Model release form question

desantnik

desantnik

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,848
Name
Vlad
Edit My Images
Yes
If someone was inviting people from a public event to have a portrait style photo taken in a portable studio setup and then subsequently and without asking permission took those photos and did both an exhibition (in a London gallery) and a book with it.... would that be wrong?

He did make the photos available on a website a few days after taking them, which AFAIK is the only use he disclosed he was going to make of them.

Should he have got model release forms before he was able to commercially exploit this?

If someone appearing in this work now objects to being the unauthorised subject of commercial work taken in this situation, can they do anything?
 
My opinion is YES he should have got a release signed before using them in this way. Not sure what the subject could do about it - except ask for the pictures to be removed from display - or be paid compensation for the use.
 
Thanks guys, that was my impression to, my associates who this effects shall be guided to make an approach and see what he says....

I'm sure the exhibition sized print will look good on their walls :)
 
I know that while I was coaching a youth rugby team, and helping their web site - I had to get ALL the parents to sign to say I could take photo's during the matches/ training. and I was told I would be breaking the law to photograph any of the players without said permission.

Not sure if it's the same with adults - do I need to ask the local rugby team - before I try my new found hobby out on them ?
 
A model release form has no strict legal status. Legally there is no requirement and even if you've got one signed you can still be prosecuted, although it is extremely rare.

However, the law is one thing, and complex, but moral use and exploitation are quite another. Basically, you can still get into trouble, with or without a model release, if you take the mick and act unreasonably to the detriment of another person (not necessarily exclusively the subject either). Having a signed form just makes it far less likely if you are acting within the terms outlined within it.

A model release simply defines the photographs in question (subject, time, place) and then usually acknowledges that the subject has no rights in them and that the rights holder (usually the photographer) can do what they like with them. It helps if this is supported by a 'consideration' which can be a payment, or something in lieu of payment such as a set of prints or whatever.

Basically, it outlines that an agreement or deal has been done, and that there is an understanding, but nothing absolutely legally binding. Many model release forms have a lot of legalese waffle which gives them some gravitas to the uninitiated but you can write one on the back of a fag packet if you want. It just says, I own these pictures, you don't, and I can do what I like with them.
 
So its ok to take portrait style photos of people without disclosing the purpose of them, including commercial usage? (ie a published book)

I understand the situation if you are taking photos of people in a public place, where you are snapping them going about their business - thats a little more clear cut in my mind, but surely if you are asking them to pose for you in a portable studio you should be up front about your motives?

Ok, so I (as a photographer) would have asked for what the purpose was, but clearly it wasn't freely offered...
 
desantnik said:
So its ok to take portrait style photos of people without disclosing the purpose of them, including commercial usage? (ie a published book)

I understand the situation if you are taking photos of people in a public place, where you are snapping them going about their business - thats a little more clear cut in my mind, but surely if you are asking them to pose for you in a portable studio you should be up front about your motives?

Ok, so I (as a photographer) would have asked for what the purpose was, but clearly it wasn't freely offered...
Click to expand...

I didn't say it's okay! Just not against the law. Moral right and the law are miles apart in a lot of ways, which usually results in a civil action if you want to take it further. There are relatively few specific legal dos and don'ts and it's often left to juries to decide if any injustice has been done.

It's difficult, with indecency for example. Indecent photographs are illegal, but what consitutes indecency varies widely and changes a lot with almost every case, as happened at the Tate only a couple of weeks ago.

But aside from any specific laws, truth is pretty much an absolute defense I think. Has the person in question been misrepresented in any way, or been harmed or diminised or lost income etc by this publication, or by the context? If not, what's the problem? The fact that somebody else might have profited from it is irrelevant, unless a jury sees this as some kind of unfair exploitation.

From the circumstances it sounds a bit like this person feels conned in some way by the photographer not being upfront. Possibly, but often when pictures like this are taken it is entirely innocent and the subsequent 'abuse' (if that's what it is) is only apparent later.

For example, I had an 'amusing' accident on honeymoon and the story found its way on to the front of the local paper, accompanied by a photo taken by one of our guests. (I got run over by a speedboat, and had my arse ripped to shreads - yeah, very amusing :lol: I even made The Sun :eek: Now stop sniggering ;) ) But it was a photo of me, at my wedding immediately before the accident, all of which was true and public knowledge. I didn't particularly like being on the frigging front page but how had I suffered by this? What had I lost? Why should I be allowed to stop a story of (alleged) public interest? How should I be compensated? It happened, it was true, and that was that. I got over it.
 
desantnik said:
If someone was inviting people from a public event to have a portrait style photo taken in a portable studio setup and then subsequently and without asking permission took those photos and did both an exhibition (in a London gallery) and a book with it.... would that be wrong?
Click to expand...

Mostly fine I'd reckon.

The gallery especially seems fine, he just selling his art ...the book less so as hes selling a book, with the aid of your image.

Which I'm pondering may cross the line to 'commercial use'

:shrug:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Mostly fine I'd reckon.

The gallery especially seems fine, he just selling his art ...the book less so as hes selling a book, with the aid of your image.

Which I'm pondering may cross the line to 'commercial use'

:shrug:
Click to expand...

There's nothing strictly illegal about commercial use per se. People sometimes make a distinction between editorial and commercial/advertising in newspapers, but if you get your mug on the front page of a newspaper (editorial) they are still making money from it.

The simple answer is, it's complicated. There may or may not be all sorts of reasons why a court might look sympathetically on a certain set of circumstances, but "he didn't tell me what he was going to publish the photos" isn't necessarily one of them.
 
Hoppy is right - no 'legal' case to answer in the UK

Just a bit bleeding cheeky really :lol:

Though personally I don't see this as being much removed from snapping people in 'Street' photography and doing the same, at least here there was initial consent, everyone clearly knew they wee being photographed, whereas in Street you shoot and hope to not get punched :D

DD
 
Lol Ive nearly been punched a few times I admit.

HoppyUK said:
There's nothing strictly illegal about commercial use per se. People sometimes make a distinction between editorial and commercial/advertising in newspapers, but if you get your mug on the front page of a newspaper (editorial) they are still making money from it.

The simple answer is, it's complicated. There may or may not be all sorts of reasons why a court might look sympathetically on a certain set of circumstances, but "he didn't tell me what he was going to publish the photos" isn't necessarily one of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m sure your right Hoppy, Ive always thought of news as journalistic so its excused from the complaint to some degree because of that.

I guess the photographer could claim hes selling his art in a book, its the photographic art not the particular subjects being sold as a book of their identities.

...as you say its complicated…
And to some extent I'd suggest ...for the aid and sake of art.
 
There is absolutely no requirement in the UK even to ask permission to take someone’s photograph, providing the photographer doesn’t harass the subject in any way.
If someone asks you to take photographs of them for a modelling portfolio, agree the terms for your payment in advance.
In UK law the photographs always belong to the photographer, who might in law do anything, including publishing them anywhere, without recompensing the model.
if you are photographing in public for editorial or artistic purposes, it is good professional practice to explain to people what you are photographing them for, and ask them whether they mind their photograph being used.
Whether you back this up with a piece of paper is up to you. If you take a photo of someone in the street and then distort it hideously and supply an offensive caption, they could sue you for defamation whether or not they gave consent.
Photographing children is slightly different: paid child models need to be licensed.
For photographing children who are not professional models, again it isn’t compulsory to obtain a model release, but a signed parental consent form is a good idea if you’re doing studio shoots. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top