# Shooting and model release form use



## cellomaster27 (Mar 31, 2014)

I hope I'm not repeating a topic that has already been asked/discussed.. 

So I understand that it is "legal" to take photos in public. Now concerning model release forms, do you just carry them around with a pen and have every person you photograph sign it? I know that sounds dumb but seriously there's too much "controversy" and grey areas and I hope to have some of that resolved with all you extremely knowledgable people. I have many great shots of people that I took in public places but do not post them online due to not understanding the whole scale of things. I appreciate it and hope to hear from many of you!!


----------



## distant.star (Mar 31, 2014)

.
What country??


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 1, 2014)

Well, I live in the US but have taken photographs in South America and Korea most recently. Some in Europe as well. And I guess I should add... What exactly is defining public places? When is it okay/legal to use your shots that you have taken? I've seen street photographers like Eric kim take photos but that's not my style at all. I love to shoot the moments, whenever I see an expression towards something.


----------



## agierke (Apr 1, 2014)

As I understand it, you do not need a model release so long as you don't use the images for commercial advertising. You would need the consent of the individual or individuals in the photo as long as their "likeness" is recognizable. Meaning that even if they are slightly out of focus, partially blocked or turned profile you would need releases for commercial/advertising purposes. 

Any reputable commercial entity won't dare publish a photo without all releases covered. I have been on jobs where a statue was in the background and the image got turned down because we didn't have the art release for it. On jobs where we are shooting in public areas, we usually have at least 1 or 2 assistants running around with an iPad to get releases on anyone who ends up in a shot.

If you are an amateur just shooting for fun then anything is free game in a public space. A public space is anywhere that isn't privately owned. So streets and parks are ok...shopping malls and casinos etc are not ok. You are free to use you amateur shots for artistic endeavors or for personal means without the need of a model release. That includes posting on the internet or showing in a gallery. 

Granted...there is what the law allows and then there is being honorable. I think people who shoot random girls in bikinis on a public beach and then post them online pretty creepy and kind perverted. But by law it's legal.

The law protects the individual from someone profiting from their likeness without consent but that's it. If you go out in public it's reasonable to expect you may end up in someone's photo at some point.

Oh...and general rule of thumb, don't mess with taking pictures of random children. Legal or not, it's just not worth the fury of a protective parent.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 1, 2014)

.
I know nothing about other countries, but agierke pretty much sums things up for the U.S.

The distinction is public vs private spaces. You can image anyone in public (or visible from a public space) with complete impunity. You can use those images for any non-commercial project -- share over Internet, print and hang in your house or exhibit in galleries, coffee shops, etc. Once you get involved in commerce, as ag said, you'll be required to provide documented, signed releases.

I'm not sure what you mean by "an expression towards something" or how your photography would be different than other so called "street" photographers you mention like Kim. I'd like to see some of your work.

And my usual disclaimer -- I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not providing legal advice. If you want the facts, go see a lawyer who specializes in communication/First Amendment law.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 1, 2014)

Distant Star's answer is correct. To expand a bit. 

This is a common topic and lots of guidelines are available. Here is the simplified explanation.

If you are in a public place, you don't have a right to privacy in the U.S. 

Thus, images for editorial or artistic purposes can be used without release and generally courts have provided a broad interpretation of editorial or artistic purposes. 

But, you do have a right to your name, your face and your reputation. Someone can't appropriate these attributes for financial gain without compensating you, no matter where you are. 

Therefore, images of a recognizable person cannot be used without a release if the purpose is to sell or endorse a product, service, person, etc. 

Example: I go to a public car show held at a local park. I take pictures and later post those pictures on my website without anyone's permission. No problem. 

Joe Smith calls and wants a print of one of the pictures for his study. It happens to show a car owner waxing his Ford. I sell him a print. No problem -- artistic purpose. 

John Smith is editor of Ford Lovers Digest. They are doing a story on the car show. They saw my picture of the Ford and its owner online and want it to illustrate the article. They pay me $100. No problem. Editorial purpose.

Smith Car Wax sees the picture in Ford Lovers Digest. Their wax can is clearly visible. They want to use the picture in some ads. They pay me $1,000. Problem. They are appropriating the car owner's reputation and image to promote a product without compensating him. He can sue and I'll be a defendant in the lawsuit.

