selling photos of people

 > I understand that pictures of people in editorial photography (e.g., in
 > magazines) does not require a model release, but commercial (to promote a
 > product) does. How about art? I sell nature photos locally, and am
 > considering doing some surfer shots. The subject would be recognizable.
It
 > could be note cards or matted/framed prints. I don't think I need a model
 > release, but if I saw someone selling my image, I might be concerned.
 >
 > The "right thing to do" would be to try to identify and track down the
 > subject and get a release. But they might require payment up front, which
 > is not an economically-viable solution. I could offer a good discount on
 > the photos. What is the legal requirement (California)? What do others
do?
 >

I'd offer them a print as payment, if the image is saleable then I'd imagine
the subject would love to have one too.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:04:06 -0800, "zeitgeist"
<blkhatwhtdog.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

 >
  >> I understand that pictures of people in editorial photography (e.g., in
  >> magazines) does not require a model release, but commercial (to promote a
  >> product) does. How about art? I sell nature photos locally, and am
  >> considering doing some surfer shots. The subject would be recognizable.
 >It
  >> could be note cards or matted/framed prints. I don't think I need a model
  >> release, but if I saw someone selling my image, I might be concerned.
  >>
  >> The "right thing to do" would be to try to identify and track down the
  >> subject and get a release. But they might require payment up front, which
  >> is not an economically-viable solution. I could offer a good discount on
  >> the photos. What is the legal requirement (California)? What do others
 >do?
  >>
 >
 >I'd offer them a print as payment, if the image is saleable then I'd imagine
 >the subject would love to have one too.
 >


feb2605 from Lloyd Erlick,

You do need releases. People have rights over their own
visages.

I would never get into a deal with a subject that
involved anything but absolute control passing to me
(in writing!) in exchange for something appropriately
valuable to the subject, such as a print or prints. If
the image is not in my complete control, there are
unknowns.

The trick is to generate so many images good enough to
work with that you do not care if certain ones cannot
be released.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait.RemoveThis@heylloyd.com
net: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.heylloyd.com" target="_blank">www.heylloyd.com</a>
________________________________
--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

"Alan Justice" <spam.DeleteThis@spamspamspam.spam> wrote in message
news:GkOTd.5811$873.2130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
 > I understand that pictures of people in editorial photography (e.g., in
 > magazines) does not require a model release, but commercial (to promote a
 > product) does. How about art? I sell nature photos locally, and am
 > considering doing some surfer shots. The subject would be recognizable.
It
 > could be note cards or matted/framed prints. I don't think I need a model
 > release, but if I saw someone selling my image, I might be concerned.
 >
 > The "right thing to do" would be to try to identify and track down the
 > subject and get a release. But they might require payment up front, which
 > is not an economically-viable solution. I could offer a good discount on
 > the photos. What is the legal requirement (California)? What do others
do?
 >
 > --
 > - Alan Justice

You do not need a release to sell art prints. Many (all?) street
photographers sell art prints of people without a model release. I'm not a
lawyer, I'm not giving legal advice and I don't live in California (a
country unto itself).
Film best,
me<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

 >
 > You do not need a release to sell art prints. Many (all?) street
 > photographers sell art prints of people without a model release. I'm not a
 > lawyer, I'm not giving legal advice and I don't live in California (a
 > country unto itself).
 > Film best,
 > me

I agree...mostly. For note cards and mass produced prints I would want a
release as that is commercial. But selling a print in a gallery is not
really commercial in the same sense.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

I sell all my photos through galleries, gift shops, and park visitor
centers. I mount each card and mat each print by hand. So even if I sell a
lot (many dozens of some), you think this is not "commercial?" My
understanding of "commercial" is that it is intended to promote a product,
so all my sales are editorial.

There appears to be no clear concensus on the newsgroups, so I guess I may
have to consult a lawyer. Of course, he'll charge more than my expected
profits.

