legalities relating to 'model release forms' in the UK

[JDP]

I have a question regarding when a 'model release form' is required within the UK. Googleing around it seems that if you take a picture (anywhere) in which an individual is 'clearly recognizable' then you have to obtain their permission before you can 'publish' the picture (otherwise, I assume, they could sue you for damages).

Are there any experts on APUG that can confirm or advise on this? On the face of it this is very restrictive. Street photography is the obvious example. Are street photographers taking a risk?!

There appears to be a get-out clause for press photographers. If the picture is considered a news item then it is not covered by the legislation.

[Ian Grant]

If the person is not an implicit part of the image then it's debatable whether a release is necessary. It really depends on the use of a photograph, if it's being used for advertising then there's definite issues because many people stand to profit from the image, however bystanders etc in public places aren't an issue for publication in a newspaper/magazine or book.

Model release for advertising, verbal or written permission for anything else. Even then I've never used a model release, if a model's being paid and told what the images are for then it's implicit anyway there's a verbal contract, at that stage there may be an agreement that additional fees will be paid for other uses.

Ian

[wclark5179]

I error on the side of caution and always get a model release. It's contained in my contracts but I also get one if I use photographs that will be available for public viewing. If you're selling photographs, suggest always get a signed release. Of course, my primary photography focus is with people. I post very few photographs on my web site as I consider them private; they are for my clients. That's me; it's my philosophy, my way of doing business.

Why not get a model release? Is it hard to obtain? You may never need it, however, if you are, heaven forbid, taken to court and you don't have a release, then what?

Children are tricky. Suggest getting a release signed by both parents.

Years ago I never thought to take these measures but today, it's a different story.

Hope this helps you.

[Steve Smith]

You don't need any sort of permission or agreement to just take a picture - especially from a public place. The only time a release will actually be needed is if there is some sort of dispute and you need to prove that you have permission to use the image in a particular way.

There is no legal requirement as such.

However, some stock agencies/image libraries will cover themselves by insisting upon a model release for any recognisable person in an image.

Some UK relevant guidance here:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/u...srights-v2.pdf

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photog...-shooting.html




Steve.

[dainmcgowan]

you can take pictures of anybody, and even publish and sell without the need of a model release form.
if this wasn't true, then the paparazzo could not exist.

the only time you need a model release form is for advertising a product or election campaigns etc etc.

[Steve Smith]

Model releases are similar to contracts. If everything goes smoothly, no one will ever need to look at it. It's only when something goes wrong or differently to one party's expectations that the contract and or release is needed to see what was actually agreed upon.


Steve.

[JDP]

Thanks for the replies, especially the links from Steve. Reading those it seems views differ. The first article is quite cautious and paints a difficult picture for a street photographer, the second one is more relaxed about it and seems to say 'it should be ok', though does mention model release forms. I guess there is no one answer, and at the end of the day any dispute would be decided in court....

[AgX]

you can take pictures of anybody, and even publish and sell without the need of a model release form.
if this wasn't true, then the paparazzo could not exist.

the only time you need a model release form is for advertising a product or election campaigns etc etc.

The paparazzo thing is based on the person being of "public interest", which is an exclusion to the right of controlling the publishing of ones image.
At least within german legislature, and seemnigly elsewhere.

[Steve Smith]

The paparazzo thing is based on the person being of "public interest", which is an exclusion to the right of controlling the publishing of ones image.
At least within german legislature, and seemnigly elsewhere.

In the UK there is no legal definition of 'public interest' or 'celebrity' or anything similar. Everyone is treated as equal by the law.


Steve.

[AgX]

I am surprised!! But then those paparazzi should have a problem.

But the OP's issue is different anyway. It is about taking photographs of ordinary people in the streets of the UK and publishing them.