Model release forms...do you need them?

tinite

tinite

Suspended / Banned
Messages
305
Name
Jacob
Edit My Images
No
How important are model release forms? I've never really used them for a number of reasons:

- I'm not a pro full-time photographer
- I do a lot of photojournalism (at protests etc.) where it's impossible to get model release forms signed
- I also do a lot of street photography (same issue really)
- With studio model shoots, the models have always agreed to have the images published verbally and never had any complaints.

So, question is: when do you really need model release forms? Are they a legal requirement? Or just something to produce if a model challenges you? I just thought of it recently because I'm about to have some new business cards printed which feature some of my work and didn't want to spend money on something that might cause problems...

Thanks
 
tinite said:
If I were to sell photos as prints/publish them do you still not think it'd be a problem? I find the law/rules around model release forms very confusing.
Click to expand...

simply in the UK, you don't need them, they have no legal standing

but.........

if you wish to sell to agencies the odds are they'll require them cause their clients will want them, especially if the sell internationally

and

while the have no legal standing, photographs can be libellous in the UK, so a model release form may be useful for showing a judge (persuasive value) that the subject understood how the photos of them would be used so no libel occurred
 
A photo can be libellous? Could you give me some examples of what might constitute a libellous photograph?

Why do a lot of agencies/papers/magazines in the UK still like to have model release forms then? Is it simply in case they ever operate/sell internationally? That's what confuses me somewhat.
 
tinite said:
A photo can be libellous? Could you give me some examples of what might constitute a libellous photograph?

Why do a lot of agencies/papers/magazines in the UK still like to have model release forms then? Is it simply in case they ever operate/sell internationally? That's what confuses me somewhat.
Click to expand...

Many of them operate internationally so they need to cover themselves legally

A photo can be libelous if it implies an endorsement that doesn't exist ( a celeb by a drink shop for example) or implies a fact that isn't true - Naomi Campbell by the priory impling she's just come out
 
boyfalldown said:
A photo can be libelous if it implies an endorsement that doesn't exist ( a celeb by a drink shop for example) or implies a fact that isn't true - Naomi Campbell by the priory impling she's just come out
Click to expand...

what he said - and additionally if it is used in a derogatory way - like taking a pictureof an old mman in the street which is then used to illustrate an article about homeless alcoholics - if the old man is neither he could be libelled - but his issue would be more with the publisher unless you took the picture with the express intent of it being used in that way.
 
tinite said:
Ahh I see, so basically if I'm working only in the UK model releases aren't really needed unless clients and agencies require them?
Click to expand...

There's a school of thought that says that if you put an image up on the internet and it can be viewed from a country where model releases are required then you do need one, but :thinking::shrug:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
There's a school of thought that says that if you put an image up on the internet and it can be viewed from a country where model releases are required then you do need one, but :thinking::shrug:
Click to expand...

one suspects that would only hold water if your isp is based overseas as its the country you are publishing it in that matters
 
Slightly different angle but release form related.

My wife is a yoga teacher and now has her own small studio and wants to take a few snaps during busy classes to show how many the studio can comfortably hold both for the purposes of advertising the space to other teachers and her own classes - both on her websites and possibly in the press. Will she need release forms from the students in the class or could consent be implied? Is there such a thing as a multiple release form so she could just get them all to sign one sheet rather than waste the paper providing a form to each student?
 
Nod said:
Slightly different angle but release form related.

My wife is a yoga teacher and now has her own small studio and wants to take a few snaps during busy classes to show how many the studio can comfortably hold both for the purposes of advertising the space to other teachers and her own classes - both on her websites and possibly in the press. Will she need release forms from the students in the class or could consent be implied? Is there such a thing as a multiple release form so she could just get them all to sign one sheet rather than waste the paper providing a form to each student?
Click to expand...

this is where a 'reasonable right to privacy comes in' - as someone could reasonably expect not to be photographed during a private yoga class - it would be sensible if not entirely legally necessary to get the students permission - all sigs on one agreement would be fine for that pupose.

an alternative would be to shoot from the back of the class to avoid showing faces and thus not making people individually identifiable.
 
tinite said:
Well since my host is located in the US, do I then need model release forms? Or do you think it's not worth worrying about?
Click to expand...

I think in practice its not worth worrying about if you are shooting in the uk for a uk market - tho that said if i was doing model shoots as opposed to people in the street/at events etc I probably would get releases anyway as not having them limits your ablity to sell the pics to agencies etc
 
Since most of the models I shoot I know/have the contact details of/live near that's not so much a problem. I can ask them to sign a model release whenever I want.

It would be a problem with street photography and photojournalism though...
 
