Photographic Release Forms?

[john michael white]

What are the rules of getting a photographic release form for an image?  I have read up a little on the internet, and asked a few people, but the answers seem a little vague.  I think Zach may have posted somewhere about this, but I couldn’t seem to find it.

My understanding is that you do not need a release if the image will be used in editorial print (i.e magazine, newspaper, etc accompanying an article)….only if you are using it for commercial gain, as in selling it to a company to use in their advertising.  Or using it in free advertising where it could adversley affect the reputation of the model, i.e. some sort of advocay ad which the model does not support or consent too.  I also understand that most people shoot folks they are friends with, or their guides, etc, and they are just happy if their image gets into a magazine….so if you are really close and trust someone, you probably don’t need one.  But then again, should you always try to get a model release from anyone you don’t know well?

Now the tricky part.  My understanding is that if the image is to be posted to the web, i.e. your website where you may be selling prints (commercial gain) you should have a release form, either for the model, and/or the property, if it is easily recognizable to a person or entity.

The use of a property release seems to be a little more vauge…

[David Anderson]

I can’t really help with this because the law in the US might be different from here in OZ, but I will say that I don’t point my cameras at the kind of person that I think would have a problem with the use later.

I’ve never had a release signed for fishing stuff and never had a problem.
We do use them for work shoots where shots are being used for product stuff and the person is not being paid as a matter of course.

All my fishing buddies know the shots will/might/fingers crossed get into a magazine and maybe an ad.

There are some situations where a phone call is needed to be clear with the subject about the use and are they cool with it.
For example, I ask always ask Morsie (who’s with Sage ect.) before using a shot of him on stuff that’s not straight editorial – like a catalogue for a shop ect.

www.dsaphoto.com

A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.

[mike j]

What are the rules of getting a photographic release form for an image?  I have read up a little on the internet, and asked a few people, but the answers seem a little vague.  I think Zach may have posted somewhere about this, but I couldn’t seem to find it.

My understanding is that you do not need a release if the image will be used in editorial print (i.e magazine, newspaper, etc accompanying an article)….only if you are using it for commercial gain, as in selling it to a company to use in their advertising.  Or using it in free advertising where it could adversley affect the reputation of the model, i.e. some sort of advocay ad which the model does not support or consent too.  I also understand that most people shoot folks they are friends with, or their guides, etc, and they are just happy if their image gets into a magazine….so if you are really close and trust someone, you probably don’t need one.  But then again, should you always try to get a model release from anyone you don’t know well?

Now the tricky part.  My understanding is that if the image is to be posted to the web, i.e. your website where you may be selling prints (commercial gain) you should have a release form, either for the model, and/or the property, if it is easily recognizable to a person or entity.

The use of a property release seems to be a little more vauge…  How do you decide when and if you need a property release signed?  Obviously, if you took a picture of someone’s storefront, you might be wise to get a property release.  My understanding is that you need one if the property can be easily associated or recognized with a certain person or entity.  So what constitutes easily recognizable property?  As an example,….what about the fly bikini maneqquin picture I posted on a nother thread?  It has long been associated with one of our local fly shops.  People who have seen it, or visit the shop, may recognize it as the fly shop’s property and associate it with them.  Should I get a release in this situation?

I noticed that the generic forms I downloaded, had a notary public area for the property release, but not for the model release.  Does a property release need to be notarized, or is a simple signature sufficient as in a model release?

What about the fact that if you submit and image to a magazine for publication with an article, it is free press, but they also pay your for the images, therefore you are making some commercial gain??

I suggest you seek legal counsel.

[john michael white]

Here is the information that I found and the forms I have prepared, just in case….

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/AboutPropertyRel.php

There are forms located in the column at the right of this page for Adult model release, Minor Model release, Property release (which I am most concerned about), and Simple Pocket model release.

Some of these forms are written to totaly protect the photographer, but I can also see how it might put thoughts or concerns into people’s heads who you are asking to sign.  Yet in this day and age, I would think it is better to not shoot a subject for whom or which you might need to get a release, or to be willing to give up the shot if you can’t get a release signed.  It is pretty sad that you have to worry about all this.

Labrati, What in particular is the scoop with the National Parks??

[mike j]

just google commercial photography in national parks, you should get the NPS website, mostly geared towards film, but they will require still permits if they are having a bad day, the insurance requirement alone naming the us govt on your commercial liability policy can take weeks.

http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits

The NPS does not require a permit for still photographers, commercial or non-commercial, when going [anywhere] or doing anything that members of the visiting public are generally allowed to go or do without a permit.” In other words, as long as you’re doing the same things as other visitors to the area, and don’t break any of the usual rules, you shouldn’t need a permit.

# A permit is required if your photographic activities involve any of the following: Taking photographs that involve product or service advertisement or the use of models, set dressings, props or equipment too large to be hand-carried;
# the potential for damage to park resources or significant disruption of normal visitor use;
# entry into areas not open to the public or before or after normal visitation hours.

[mike j]

Let me elaborate on that last post…

[Author]

Posts