If You Don't Have a Model Release?

[Snake Man]

If you don't have a model release what can and can't you do with an image?

Very simple please.

Cheers.

 

[DiddyDave]

A) anything you want
B) unless you're not allowed to for legal reasons

Simple enough?

Question far too vague I'm afraid for any other answer at this stage

 

[mattyh]

C. Make profit from the image (assuming the "model" is a person)

 

[mobilevirgin]

identifiable person or trade mark - then can't use commercially

that's something of a generalisation, but pretty much covers it

 

[benneh]

Realease form is a must .

 

[Snake Man]

Thanks for the replies. If you didn't have a release, could you use a picture of a person on your own website to advertise for more work?

 

[Double_Agent]

I would say no because then you would be using an identifiable person for personal gain through advertisement.

 

[Mohain]

There's a link to a photographers rights PDF on this site somewhere which states that in the UK, assuming you haven't photographed someone on private land that has photography restrictions, you are allowed to use that image as you see fit, even for financial and commerical gain. Invasion of privacy (e.g. taking shots of them nekkid) or deformation of character are about the only things in UK law right now which will prevent you from using a shot of a person without a release.

EDIT: Here ya go. Perhaps we should have this as a sticky somewhere?

 

[Snake Man]

Cheers. I'll have a good read through that later.

 

[nutter426]

Having read that PDF that mohain links to, it does appear that the model release is a US invention.
Not technically a necessity in this country, but helpful to have.
If you can contact the person, it may be worth asking them to sign a model release.

 

[Arkady]

Thanks for the replies. If you didn't have a release, could you use a picture of a person on your own website to advertise for more work?

Yes you can, because you're merely using the image to promote your work, you're not selling it directly.