Even a big stock agency like Alamy doesn't require a model release. Without one your image can only be sold for editorial use, not promotional or advertising. Editorial use tends to be general illustration in books and magazines.
 
tinite said:
It would be a problem with street photography and photojournalism though...
Click to expand...

in countries where the law makes a differentiation (it doesnt in the uk) photojournalism would probably be seen as an editorial use so you wouldnt need a model release anyway
 
See, I am still fairly confused by the situation. For example, (and actually this has just happened to me) imagine I've taken some photos and the subject of those photos decides that they want me to pull them from my website, because they're not happy about them being online. (I am extremely irritated). Now I assume, I can refuse them and keep the photos on the website, even without a model release form? (Although, I probably will remove them - it's not worth the trouble, with someone who is a friend of friends).
 
in the uk - you are correct - unless they are being used in a libelous way, they had a reasonable expectation of privacy where they were taken (this might apply to some circs with freinds of freinds) or they can otherwise get a court order , like if they are a protected witness or similar

getting a model release would solve all those issues from the outset because they'd either sign it or refuse before you put the pictures up - but its not a legal requirement to do so or to abide by their wishes (except as outlined above)
 
tinite said:
See, I am still fairly confused by the situation. For example, (and actually this has just happened to me) imagine I've taken some photos and the subject of those photos decides that they want me to pull them from my website, because they're not happy about them being online. (I am extremely irritated). Now I assume, I can refuse them and keep the photos on the website, even without a model release form? (Although, I probably will remove them - it's not worth the trouble, with someone who is a friend of friends).[/QUOTE

Basically, you're correct. You don't need a model release to post the images on your website, and the subject/model can't force you to take them down without a court order. He/she would require legal grounds for this application - contravention of an agreement and derogatory/libellous implication or context - spring to mind, but it would be up to the court to decide.

As you say, it may not be worth the grief if a friend of a friend is involved. Do you stand to lose anything here?
Click to expand...
 
Thanks everyone for being so helpful! :)

MartynK said:
Basically, you're correct. You don't need a model release to post the images on your website, and the subject/model can't force you to take them down without a court order. He/she would require legal grounds for this application - contravention of an agreement and derogatory/libellous implication or context - spring to mind, but it would be up to the court to decide.

As you say, it may not be worth the grief if a friend of a friend is involved. Do you stand to lose anything here?
Click to expand...

I highly doubt the person in question would get anyway near taking me to court. They'd just get angry. I have nothing to loose (except perhaps work to choose from when compiling a portfolio). They were quite interesting photos I guess, but to be honest I could easily re-stage them all with another willing model, if I was really bothered (it's not worth it though).

Out of interest, does it matter if the subjects are under 16 or under 18, so kids, babies etc.?
 
tinite said:
See, I am still fairly confused by the situation. For example, (and actually this has just happened to me) imagine I've taken some photos and the subject of those photos decides that they want me to pull them from my website, because they're not happy about them being online. (I am extremely irritated). Now I assume, I can refuse them and keep the photos on the website, even without a model release form? (Although, I probably will remove them - it's not worth the trouble, with someone who is a friend of friends).
Click to expand...

MartynK said:
tinite said:
See, I am still fairly confused by the situation. For example, (and actually this has just happened to me) imagine I've taken some photos and the subject of those photos decides that they want me to pull them from my website, because they're not happy about them being online. (I am extremely irritated). Now I assume, I can refuse them and keep the photos on the website, even without a model release form? (Although, I probably will remove them - it's not worth the trouble, with someone who is a friend of friends).[/QUOTE

Basically, you're correct. You don't need a model release to post the images on your website, and the subject/model can't force you to take them down without a court order. He/she would require legal grounds for this application - contravention of an agreement and derogatory/libellous implication or context - spring to mind, but it would be up to the court to decide.

As you say, it may not be worth the grief if a friend of a friend is involved. Do you stand to lose anything here?
Click to expand...

Martin is spot on, but there is one other thing you need to consider sometimes. Under the copyright act if your friend commissioned you to do the work then they have a right of privacy to that work, even though you own the copyright. Thats getting well away from model releases though.

As he says, if its a mate is it worth the hassle
Click to expand...
 
boyfalldown said:
Martin is spot on, but there is one other thing you need to consider sometimes. Under the copyright act if your friend commissioned you to do the work then they have a right of privacy to that work, even though you own the copyright. Thats getting well away from model releases though.

As he says, if its a mate is it worth the hassle
Click to expand...

Basically no - although that point about a friend, has just cropped up, and is unrelated to my original reason for starting the thread. I was just intrigued to know. And wanted to make sure that in a few years something wasn't going to come back to bite me...

