|
|
1. You're probably right - you need a model release to actually use the photo commercially especially if the model is clearly identifiable (vs. a shot of a crowd where the law is a little more flexible in this regard since it would be impossible to get a model release from everyone in the photo). However, it would seem reasonable that if one or two people were the the main subjects and clearly identifiable than the photographer would need a model release from them. Make sure you you always carry a few releases in your bag.
2. White = soft light, Gold = warm light, silver = cool light...basically colour temperature differences for the type of light you want reflected back.
ages ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
It's my (uneducated) opinion you don't need a release to use the image as 'fine art'. Commercial use sure, but I don't know that a print for sale in an exhibition counts as commercial. It certainly doesn't in America, where photographers can make hundreds of thousands of dollars from print and 'catalogue' sales without requiring a model release. I'm pretty sure the same applies in Canada (except for Quebec where the expectation of privacy is different).
I do wonder how the laws apply in this case because you took the image on private property. I don't know how that would effect usage 'rights' though it could be argued that a pub patio is a de facto public space and thus not a place privacy could be expected.
This is just my interpretation of what I've gleaned from the many discussions on this subject.
On another note, I've never asked anyone to sign a model release. I do a lot of street portraits but since I have no intention of ever using the images commercially it's never been a concern. However thinking about it I don't know how I would even bring it up. If you're being honest with your subject they're basically signing away their image rights, you can use the image for anything and make as much money off it as you can while they make nothing. I would certainly never sign one, I don't see why any who is told what signing it means would do so either, especially when they're a stranger to you.
Obviously professional/amateur models are well aware of what releases mean but know that the images can help their career/ambitions. For your average person on the street I don't see any incentive for them to sign a model release.
I read an article in an American photo magazine a couple of years ago where they followed a stock photographer around LA taking photos of normal people and persuading them to sign a release. The guy basically lied, telling subjects he was a student photographer etc, anything that would get them to pose and sign. I don't think he ever spelt out that by signing that release the subject could see their face on a billboard advertising toilet paper, a cruise, etc. That whole approach is appalling to me.
ages ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
As far as I know, a pub is not a public space. The street is and as such, everyone out there is fair game. But, I think if you are shooting people on private properties, a model release is a good idea.
ages ago
(permalink)
|
|
|
The idea that the streets are fair game is a nice fantasy, it might even have some truth in the US of A but it's pretty far from reality in Canada.
Let's be clear, when you are on the street there are broad Charter protections for your right to take pretty much any photograph and this is still true even in Quebec.
The key work there is "take", as soon as you want to "use" that photograph for anything that is not purely personal (i.e. take it home and look at it, show it to your friends and family, that's about it) then the subject of your photograph has so called "personality rights" that come into play. Now its fairly well known that the law in Quebec requires releases for pretty much any public "use" even fine art. In the ROC the situation is much less clear, AFAIK no case on this question has ever gone to trial so there's no precedent to go by. If I take your picture and hang it in an art gallery you could theoretically sue me, is that very likely, no, in fact it's even less likely you would win a lawsuit absent any extenuating circumstances, but there is a very, very slim chance it could happen. Personally that's a risk I'm willing to take, I don't release the subjects of my "fine art" work and I don't know anyone else who does either.
Now what you do need to be cautious of is any "commercial" use, basically the idea of the "personality rights" is that my likeness is my property and only I can sell it, unless I give permission. It matters not if I was on the street or in a private place, my likeness is still my property, full stop. I don't consider selling fine art prints to be "commercial" use but again that is an assertion that is untested in the courts, your milage may vary.
The other thing you need to be really careful about is anything where the subject could be considered to be shown in a bad light, because then they would have a claim to damages and actual grounds for a lawsuit.
In short
- Go ahead and shoot whatever
- You're pretty safe to use it for "fine art" purposes without a release
- Don't publish it commercially without a release
- Don't publish it if it makes the subject look bad
And remember, there's a completely different set of rules if the subject is doing something newsworthy.
Originally posted ages ago.
(permalink)
kingofthenerds edited this topic ages ago.
|
Click below to see a gallery of fine photos of Toronto in the throes of winter...by Phil Marion (230 million views - THANKS) 66 months ago