--
- Alan Justice

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene.TakeThisOut@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YZtXd.63861$W16.30010@trndny07...
  > >
  > > You do not need a release to sell art prints. Many (all?) street
  > > photographers sell art prints of people without a model release. I'm not
a
  > > lawyer, I'm not giving legal advice and I don't live in California (a
  > > country unto itself).
  > > Film best,
  > > me
 >
 > I agree...mostly. For note cards and mass produced prints I would want a
 > release as that is commercial. But selling a print in a gallery is not
 > really commercial in the same sense.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

In article <LDMXd.5820$cN6.3048@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
spam RemoveThis @spamspamspam.spam says...
 > I sell all my photos through galleries, gift shops, and park visitor
 > centers. I mount each card and mat each print by hand. So even if I sell a
 > lot (many dozens of some), you think this is not "commercial?" My
 > understanding of "commercial" is that it is intended to promote a product,
 > so all my sales are editorial.
 >
 > There appears to be no clear concensus on the newsgroups, so I guess I may
 > have to consult a lawyer. Of course, he'll charge more than my expected
 > profits.

Commercial does not mean ads or promotions, it means selling something
for profit. Selling an art print is no execption. If you get caught by
the subject and he takes expection, you've got yourself a problem.

Marc<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

Here's a good link to "Model Releases" that mentions the different
definitions of "commercial". In the business sense, any image, for
editorial or advertising use, sold or leased for a profit can be considered
commercial. But legally, editorial usage generally does not require a
release, whereas promotion of a commercial product does.

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

--
- Alan Justice

"Marc 182" <marc182spamless RemoveThis @globalcrossing.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c99571a635b5367989871@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net...
 > In article <LDMXd.5820$cN6.3048@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 > spam RemoveThis @spamspamspam.spam says...
  > > I sell all my photos through galleries, gift shops, and park visitor
  > > centers. I mount each card and mat each print by hand. So even if I
sell a
  > > lot (many dozens of some), you think this is not "commercial?" My
  > > understanding of "commercial" is that it is intended to promote a
product,
  > > so all my sales are editorial.
  > >
  > > There appears to be no clear concensus on the newsgroups, so I guess I
may
  > > have to consult a lawyer. Of course, he'll charge more than my expected
  > > profits.
 >
 > Commercial does not mean ads or promotions, it means selling something
 > for profit. Selling an art print is no execption. If you get caught by
 > the subject and he takes expection, you've got yourself a problem.
 >
 > Marc

Wrong. I sell lots of photos to magazines and newspapers for profit. It's
all editorial, 1st ammendment stuff.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

Thanks. I'll study that page.

--
- Alan Justice

"Paul Skelcher" <pskelch.RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jvPXd.11019$S25.2932@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
 > Here's a good link to "Model Releases" that mentions the different
 > definitions of "commercial". In the business sense, any image, for
 > editorial or advertising use, sold or leased for a profit can be
considered
 > commercial. But legally, editorial usage generally does not require a
 > release, whereas promotion of a commercial product does.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html</font</a>>
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

In article <oRjZd.8751$oO4.1873@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
spam.DeleteThis@spamspamspam.spam says...
 >
 >
 > --
 > - Alan Justice
 >
 > "Marc 182" <marc182spamless.DeleteThis@globalcrossing.net> wrote in message
 > news:MPG.1c99571a635b5367989871@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net...
  > > In article <LDMXd.5820$cN6.3048@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
  > > spam.DeleteThis@spamspamspam.spam says...
   > > > I sell all my photos through galleries, gift shops, and park visitor
   > > > centers. I mount each card and mat each print by hand. So even if I
 > sell a
   > > > lot (many dozens of some), you think this is not "commercial?" My
   > > > understanding of "commercial" is that it is intended to promote a
 > product,
   > > > so all my sales are editorial.
   > > >
   > > > There appears to be no clear concensus on the newsgroups, so I guess I
 > may
   > > > have to consult a lawyer. Of course, he'll charge more than my expected
   > > > profits.
  > >
  > > Commercial does not mean ads or promotions, it means selling something
  > > for profit. Selling an art print is no execption. If you get caught by
  > > the subject and he takes expection, you've got yourself a problem.
  > >
  > > Marc
 >
 > Wrong. I sell lots of photos to magazines and newspapers for profit. It's
 > all editorial, 1st ammendment stuff.