And so, if the person commissions you specifically to do the work, they have a right of privacy? What does a right of privacy allow them to do? Control how and where it's published? What if they didn't commission the work, and instead I asked them to model? Or it just happened to be an off-the-cuff candid shot?
 
tinite said:
And so, if the person commissions you specifically to do the work, they have a right of privacy? What does a right of privacy allow them to do? Control how and where it's published? What if they didn't commission the work, and instead I asked them to model? Or it just happened to be an off-the-cuff candid shot?
Click to expand...

no - the right of privacy only applies if they commission the work - i.e. a portrait session, then the subject has the right to refuse you the ability to publish the work anywhere, but the key word is commissioned
 
the end uses would probably be determined in the commisioning contract anyway.

although BFD is absolutely correct this isnt the sort of privacy i was taking about - I was alluding to the 'reasonable right to privacy' that someone might expect - the classic case being papparazzi shooting through windows with a long lens, but that might also apply if you for example took a picture of one of your freinds getting leggless at a private party - it wouldnt however apply to a shot of them getting legless in a public place, or anywhere where they would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as at a gig)
 
big soft moose said:
although BFD is absolutely correct this isnt the sort of privacy i was taking about - I was alluding to the 'reasonable right to privacy' that someone might expect - the classic case being papparazzi shooting through windows with a long lens, but that might also apply if you for example took a picture of one of your freinds getting leggless at a private party - it wouldnt however apply to a shot of them getting legless in a public place, or anywhere where they would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as at a gig)
Click to expand...

Photograph in question was actually shot in a park, so I don't think they even have a 'reasonable right to privacy'.


boyfalldown said:
no - the right of privacy only applies if they commission the work - i.e. a portrait session, then the subject has the right to refuse you the ability to publish the work anywhere, but the key word is commissioned
Click to expand...

In law, is something only 'commissioned' if there is a contract, though? What if, for example, a friend asks you just to take a quick shot of them as a favour? Does that count as commissioned? I.e. what makes something actually 'commissioned' - if you're out with family and your mother in law asks you to take a shot of her smiling in front of Big Ben (or the like) is that 'commissioned'? (I assume not, just checking :) ).
 
tinite said:
In law, is something only 'commissioned' if there is a contract, though? What if, for example, a friend asks you just to take a quick shot of them as a favour? Does that count as commissioned? I.e. what makes something actually 'commissioned' - if you're out with family and your mother in law asks you to take a shot of her smiling in front of Big Ben (or the like) is that 'commissioned'? (I assume not, just checking :) ).
Click to expand...

I suspect that it would be down to what was thought reasonable in court - so they'd have to prove they'd commisioned you which would be difficult without a written contract

not that you want to get anywhere near court with your freinds and family

(and on the former point - yep, public space where you could reasonably expect to be photographed = no expectation of privacy)
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I suspect that it would be down to what was thought reasonable in court - so they'd have to prove they'd commisioned you which would be difficult without a written contract

not that you want to get anywhere near court with your freinds and family

(and on the former point - yep, public space where you could reasonably expect to be photographed = no expectation of privacy)
Click to expand...

Okay, great. Thanks for clearing this all up for me. :)
 
Just one quick question as I need clarification, if a shot of mine was used to be used for UK advertising eg. in a magazine ad, as opposed to editorial/journalism, does the same rules of not needing a model release form apply?
 
Last edited:
I have just come across this thread and found it very interesting, as I always assumed (wrongly it seems) that if I wanted to sell a print of anyone who's photo I took in a public place or event, I would need a model release form signed by that person if I was going to sell it for profit. This thread has cleared up a few misunderstandings I have had. Thank you all for sharing this information.
 
Last edited:
It's only needed when your photos are being published. In public places in the UK there is no right to privacy, so you're free too take them, sell privately & post to Flickr, etc.
 
Joenail said:
It's only needed when your photos are being published. In public places in the UK there is no right to privacy, so you're free too take them, sell privately & post to Flickr, etc.
Click to expand...

Close, but not quite right. You only need a release if the publisher asks for one.
 
kman said:
Just one quick question as I need clarification, if a shot of mine was used to be used for UK advertising eg. in a magazine ad, as opposed to editorial/journalism, does the same rules of not needing a model release form apply?
Click to expand...

In theory. They've no legal standing in the uk, regardless of useage, having said that the publishers may want one before they'll buy.
 
boyfalldown said:
In theory. They've no legal standing in the uk, regardless of useage, having said that the publishers may want one before they'll buy.
Click to expand...

and the usual reason why publishers etc want one is to protect themselves against allegations that a picture was used in a defamatory way etc (agencies tend to want them both because clients do, and because stock is sold internationally)
 
Joenail said:
It's only needed when your photos are being published. In public places in the UK there is no right to privacy, so you're free too take them, sell privately & post to Flickr, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeh, they're not needed for publication either. Unless the publisher requests one, which - for news at least - is extremely unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top