However, to get technical, the person isn't suing because of any right to privacy. They are suing because someone is making money off their good name without fairly compensating them.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 1, 2014)

I can't resist making a horrible photography pun, but the issue is model releases and privacy is not black and white. ;D

Lawyers spend a lot of time trying to understand the ambigiously and sometimes contradictory legislation on this issue. Many of the laws are vague and, post 911, can be interpreted far stricter than in other times. Unfortunately, the courts have been inconsistant in their rulings on many cases. 

The extreme cases are easy to consider. If I take a close up picture of someone's face and use that photograph for commercial purposes where the representation of the face is the marketed aspect, I clearly need a model release. The other extreme of my taking a picture from on top a building where the people on the ground can't be identified, I don't need a model release (I may need a release from the property owners but that's an entirely different matter).

But what about allllll the types of pictures that fall inbetween these two extremes? There is about a 1,000 stops of legal dynamic range between these extremes. I wish there were solid consistantly enforced and interpreted rules concerning photography in "public". But there ain't. 

A traditional rule was that anything that can be observed, from public land, via unaided normal vision (what ever the hell that means) is considered not private. I can't go to my mailbox in my undies and expect privacy.

Does that mean I can stand on public property and using my 10,000 mm lens take a picture of someone on their property? Well typical of US law, the answer is yes, no, and maybe. Depends on the context. 

Many courts interpret the laws of privacy in the context of whether the person being observed (photographed) knows that they are being observed (photographed). Other courts don't. 

And this is the problem. The existing laws are unclear and the courts interpretation is often inconsistant. Also legislators don't really recognize this as a big problem so new legislation is not being written carefully or existing legislation being updated. The attitude seems to be "lets treat each case as it comes along" which defeats the overall intent of laws. 

This has only been made worse after 911. I used to be secure in avoiding taking any pictures of humans and instead taking pictures of buildings.... now I am suspected of being a terrorist if I take a picture of a shopping mall at christmas. 

I wish there was an answer for this issue. It *is* an important issue, especially when photographers are at risk of their camera's being confiscated and *accidently* damaged by security. 

Like many people here, I am a law abiding citizen. I want to follow the laws. Unfortunately, how the photography/privacy issue is being handled, I am finding myself in the position of not knowing what is and ain't allowed. And that's is not a good position to be in. Especially if the court decides, post facto, that I chose wrong.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 1, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I can't resist making a horrible photography pun, but the issue is model releases and privacy is not black and white. ;D



Yes, B & W it is not -- but a defining color is green.

If you have money, someone will use the law to try to take it away from you. If you don't have substantial amounts of money, you're largely irrelevant in the U.S.

As for bullies with badges, they will always be with us. There are more now that we have a police state and perpetual fear-mongering. Deal with them as you will.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 2, 2014)

When we are talking about commercial purposes, basically you making money off of the photo. In any form or purpose. For instance whether it be promoting your website to sell images/services or embedded pics in a youtube video. I have to agree with just about everything that you guys have posted.. but I do feel like acutance... not knowing what is right and wrong, in a sense that I don't want to get involved with the legal actions. 

I just like to shoot without thinking about the legal stuff. You look at photo competitions.. for example national geographic. I was going to enter the travelers competition with some street pics from South America. Problem, I didn't obtain any signed releases. -______- For me, the fact for obtaining releases?? ruins everything. It's like.. Hey! I shot a candid scene of you interacting with so and so while doing so and so. Can I get a release?? Seriously. Maybe that's all a part of photography that I need to accept and build on. It's just frustrating for myself. Maybe I'll go into silhouette street photography. HAHA Oh and I don't think that this has to do with being in a public setting or not. You just need releases. correct? (I hope I'm dead wrong)


----------



## agierke (Apr 3, 2014)

> for example national geographic. I was going to enter the travelers competition with some street pics from South America. Problem, I didn't obtain any signed releases. -______-



The reason for needing a release in that situation is that National Geographic is a commercial enterprise and can't publish photos acquired from a contest they run where they don't know/control the circumstances that those photos were taken under. In short...they are covering their butts. In contrast, their own stories fall under the editorial context and thus they probably don't need releases for all the individuals that appear in those photos.



> Lawyers spend a lot of time trying to understand the ambigiously and sometimes contradictory legislation on this issue. Many of the laws are vague and, post 911, can be interpreted far stricter than in other times. Unfortunately, the courts have been inconsistant in their rulings on many cases.



