| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/16/2011 10:30:10 PM · #1 |
| Okay, I know you need a model release when you are selling photos commercially on a stock site, but what about if I just want to sell prints from my website??? This all started when I was shooting some wakeboarders the other week, and they asked me if I had a site they could buy the prints from... So that got me thinking, why not put the shots up on DPCprints and have them order them from there. Of course, then I began to wonder, what if other people buy them? Do I need a model release from the wakeboarder? or are they just sold as art because its not commercial? Lastly, many of these guys are sponsored and I know many logos are trademarked, do I need to clone out the logos even though its not commercial? Truthfully I don't think its an issue because sponsors want to be seen so they usually want their logos out there... but I'm just trying to cover my bases... Anyway, what are your thoughts? |
|
|
|
07/16/2011 10:32:57 PM · #2 |
| I get model releases from EVERYONE I shoot. Better safe than sorry. |
|
|
|
07/16/2011 10:59:49 PM · #3 |
| Are they recognizable in the shots? If so, then for sure use a model release. They could always come after you for making money with their images. If they're not, fair game for you to sell. |
|
|
|
07/16/2011 11:14:14 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Marc923:
Are they recognizable in the shots? If so, then for sure use a model release. They could always come after you for making money with their images. If they're not, fair game for you to sell. |
Really??? I'm kinda surprised cause I know allot of people who sell prints of Street photography without any model releases. I thought for sure that as long as it wasn't commercial (i.e. selling to a company for an advertisement) then you didn't need a release. I mean, does an artist need a model release if he paints a persons portrait and sells it to a collector? I'm not asking this to be a smart ass... It just seems odd to me that DPCprints wouldn't ask for a model release, when stock agencies do, that's all... |
|
|
|
07/16/2011 11:14:31 PM · #5 |
double post... my bad
Message edited by author 2011-07-16 23:15:32. |
|
|
|
07/16/2011 11:31:45 PM · #6 |
Take a look at this case, it would appear you have the legal opinion on your side...
ETA: Better make sure you can claim it's art - so prep your arguments. ;)
Message edited by author 2011-07-16 23:35:08. |
|
|
|
07/16/2011 11:35:27 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
Originally posted by Marc923:
Are they recognizable in the shots? If so, then for sure use a model release. They could always come after you for making money with their images. If they're not, fair game for you to sell. |
Really??? I'm kinda surprised cause I know allot of people who sell prints of Street photography without any model releases. I thought for sure that as long as it wasn't commercial (i.e. selling to a company for an advertisement) then you didn't need a release. I mean, does an artist need a model release if he paints a persons portrait and sells it to a collector? I'm not asking this to be a smart ass... It just seems odd to me that DPCprints wouldn't ask for a model release, when stock agencies do, that's all... |
You need a model release. The only time you do not, is when it is for editorial use. You selling prints of them is for commercial gain.
Message edited by author 2011-07-16 23:36:39. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 12:07:52 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Take a look at this case, it would appear you have the legal opinion on your side...
ETA: Better make sure you can claim it's art - so prep your arguments. ;) |
Selling prints and displaying your images that people have to pay to see are two different situations. Usually in catalogues, the print already exists, you pay a monthly fee to hang it. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 02:16:51 AM · #9 |
| If the picture is of an individual, model release is needed, but if its a crowd, or the individual is incidental, no need. A shot of a cheering crowd does not require a thousand signatures, nor does an image of the folks on a parade float. When you pierce the expectation of privacy, then it is needed. If you will use the image for commercial gain. If it is a person in a group, in a public space, there is no expectation of privacy, but in these litigious days, better safe than sorry. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 01:54:29 PM · #10 |
first, if you haven't read bert krages' Legal Handbook for Photographers, you should, especially if you are shooting, selling, or giving advice...
second, i'll venture a few blanket statements, even though 1) these cases are all pretty much decided on their own specific merits, and 2) the actual laws vary from state to state (let alone from country to country). keep in mind, there are many differences between knee-jerk reactions, good taste, common sense, and what the laws and courts allow.
