Legal issues. (Releases)

[Latka]

I've wanted to shoot more "on the street" stuff, but in reading through the two photo magazines I subscribe to I'm often reminded that you need a "model release" or something similar to ever use that image.

What have you used in the past, or what do you use currently? I don't mind talking to people, but saying, "Hey I just took your picture can you sign this?" sounds a little creepy. Any suggestions?

-Andy

[xurusaibobx]

thats a tough subject, while i tooked Photography back in HS and our teacher told us it was safe so long you werent using it business or in other words to make money... public domain....

[imagesbyk2]

Although its rude, You can take peoples pictures if they are in the public without their permission. If you are going to publish it, then you need a model release.

If the location is private property you also need a location release.

[taegu808]

I take loads of candids and post not publish is this skirting the law? though I'd love to get releases to put on istock or something. also if any logos are depicted you gotta' get releases for that. all this property rights stuff just gives me a headache when all I want to do is take a nice picture and share!

[spike109u]

I wouldn't bother with releases unless it's absolutely necessary. You really only need them if you're taking closeups of someone. I doubt anyone in the pictures you take will ever see them, and if they do, they won't bother looking for themselves in the background. Businesses shouldn't care about their logo either, since it is free advertising. Come on, who's actually going to sue you over being in a picture anyway?

[japaneezy]

if its from public property, you do not need a release, unless you are shooting a trademarked object or structure, such as the empire state building or something like that. most publishers require one in all cases though, just to cover their own asses. newspapers and other forms of news media usually get away with either no release, or a simple verbal agreement between the photographer and the subject.

[howzitboy]

my friend shoots calendars and he dont get releases cuz if they in a public place, no need one.

[asako]

what if you send it in to a newspaper or something for a "photo of the day" deal? are you infringing the "model's" rights?

[japaneezy]

depends

[asako]

wow. that's not ambiguous! hahaha jk

[Latka]

what if you send it in to a newspaper or something for a "photo of the day" deal? are you infringing the "model's" rights?

There's a difference between taking a picture and using it for profit and taking a picture and using it for news. The news guys are protected because of what they do.

Just because someone or something is in public does NOT mean that it's ok to include it for profit (ie calendars). I woudl be very careful of what I "shot". If there were identifiable people then I am pretty sure you need releases. Scenery? No. I can't get the Ko'olau Mountains to hold the pen right anyway. :)

[asako]

There's a difference between taking a picture and using it for profit and taking a picture and using it for news. The news guys are protected because of what they do.
:)



i know there's a difference...but the point is, is that when you submit somethign to a newspaper, yes, the news guys may be covered, but the individual who submitted the photo isn't really....