That's not what I said. Magazines and newspapers are not art prints,
they are editorial. Art prints are not editorial and have no protection.

Mark<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

"Alan Justice" <spam.RemoveThis@spamspamspam.spam> wrote in message
news:9TjZd.8754$oO4.2450@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
 > "Paul Skelcher" <pskelch.RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
 > news:jvPXd.11019$S25.2932@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
  > > Here's a good link to "Model Releases" that mentions the different
  > > definitions of "commercial". In the business sense, any image, for
  > > editorial or advertising use, sold or leased for a profit can be
 > considered
  > > commercial. But legally, editorial usage generally does not require a
  > > release, whereas promotion of a commercial product does.
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html</font</a>>
 >
 > Thanks. I'll study that page.
 > --
 > - Alan Justice

IMO a much better site on this topic is:

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html" target="_blank">http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html</a>

Read the sections on fair use and releases.

IMO if you follow Mr. Heller's advice you'll never sleep well again, unless
of course you got a release. Even his advice about what constitutes
compensation for a release is nearly indecipherable as the following quote
from his page illustrates:

"Compensation for a release does not always have to be money, or even a
barter, but the enforceability of the release is going to be whether an
objective judge perceives the relationship between parties is being that of
full disclosure and mutual agreement."

When I do ask someone to sign a release I don't give compensation (unless
it's prints). According to the above I'm fine because both parties signed
the release in full disclosure and mutual agreement.

I will say it again, you do not need a release to sell note cards or
matted/framed prints, these are works of art. If you sell the image as a
stock photo you will need a signed release. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not giving
legal advice and I don't live in California (a country unto itself).
Signed,
me<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people 

Thanks. I'll study that page, too.

At this point, for prints & cards, I'll make a reasonable effort to find the
subject of the surfing shots (asking at local surf shops), and Photoshop the
recognizable details if I can't get the release. For magazines, I'll let
them decide if they need a release.


--
- Alan Justice

"me" <anonymous.TakeThisOut@_.com> wrote in message
news:113cgqr6gf347e5@corp.supernews.com...
 > "Alan Justice" <spam.TakeThisOut@spamspamspam.spam> wrote in message
 > news:9TjZd.8754$oO4.2450@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
  > > "Paul Skelcher" <pskelch.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
  > > news:jvPXd.11019$S25.2932@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
   > > > Here's a good link to "Model Releases" that mentions the different
   > > > definitions of "commercial". In the business sense, any image, for
   > > > editorial or advertising use, sold or leased for a profit can be
  > > considered
   > > > commercial. But legally, editorial usage generally does not require a
   > > > release, whereas promotion of a commercial product does.
   > > >
<font color=brown>   > > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html</font</a>>
  > >
  > > Thanks. I'll study that page.
  > > --
  > > - Alan Justice
 >
 > IMO a much better site on this topic is:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html</font" target="_blank">http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html</font</a>>
 >
 > Read the sections on fair use and releases.
 >
 > IMO if you follow Mr. Heller's advice you'll never sleep well again,
unless
 > of course you got a release. Even his advice about what constitutes
 > compensation for a release is nearly indecipherable as the following quote
 > from his page illustrates:
 >
 > "Compensation for a release does not always have to be money, or even a
 > barter, but the enforceability of the release is going to be whether an
 > objective judge perceives the relationship between parties is being that
of
 > full disclosure and mutual agreement."
 >
 > When I do ask someone to sign a release I don't give compensation (unless
 > it's prints). According to the above I'm fine because both parties signed
 > the release in full disclosure and mutual agreement.
 >
 > I will say it again, you do not need a release to sell note cards or
 > matted/framed prints, these are works of art. If you sell the image as a
 > stock photo you will need a signed release. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not
giving
 > legal advice and I don't live in California (a country unto itself).
 > Signed,
 > me
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: selling photos of people