View Single Post
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2013, 8:53 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
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
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.
Reply With Quote