| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2007 08:34:50 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by virtuamike:
I don't know how you could go to court over portfolio images. Maybe stating a specific law or case might help?
|
Because, as soon as you show it to a potential client it becomes a published image and can result in civil liability. That liability often falls to the publisher of an image, so portfolio images are even more important in protecting the photographer's butt than they are for stock photographers.
IMO, I wouldn't post a nude image to DPC without a signed release, because I'm a working professional. Hobbyists generally are ok w/o a release. I'll see if I can find some specific case law for ya in a bit, but I'm just going on stuff I remember in Journalism school (YEARS ago).
Anyway, I persoanlly don't want to be the one people study about, so I make sure my butt is covered and hope the same for the rest of you.
Message edited by author 2007-07-24 20:35:49.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2007 08:44:21 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by virtuamike:
I don't know how you could go to court over portfolio images. Maybe stating a specific law or case might help?
|
Because, as soon as you show it to a potential client it becomes a published image and can result in civil liability. That liability often falls to the publisher of an image, so portfolio images are even more important in protecting the photographer's butt than they are for stock photographers.
IMO, I wouldn't post a nude image to DPC without a signed release, because I'm a working professional. Hobbyists generally are ok w/o a release. I'll see if I can find some specific case law for ya in a bit, but I'm just going on stuff I remember in Journalism school (YEARS ago).
Anyway, I persoanlly don't want to be the one people study about, so I make sure my butt is covered and hope the same for the rest of you. |
No, that would be displaying, not publishing.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2007 11:27:36 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by virtuamike:
You don't need a release to put a shot into your portfolio. |
If you are using a portfolio to sell your services, you sure do need a release. |
i agree with your thoughts from a common sense standpoint, but this statement is not true. photographers may display images in their studio windows and in their online galleries without a model release, as those uses are considered samples of works that can be viewed by a visitor. you need a model release, however, if you were to put one of those images on a public billboard or if you were to include it in a broadcast email. |
|
|
|
07/25/2007 12:08:00 AM · #29 |
| A contract may help quell a possible angry husband's verbal or physical actions, if any happened to be like that. |
|
|
|
07/25/2007 01:35:32 AM · #30 |
If there's anybody with an opinion may think it's illegal, there's someone who will try to make it illegal, or say it is, regardless of the truth. So I think with all safety and honesty, you should confer with the model and be open and honest. If you might want to use her shots, ask, but be sure she signs a piece of paper that says whatever the two of you agree on. It's just safer. Reguardless of if your never going to use it, or if you're going to make business cards out of an image, you want that model to know exactly where she's going to be, so she's not surprised if she sees it.
My 2 cents anyway.
Good luck. |
|
|
|
07/25/2007 11:43:23 AM · #31 |
| Whether or not a release is needed, I like to use one anyway. I like to read over it with the customer, so they know exactly what they are signing. That way, there can be no problems in the future. Why risk an hassles down the road? |
|
|
|
08/01/2007 11:16:51 PM · #32 |
"this statement is not true. photographers may display images in their studio windows and in their online galleries without a model release, as those uses are considered samples of works that can be viewed by a visitor. you need a model release, however, if you were to put one of those images on a public billboard or if you were to include it in a broadcast email."
The statement IS true. Here's why...
The elements for the invasion of privacy tort of appropriation is that the plaintiff must be identifiable from the appropriated likeness, the name or likeness must be used for trade or advertising purposes, and the use must be unauthorized. Lets look at all three...
1) the plaintiff must be identifiable from the appropriated name or likeness. This one is easy. If one displays a picture of another person and that person is identifiable, this element is met.
2) the name or likeness must be used for trade or advertising purposes. If one uses the picture(s) in question in an effort to be hired to perform a photoshoot or promote their photography business, it is clearly a trade purpose.
3) the use must be unauthorized. Easy again. If he person in the picture(s) did not give permission for the image to be used for the trade purpose this element is met.
As you can see there is not display vs. publish distinction. |
|
|
|
08/01/2007 11:23:36 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Chaos_Earth:
The statement IS true. Here's why...
As you can see there is not display vs. publish distinction. |
Thank you, I had actually started looking for that and well, forgot about it...
|
|
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: 08/24/2025 04:38:09 PM EDT.