I disagree with this notion as it concerns the need of model releases, defining of a public or private space, and what defines uses of images for commercial or advertising purposes. Local courts may try to interpret existing laws but the Supreme Court is pretty clear about these issues and as far as I have heard has ruled consistently. Can you state cases that show ambiguity?

In my experience it's pretty b&w as to when I need a model release and how I can use an image that I take. I've never had a problem. If you need further clarification I would recommend checking out ASMP as they will have resources that will provide the definitive answers concerning these issues.


----------



## surapon (Apr 3, 2014)

cellomaster27 said:


> I hope I'm not repeating a topic that has already been asked/discussed..
> 
> So I understand that it is "legal" to take photos in public. Now concerning model release forms, do you just carry them around with a pen and have every person you photograph sign it? I know that sounds dumb but seriously there's too much "controversy" and grey areas and I hope to have some of that resolved with all you extremely knowledgable people. I have many great shots of people that I took in public places but do not post them online due to not understanding the whole scale of things. I appreciate it and hope to hear from many of you!!



Dear Friend, cellomaster27.
I am just professional Architect, Not the Lawyer, But I have the Great Lawyers for my Company. Yes, Now is the time that all Photographers like us must be careful, when we shoot some one, or some places----Yes, I have 2 documents in my pocket all the times---And I hope that all of my dear friends will copy and print these forms , and the laws in your pocket too------ It save my B__T so many times.
Enjoy.
Surapon


----------



## unfocused (Apr 3, 2014)

agierke said:


> > Lawyers spend a lot of time trying to understand the ambigiously and sometimes contradictory legislation on this issue. Many of the laws are vague and, post 911, can be interpreted far stricter than in other times. Unfortunately, the courts have been inconsistant in their rulings on many cases.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it isn't as difficult as people make it out to be. As I explained previously, people confuse right to privacy with appropriation. 

Right to privacy is almost never an issue with photographers (unless you are into taking pictures with hidden cameras in women's shower rooms – in which case you have more serious problems). Right to privacy only comes into play if a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy -- as in the shower case above.

If you are in a public place there is no assumption of privacy and therefore you can't demand privacy. Anyone can take your picture and there isn't much you can do. (It is possible that a picture could libel someone, but it is very difficult to prove and generally would involve an image that has been manipulated to defame someone. A picture that is merely unflattering is not libelous. This is for ordinary citizens. If you are a public figure, you have even fewer protections. And, public figure can be broadly interpreted. For example, if you have been accused of committing a crime, win the lottery, survive a train wreck, etc., you are likely to become a public figure, whether or not you want to be.)

Model releases aren't really of any value for privacy issues. In fact, just having a model release wouldn't necessarily make you immune to charges of libel, because libel has more to do with the use of the image, not the circumstances of how it was taken. 

Model releases are transactional in nature. They are designed to assure that the person posing for the picture receives fair compensation for the use of their image, name, etc. They are not needed for editorial content or artistic works. Magazines, Newspapers, television stations, etc. do not need model releases. Artists – and that would include street photographers – do not need model releases. Publications and artists are free to profit from their works without any model release. And, remember, the Supreme Court has applied the term artist very liberally so that it even includes strippers. 

Model releases only come into play when images are used for commerce. The example I used before was the case of someone at a car show waxing their car with "Brand X" wax and you selling the picture to "Brand X" for an ad campaign. That requires a model release.

Confusion does arise because people don't know what is or is not a public place. Shopping malls are private property and they have a right to restrict or forbid photography on their property. I have seen shopping mall security guards run news crews off their parking lots. Disneyland is private property so they have a right to restrict/regulate photography on their property. Obviously Disneyland takes a more liberal view, but remember you really don't have any "right" to photograph on their property. They are allowing you to do so, but if you violate their rules, they have every right to stop you or remove you from the premises. 

In recent years, some entities have become more restrictive in what they allow people to photograph. Again, this comes down to what is or is not a public place and whether or not you are "appropriating" their product for private financial gain. This is the area where things can be rather nuanced, but they are also very specific situations that most of us are unlikely to encounter on any regular basis. 

There are any number of quite good resources available for reading up on this topic. But, generally, people make too much of it.


----------

