My understanding is that you definitely need the model release if you want to license the photo for advertising or stock purposes. You don't need the release for documentary or artistic purposes, but people are often advised to get the release anyways because the lines can be blurred (ie: sell many prints of a photo in which someone's face is prominently shown).

what if it's not a celebrity? For example a street shot has one person prominently seen in the photo and they are a complete stranger, I'm not even sure how you'd get a release....

You have to walk up to them and ask. Basically it doesn't matter unless you're using the photo in an advertisement or submitting it to a stock agency. You can post it online or hang it in an art gallery no problem.

I never get model releases for my pics (partly due to laziness and mostly due to the fact that I hardly ever sell any photos )

It's funny, I've never asked anyone either. I've never heard of anyone having legal issues over it, but I could see the issue happening for an advertisement. Especially if it's in a national magazine, etc..

The laws do vary by country. However, pretty much every country has people doing this type of photography, even when the law isn't on your side, and you don't really hear of them being locked up behind bars because of it. Why, though? It's not that big an issue on most people's radar.

In the U.S., you'll find endless information on the web about this, but long story short, it is definitely legal to do this type of photography, so long as it is, as other say, not for direct commercial gain (advertising, etc.). Canadian law is a bit more vague (except Quebec), but it is generally accepted that it is legal as in the U.S.

Quebec passed a law in 1998, however, requiring model releases for published (this includes just photos on your flickr page) after a teenage girl was made fun of by classmates because of a candid photo of her on a Montreal street being in a newspaper. Despite this, candid snaps of people still do come out of Montreal, Quebec City, etc. and there has been no prosecutions on the matter since 1998.

France, Germany, Denmark, and Switzerland (among others) have similar laws to Quebec. Despite the law technically not being on your side, a quick glance on the net will reveal many great photographers from Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, etc.

In short, if you are doing this for artistic or documentary purposes, in public spaces, you're going to be ok, even in France or Quebec. Although a bit of a grey area, you can technically sell prints/books/cards/etc I think, as long as they are for artistic benefit (even if making profits). Think about it, how else would you be able to buy prints of Fred Herzog's photos or books of Henri Cartier-Bresson's photos? Or perhaps less artistic, how do unflattering pictures of Angelina Jolie and Ben Affleck and Lindsay Lohan end up plastered of Celebrity magazine rags? I highly doubt they would approve of such photos of them if they were given a choice.

Of course, I do recommend you consult a lawyer or do your own research just to be sure if you are this curious about it.

any instagram users here? take note of their new policy coming january 16th - they can now sell your instagram pics without paying you or you even knowing that they have done so

if you think this policy change sucks you have until january 16th to delete your acocunt, after that date all your photos become theirs to sell...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...l-your-photos/

Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

In its first big policy shift since Facebook bought the photo-sharing site, Instagram claims the right to sell users' photos without payment or notification. Oh, and there's no way to opt out.

i don't know if its changed since i took photography at college but if the picture is to be published you neet the model release as well, and all that you needed the persons name and you had to tell them that this picture was going to get printed in the school paper in our case or be used in a class at school and that they were okay with that

now in the digital age places like forums, flickr, would count as being "published" and pics with people in them really should have model releases as well

In the US, if the photographer is taking photos of the public in the public realm where one has no reasonable expectation of privacy, then permission from the subject isn't necessary. This is true even even for children and for cops (as long as you aren't interfering with their police work).

But you should be prepared for interference nonetheless.

I highly doubt Fred Herzog was strolling Robson in 1969 handing out model release forms when he made his photographs there.

Sure a model release is nice if you want to be super-duper-squeaky-clean safe, but absolutely not necessary if you want to publish it for non-commercial purposes. If you're going for candid photography, it is incredibly hard to chase down people after the fact and explain and ask for a release. In fact, that's just a bit over the top. A great treasure trove of photography wouldn't exist if such ludicrous laws were de facto.

Even in news programs, there are often people shown live where clearly they are not signing releases. From your own city: this well known photograph from the Riots in 2011 didn't have the couple signing model releases or any other nonsense.

This is the same in all of the Anglosphere as far as I'm aware. Even in places like France with stricter privacy laws, many street photographers are able to go on photographing people unscathed. In cases where the act was brought to court, many judges have sided with the photographer despite the strict privacy laws in France.

We live in a CYA society, so model releases are probably a good idea, but they really aren't necessary if the photo is for non commercial use.

^ exactly true.

the for profit use or not for profit use is the key.

this topic is ever evolving, but my spouse worked for a major stock image company for like 5yrs in the oughties, so i know quite a bit about use of images.

basically --

regarding people, its ok if the use is not for profit.

if a for profit use, its ok if they are in the public realm and not singled out. if you single people out you need a signed release.

for structures, again its generally ok if not for profit.

if a for profit use, it depends. first of all, the owner of the structure must have first legally secured what is called image rights. then if you use their image the agency will come after you to charge for use. the fee varies on the use. usually, if you dont want to pay, they will just ask you to take it down. if you dont, they will most definately sue you.

for example, the chrysler building is the stock image industry poster boy. they have secured image rights and will go after anyone who tries to use an image of it for profit (you can use an image of it for profit if its in part a cityscape scene though, but that gets into a gray area).

this stuff varies over the years though, so you have to keep up with it.

here is a list of image rights secured places -- it may surprize you!

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contri...trictions.html

^ note -- keep in mind that is just adobe and there are several other major stock agencies to check if you are building an image laden website or something!!!


and lastly we get down here to ssp photo threads. if ssp runs at a profit, then images of specific people and places may be an issue. while unlikely to happen, the best solution is if somebody ever contacts you about having a problem something, just be cool and take the image down asap. :tup:

be aware --- a new scam issue has sprung up regarding photo rights:



News

The Unsettling Story of a Public Domain Photo Scam

Photographer Kyle Cassidy released one of his images into the public domain. Years later, someone else took credit for it.

by Valentina Di Liscia
1 hour ago


In 2013, photographer Kyle Cassidy uploaded one of his images to Wikimedia Commons and released it into the public domain. That means anyone can use it free of charge, even modify it, under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License — so long as they credit him properly.

Nearly seven years later, the photo was at the center of a bizarre scam involving affiliate links, a fake copyright enforcement company, and a Wikipedia user improbably named “Aldwin Sturdivant.”


more:

https://hyperallergic.com/612077/the...in-photo-scam/

Photography is the passion, I was about taking pictures on one public property.. then some security guards said, "Can you please not take any more pictures please? I replied that photos were taken to keep in my gallery not to publish...and he left me without making any problem

The Homeland Security angle is just what they tell the guards now - security guards at many if not most private, and public, places are told to prevent photographers, it was happening before 9/11 as well.

It can get to the point of absurd but the guards are the ones in charge of their little piece of property so you need to comply. Once you are on public property - then you can stand your ground and call on the police who are under the impression that everything not private property is under THEIR control.

Std. Oil is just stupid - I shoot fast and move on - but even an old white guy will get hassled there.


standing on THEIR plaza


From the sidewalk