typically, "commercial gain" has nothing to do with it. "commercial use" generally takes two forms: 1) using someone's image or likeness to promote something, or 2) using someone's image on a mass-produced, mass-marketed product. an example of the first instance would be licensing an image to a company for use in an advertising campaign. an example of the second instance would be to put an image on 1000 coffee mugs or postcards that would be sold at truckstops and souvenir shacks.
a website is generally considered to be a virtual representation of a physical gallery. just as you can put a non-released image in your storefront window as an example of your work, you can put a non-released image in your online portfolio or on your homepage. however, just as you cannot put that same non-released image on a 1000 postcards and mail them out, you also cannot use that non-released image in an email campaign.
just as you could sell prints to people who walk into your gallery, you can sell prints to people who visit your site. the problem arises when you cross the line between selling one-off prints and mass-producing a print. the courts have held that producing and selling limited editions is protected, but mass-production is not (unless you have a model release).
even though there are plenty of exceptions, a key tenet of our court system is that it looks for reasonable behavior. if you have an online gallery, post a disclaimer to the effect of "these images were shot in public and are available for viewing or purchasing for personal use only. if you find yourself in an image and would like to purchase a copy, great! if your find yourself in an image and for whatever reason would like the image removed from the gallery, please let us know and we will do everything we can to accommodate you." if someone claims that your image of them is giving them heartburn, do what you can to be reasonable and accommodate them; however, if they're being unreasonable (like they're one in a crowd of a hundred and they're included in hundreds of images), you might politely let them know that you can't help them.
another way to safeguard yourself is by using a gallery system that allows you to make your galleries private. i use Exposure Manager; others use smugmug or similar sites. if you shoot a bunch of kiteboarders, you can approach them and let them know where they can see the images and what the password is. or you can get someone's email address and let them put the word around. doing it this way makes it less likely for someone to be able to come after you, because you're being reasonable and taking measures to protect their privacy.
lastly, the easiest way to handle this is to get model releases. krages' book includes a simple model release, one that could be printed on an index card. keep a stack of those in your bag and get comfortable using them, and you can avoid a lot of headaches and nightmares. |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 04:05:03 PM · #11 |
 Skip Thank you so much for your post and for clarifying... The model release is definitely the best way to go so that I don't have to worry about it. My issue with shooting wakeboarders is that this is a ski park, so there are at least 20 of them out there at any given moment, and to me, very few of them stand out. So getting a release has always been difficult because allot of times I can't tell who I shot, because most of them wear black helmets. Anyway, a friend of mine suggested handing out a card with my website on it, then have the photos on display (but not for purchase). Put a statement on the website that if they sign a model release, they would receive a 8x10 or 8x12 free print, and permission to use the photo on their website to promote themselves to sponsors... Most of these guys ride there every week, so I could just meet them there to get the release signed... Then just have a separate gallery of prints for sale (that have model releases), and a separate gallery of prints that are just for display purposes and don't have releases. Also, I would put a statement that says that if someone does not want their image on the website to simply email me with the photo title and I will remove if possible, although the way you worded it was better :) I'm thinking with all that, I should be okay... Any thoughts?
Lastly, I'm going to pick a copy of the book up too... Thank you very much for that suggestion... |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 05:30:48 PM · #12 |
you're heading in the right direction, ashley, but don't be so quick to give away the store, offering images for promotional use in return for their signing a model release.
keep it simple. if you put them in a gallery with a description to the effect that the images are for display only, and that anyone interested in getting copies or prints should contact you directly, you should be fine. you could go and talk to the guys and tell them that you want to put together a portfolio and that you'd be willing to trade images/prints for model releases (then focus solely on the ones you get releases for). then take shop that portfolio to the equipment manufacturers and stores to get commercial work. what you don't want to be doing is working for free.
you may even consider making pocket-book of your shots to show and then get the guys to pay you to shoot them, offering a discount or prints in return for a model release.
after all, what's the point of having a model release if you aren't going to use it ;-) |
|
|
|
07/17/2011 11:29:27 PM · #13 |
| Seriously Skip... thank you for all the advice. I'm really new to the business side of photography so I can use all the help I can get. I just wanted to say that I appreciate it and I may hit you up with a P.M. sometime in the future if I have any more questions. I am however going to grab that book that you mentioned and read it cover to cover... Thanks again... |
|
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: 07/31/2025 06:30:33 AM EDT.
