Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,514   Posts: 1,543,659   Online: 1025
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44
  1. #31
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Scenario:

    A photographer is working on an asignment for a pictorial magazine on city life. He photographs an apple vendor and the image is published as part of the story. Did he need a release from the apple vendor?

    A year later the photographer hangs a show in a gallery and the prints will be available for purchase. He includes the image of the apple vendor. Is a release from the subject required?

    Several years after that, a company that sells mass produced "art prints" in cheap frames for home decor asks to license the image for use in their product line? Is a release needed from the apple vendor?

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,060
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw
    Scenario:
    I'm thinking "no" to all of your questions.

  3. #33
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw
    Scenario:

    A photographer is working on an asignment for a pictorial magazine on city life. He photographs an apple vendor and the image is published as part of the story. Did he need a release from the apple vendor?

    A year later the photographer hangs a show in a gallery and the prints will be available for purchase. He includes the image of the apple vendor. Is a release from the subject required?

    Several years after that, a company that sells mass produced "art prints" in cheap frames for home decor asks to license the image for use in their product line? Is a release needed from the apple vendor?
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw
    I'm thinking "no" to all of your questions.
    I'm thinking I agree with Brian so long as the photog shot the apple vendor as "street" (i.e. never asked him to pose - even if the vendor, seeing he was being shot "chose" to strike a pose).

    Now if the apple vendor was located in certain cultures where taking a picture is akin to stealing one's soul - the photog may have greater problems than can be released via a "model release"!

  4. #34
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Ok, so now imagine the photographer making the same image has the intention of selling the image to the "home decor" reseller from the get go. He isn't a journalist and he doesn't hang shows in galleries. Is the answer different?

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,060

    More imagining

    Probably not. The only thing that would make it different in my mind is if the apple vendor was a hired actor/model and the apple cart was a set.

    I've heard about celebs who claim to have all rights to any usage of their image ( :rolleyes: ), even if captured in a public setting ... but in general I think that "right" is a figment of their imagination.

  6. #36
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    By my way of thinking one seldom ever needs to be concerned with model releases unless one is manipulating the activity of the subject (ie: making them a "model") or the person is a public figure who's image has intrinsic value.

    Asking for signatures on model release forms for street photography is a lot of bother over nothing, imho.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,060
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw
    By my way of thinking one seldom ever needs to be concerned with model releases unless one is manipulating the activity of the subject (ie: making them a "model") [b]or the person is a public figure who's image has intrinsic value.[/]

    Asking for signatures on model release forms for street photography is a lot of bother over nothing, imho.
    I agree with your opinion, except one. I don't think public figures have any more rights than the rest of us, nor any real control over how a legally-gathered image of them is used... so long as there is no harrassment in gathering the photo or defamation in its use. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised if I were. Courtesy and allowing those with public images is a totally different subject, of course!

  8. #38
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw
    Scenario:
    A photographer is working on an asignment for a pictorial magazine on city life. He photographs an apple vendor and the image is published as part of the story. Did he need a release from the apple vendor?
    A year later the photographer hangs a show in a gallery and the prints will be available for purchase. He includes the image of the apple vendor. Is a release from the subject required?
    Several years after that, a company that sells mass produced "art prints" in cheap frames for home decor asks to license the image for use in their product line? Is a release needed from the apple vendor?
    I would say the "Apple Vendor" has a valid claim for "fair compensation" from all three. The only question I would have is the "pictorial magazine", and whether or not the photograph could be classified as news.

    I think it would be accurate to note that "Compensation" in these cases might not amount to very much ... likely, not enough to justify pursuing a law suit.

    Rule of thumb: If money was mage. or there was a reasonable expectation that there would money made from the use in the future - a Model Release would be highly desirable.

    Another example:

    A model accepted an assignment that she was led to believe would be used in Advertising Copy for "bedding" - sheets, pillows, furniture (beds and mattresses). She posed wearing negligees, - the usual sensuous sleepwear - that sort of thing. She was paid, and signed a Model Release - the usual "boilerplate" deal - "Any and all uses, no matter how humiliating or degrading ..."

    Some months later, she stopped by her local Video Shop and found HER image - complete with negligee and bedding - emblazoned on the cover and back of an XXXX - rated Video - with the title of something like: "Debbie Does Cleveland Airport".

    Does anyone have an opinion of what would happen if she took the case to Court?
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  9. #39
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    I would say the "Apple Vendor" has a valid claim for "fair compensation" from all three. The only question I would have is the "pictorial magazine", and whether or not the photograph could be classified as news.

    I think it would be accurate to note that "Compensation" in these cases might not amount to very much ... likely, not enough to justify pursuing a law suit.

    Rule of thumb: If money was mage. or there was a reasonable expectation that there would money made from the use in the future - a Model Release would be highly desirable.

    Another example:

    A model accepted an assignment that she was led to believe would be used in Advertising Copy for "bedding" - sheets, pillows, furniture (beds and mattresses). She posed wearing negligees, - the usual sensuous sleepwear - that sort of thing. She was paid, and signed a Model Release - the usual "boilerplate" deal - "Any and all uses, no matter how humiliating or degrading ..."

    Some months later, she stopped by her local Video Shop and found HER image - complete with negligee and bedding - emblazoned on the cover and back of an XXXX - rated Video - with the title of something like: "Debbie Does Cleveland Airport".

    Does anyone have an opinion of what would happen if she took the case to Court?

    When you read "pictorual magazine," think National Geographic. Those shooters are photojournalists.

    In your scenario, the model has no recourse. She signed away all rights.

  10. #40
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw
    By my way of thinking one seldom ever needs to be concerned with model releases unless one is manipulating the activity of the subject (ie: making them a "model") or the person is a public figure who's image has intrinsic value.

    Asking for signatures on model release forms for street photography is a lot of bother over nothing, imho.
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw
    I agree with your opinion, except one. I don't think public figures have any more rights than the rest of us, nor any real control over how a legally-gathered image of them is used... so long as there is no harrassment in gathering the photo or defamation in its use. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised if I were. Courtesy and allowing those with public images is a totally different subject, of course!
    Brian has pretty much nailed it again except I'd add that, if anything, the public figure has fewer rights than someone else.

    If you choose to make yourself a person of "noteworthiness" (i.e. become a "public figure") your very persona and image can well be considered "newsworthy".

    This is the big thing with the "papparazzi" controversy. For example, a famous star cannot obtain "publicity" in a controlled format (e.g. a PR or studio release) and then legally object when her/his image becomes a popular one such that his/her daily comings and goings become "newsworthy events".

    Simply put, there is a downside to become a "celebrity" - you lose privacy.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin