Can I post the photos ?

Karthikv82

Karthikv82

Suspended / Banned
Messages
168
Name
Karthik
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello All,

I did a portrait photoshoot with two young girls 16 and 15 aspiring to be models (with their parents present all the time)

Is it leagal to post their photos on my website ? or anywhere else ?

Thank,

Karthik
 
diggerz said:
Of course it is.
Click to expand...

Hmm ... just being cautious :rules:

It was just a clean portrait shoot and that't it. But the club members do not want to put it up on their site and just want us to give the girls a print. However, I would like to add this to my portfolio as I think it is one of my best work.
 
Karthikv82 said:
What is a model release ?
Click to expand...

it a document that confirms the model or their guardian agrees to their image being used . In the US its a requirement, in the UK its not although most advertising agencies require them for their purposes cause photos are still subject to libel law and they have persuasive value (only) in some situations
 
boyfalldown said:
it a document that confirms the model or their guardian agrees to their image being used . In the US its a requirement, in the UK its not although most advertising agencies require them for their purposes cause photos are still subject to libel law and they have persuasive value (only) in some situations
Click to expand...

So I don't need it in this case ...hmmm
 
boyfalldown said:
why do you need them?
Click to expand...

It is a legal requirement to get the permission from the model if you desire to use the photos for non-personal use.
If you shooting someone's properties (house, car etc), if the property is identifiable, you need property release.
You own the copyright does NOT automatically translate to you can use it for any situation for free.
 
jingphotography said:
It is a legal requirement to get the permission from the model if you desire to use the photos for non-personal use.
If you shooting someone's properties (house, car etc), if the property is identifiable, you need property release.
You own the copyright does NOT automatically translate to you can use it for any situation for free.
Click to expand...

what complete rubbish - assuming your based in the UK as the links in your signature suggest, you're just talking carp
 
Last edited:
jingphotography said:
It is a legal requirement to get the permission from the model if you desire to use the photos for non-personal use.
If you shooting someone's properties (house, car etc), if the property is identifiable, you need property release.
You own the copyright does NOT automatically translate to you can use it for any situation for free.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, so any shot I have of South Stack Lighthouse that someone wants to buy, I need a property release for. Or any shot I have containing the Millenium Center in Cardiff Bay that someone wants to purchase needs a property release.

Ok.

Thanks.

Yeah.
 
boyfalldown said:
what complete rubbish - assuming your based in the UK as the links in your signature suggest, you're just talking carp
Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only one who was thinking that.

Jing, you need to do some more research into this whole release thing. You keep miss beating the drum preaching to everyone about it.
 
I am new here. Well just shock how little everyone in this thread know about rights.

a quick search on model release: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=model+release+form

I quote the first link comes up in the search:

http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/Magazine/Downloads/Model-Release-Form

One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.

Quite simply, it's not that simple!

Whether you are photographing people who know they are being photographed, buildings you have been allowed to photograph or shooting 'on the fly'. If you want to place those images with a stock agency, sell them, syndicate them or publish them you are going to have to make sure that you have a signed model/building release form.

Rules on when you need this vary greatly from country to country and you can never expect a signed release form to be a fail-safe security blanket.
...
 
jingphotography said:
I am new here. Well just shock how little everyone in this thread know about rights.

a quick search on model release: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=model+release+form

I quote the first link comes up in the search:

http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/Magazine/Downloads/Model-Release-Form

One of the biggest mistake photographers make when they take pictures, is to believe that they can use their images wherever and however they wish.

Quite simply, it's not that simple!

Whether you are photographing people who know they are being photographed, buildings you have been allowed to photograph or shooting 'on the fly'. If you want to place those images with a stock agency, sell them, syndicate them or publish them you are going to have to make sure that you have a signed model/building release form.

Rules on when you need this vary greatly from country to country and you can never expect a signed release form to be a fail-safe security blanket.
...
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Total rubbish.

What of all the pics people have of famous landmarks...? these are identifiable... do we need permission off HRM to sell them if someone wants to buy them. Nope.

Fail.
 
theMusicMan said:
Ahhh, so any shot I have of South Stack Lighthouse that someone wants to buy, I need a property release for. Or any shot I have containing the Millenium Center in Cardiff Bay that someone wants to purchase needs a property release.

Ok.

Thanks.

Yeah.
Click to expand...

The link is the property release form from Alamy, a stock photo agency
http://www.alamy.com/contributors/Alamy-stock-photography-property-release-form.pdf
If you wonder why Getty-Flickr failed your submit, here is one of the reasons.
 
theMusicMan said:
Rubbish. Total rubbish.

What of all the pics people have of famous landmarks...? these are identifiable... do we need permission off HRM to sell them if someone wants to buy them. Nope.

Fail.
Click to expand...

To be fair to him it's not total rubbish, some of the points in that article are valid. You'll need a model release for commercial selling on stock libraries as many supply to the US as well where model releases are required.

However even without a model release a picture can be used for editorial purposes as I understand it.

I think you'd be fine using them in your portfolio but I'd let the club and the models know that you intend to do so, and get their feedback to avoid any suprises.

Model releases are not legally required in the UK but they can be good insurance to avoid any sticky situations.
 
Last edited:
Alamy is an "INTERNATIONAL" company therefore will have to cover itself for sales in every country that it does business in, hence the model release form.
 
Alamy require them because they then sell worldwide (and that includes the US where they ARE required)

Someone really needs to go and properly research the law before trying to tell those of us who have been doing this for years that we are all wrong :)

Appreciate you are trying to help but you are still telling terminological inexactitudes. :)
 
jingphotography said:
I shall say when i said 'identifiable' it is in the context of private property.
Try bring your models (bride/groom) to Winsdor Castle or Warwick Castle or any Natioal Trust property to do signature shoots.
Good Luck
Click to expand...
So were you contacted by Google when they drove around the UK taking shots for the street view...?

I am with Alib here... you are misinforming people.
 
Last edited:
jingphotography said:
The link is the property release form from Alamy, a stock photo agency
http://www.alamy.com/contributors/Alamy-stock-photography-property-release-form.pdf
If you wonder why Getty-Flickr failed your submit, here is one of the reasons.
Click to expand...

I know what's on alamy, and I know why in the UK advertising agencies reqire them. In simple terms its not cause they are a legal requirement, but because photos are still bound by libel laws, and if a model (famous or otherwise) sued for libel on a photo the release can be used to persuade only that no libel took place.

Alamy/Getty etc are also multinational agencies, they have to met laws in all state they sell. Show us where it says in law (not a stock agency or other photographer) in the Uk you need one?
 
Last edited:
theMusicMan, boyfalldown, if I was misinforming, my apology.
In case of google street view, all car reg and people faces are masked.
and it was shooting from public places.
And you can demand images to be removed if you believe it infringe your privacy (my reading on this is If I do not want my house to show)
535900854_36168e59e9.jpg


I read a little bit more on what it required in the UK:

In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes,[1] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law)

So it is open to interpretation. I suppose in OP's case if model/property owner says 'no' then it is a 'no'
 
jingphotography said:
It is a legal requirement to get the permission from the model if you desire to use the photos for non-personal use.
If you shooting someone's properties (house, car etc), if the property is identifiable, you need property release.
You own the copyright does NOT automatically translate to you can use it for any situation for free.
Click to expand...

Does this relate to Google Earth who have photographed everyones house in the world?!!! :nono:
 
Last edited:
jingphotography said:
I read a little bit more on what it required in the UK:

In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes,[1] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law)

So it is open to interpretation. I suppose in OP's case if model/property owner says 'no' then it is a 'no'
Click to expand...

Only if you are on private land, and the landowner has imposed some restrictions. Says nothing about people.
 
So it is open to interpretation. I suppose in OP's case if model/property owner says 'no' then it is a 'no'
Still missing the point then?? :shrug::shrug:
 
WoW .... looks like I started off quite an interesting topic here.. I will inform the models and the club before I upload images on my website.

On the other hand, can all paparazzi's be taken to court for what they do ?
 
If you shoot a specific building and it's the dominant thing in the shot, you are supposed to have permission from the property owner if you want to use that image commercially.

In my former life in an ad agency we encountered this numerous times, and the legal dept at the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising confirmed this.
 
people that own houses don't own the copyright to the building unless they designed it, same goes for cars. you don't need a property release unless you sell it for advertising. same goes for people too.


jingphotography said:
It is a legal requirement to get the permission from the model if you desire to use the photos for non-personal use.
If you shooting someone's properties (house, car etc), if the property is identifiable, you need property release.
You own the copyright does NOT automatically translate to you can use it for any situation for free.
Click to expand...
 
One thing people are missing is that these girls are minors...

Not so much about model releases you should be asking for the parents permission/consent....

Im sure if it is for your portfolio they would not mind but not selling the images...

:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
thats irrelavent - the only deal with that is that a parent etc has to sign the model release if one was requested.



markw08 said:
One thing people are missing is that these girls are minors...

Not so much about model releases you should be asking for the parents permission/consent....

:thumbs:
Click to expand...
 
markw08 said:
One thing people are missing is that these girls are minors...

Not so much about model releases you should be asking for the parents permission/consent....

Im sure if it is for your portfolio they would not mind but not selling the images...

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

nobody missed it - its just not really relevant, polite to ask them/their parent yes..........probably a good idea too, needed no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top