and screws up thier relationship to thier partners... that is thier problem, not the photographers.

Getting a couple of friends to cuddle up, and taking a posed shot requires a release... especially if you are going to use the shot for stock as the photo may be used out of context, your two friends wont be happy if a newspaper decides to use them on an side line to people having affairs! or say coffee shops are a haven for swingers, lol.

There was talk about changing the UK laws over photographing in public, but the general test does seem to be personal damages... was it a shot of an event where someone was caught being norty, or was it a shot of someone being norty at an event... a very small difference, but does in almost every time come down to "if in public, then the subjets fault" unless the phtographer went out of his way to catch someone up to something, knowing the subjects where in a compromising situation... ie, "a shot of someone with someone that is not thie partner, and i the photographer know it."

UK, and very much US, law is based on "intent" coming from the same generic concept.

Anything posed does require release, even if a friend... get them to sign a release.

I did a shoot of a charity bike ride last week, I dont need a release because the event was public... As I was stood at the side of the road takin "pics" there was no prior agreement that I was photographing them, even tho they knew I might do so. Had I said "can you come past at x time, and do yz" then there would have been a verbial contract, so potentially a release would have been required. Even an off the cuff shot of people infront of a sign was not a contract requiring release... again public event, and just a "snap shot" had i said "can you turn up at 10, I want to take a pic of you both infront of the sign" then I would have asked for a release.

I know one area in the UK where the current law has not been tested, but the mags dont wish to push the point yet.... that is where someone in an "adult" context has non concentual public in the shot... Ie, someone "posing" a flash with people in the background, in that case the background people are blured out... as are trade marks. A streaker at an event is however fair game including supprised background people, if it cannot be shown that it was set up by the photographer and streaker on a "model" style of set up.

If you are in doubt, then best not to....

If you feel, im shooting an event, just happens people are there... then go for it.

Otherwise every shot in say a car race would require everyone in the backgrounds to sign a release!

Its very much down to gut instict.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/12/2004 11:26:25 PM · #35

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
it's not at all impossible someone else (another reenactor?) heard you make the agreement with the gentleman in question ... their testimony as to what he said probably is OK to use

ACTUALLY
I was just doing a little light reading.

Words that form a contract are not hearsay. If model releases are contracts, she could use his own words.

However, if a model release is not a contract (doesn't seem to be - is it supported by any sort of consideration?) ...

I'd interpret it as a recognition that there is something of (potential)value, and constitutes an explicit release of any lien on any such potential value, perhaps analogous to a quit-claim deed.

You could always tape two cents to your business card and give them that ... :)

Hye5

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/13/2004 12:18:24 AM · #36

Originally posted by mavrik:

A model release would be considered a contract. In this case, assuming it can be proven, an oral contract. Most modern courts find consideration to exist under most circumstances (i.e., there doesn't need to be an actual exchange of goods or services). A simple statement in a written contract along the lines of "For valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree...." Most any court would find that to be sufficient. In the case of this oral agreement, the court would likely find the potential publicity and enhancement of his career to be sufficient consideration.

Sorry, just had to put in a few words myself :)

Lyssa

Nikon D100

07/27/2004 01:01:18 PM · #37

I have an ownership question and a question of liability. I was asked to take photos for a club that had a fairly well known blues musician playing a concert. A year later I have been approached and asked if I would donate one specific photo to a silent charity auction. The coordinators of this charity event have told me that the musician has agreed to sign 10 copies of this photo and it is only to be made available for this event only and he has agreed to the release of the photo. Due to circumstances and timing, I can not get a signed release from the musician prior to handing over the photograph. .

Should I be concerned?

Thanks all,
Lyssa

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/27/2004 02:18:02 PM · #38

How about concerned, but not worried. Why don't you make your (written) agreement to donate the prints contingent on the charity obtaining the release? Of course, it would be nice if you could get a general release yourself so you could use the image too ...

David.C

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/27/2004 02:33:28 PM · #39

Originally posted by Lyssa:

I have an ownership question and a question of liability. I was asked to take photos for a club that had a fairly well known blues musician playing a concert. ...

Should I be concerned?

Thanks all,
Lyssa

Who asked you to take the photos, and does the club agree you have the right to do anything with the photos taken on their private party (much like the stadium arguement earlier in the thread)?

David

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/27/2004 02:55:18 PM · #40

(whoops, posted to wrong thread...)
If you really want to get the low-down on your rights as a photographer, you might want to check out 'Legal Handbook for Photographers' by Bert P Krages, Esq from Amherst Media. It covers EVERYTHING from privacy and tresspassing to wildlife endangerment and national security.

Check it out at //www.krages.com/lhp.htm.

I'm not kidding. The stuff this guy arms you with can really give you a lot more confidence about the consequences when you pop the shutter...

Message edited by author 2004-07-27 14:58:48.