Model Release forms vs. Papparazzi

Durbs

Durbs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
837
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Just a quick question, why do some photos with people in e.g. stock photos, or publicity shots taken at an event require model release forms, whereas I assume paps (and press) can take photos of celebs for professional publication without them?

What's the difference?
 
Last edited:
You don't need them for editorial (in the uk) which is what Paps and press are doing- but you do for comercial/advertising (which is where a lot of stock goes)
 
big soft moose said:
You don't need them for editorial (in the uk) which is what Paps and press are doing- but you do for comercial/advertising (which is where a lot of stock goes)
Click to expand...


hang on ..surely its not even a requirement for commercial use in the UK either.. however most stock companies offer all around the world so get release forms more to cover there back and for other countries laws?

As far as I know model release forms arnt a legal requirement for any photogrpahy usage in the UK?

However.. this is what I am led to believe and I am not stating as fact..so am more than happy to be educated?
 
Interesting thanks - I'm not interested in doing either but was curious as to the distinction.
Slightly strange as they're both commercial in nature, although I guess from a practical point of view, getting a model release from a convicted criminal might prove troublesome.
 
KIPAX said:
hang on ..surely its not even a requirement for commercial use in the UK either.. however most stock companies offer all around the world so get release forms more to cover there back and for other countries laws?

As far as I know model release forms arnt a legal requirement for any photogrpahy usage in the UK?

However.. this is what I am led to believe and I am not stating as fact..so am more than happy to be educated?
Click to expand...

You're almost right, but not quite there! :D

Legally there is no requirement for consent to publish in this country, with a few minor exceptions such as Sect 85 of the CDPA1988 and in a very, very few cases Art 8 of the HRA 1998.

Likewise in this country, there's no legal difference between a photo published for editorial use or one used in a commercial.

The huge difference is what the photo implies.

In the UK, specifically in England and Wales, we have one of the loosest set of defamation laws in the world ( although that's in the process of being changed) and this is the principle threat to commercial use.

If a photograph implies that a person endorses a product which they may not, then there is a possibility that they can bring a defamation case.

That's what consent forms ( model release is really poor wording derived from the USA) protect against.

It doesn't even have to be a seperate document, as consent would normally be written into a contract.

That applies to adults as well as children.

There are a few, rare, circumstances that may affect a publication, such as a court injunction and/or a child protection order, but most people won't get anywhere close to being affected by these.

:)
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
hang on ..surely its not even a requirement for commercial use in the UK either.. however most stock companies offer all around the world so get release forms more to cover there back and for other countries laws?

As far as I know model release forms arnt a legal requirement for any photogrpahy usage in the UK?

However.. this is what I am led to believe and I am not stating as fact..so am more than happy to be educated?
Click to expand...

To be honest i'm not 100% sure either, my suspicion is that they arent a legal requirement, but they are a practical requirement as they are pretty much always requested if you sell images to stock or direct to advert agencies etc

(my employer has the policy that we must get model release forms for every image we use where anyone is recognisable )
 
DemiLion said:
You're almost right, but not quite there! :D
Click to expand...

oh I dont know.. you seem to be saying exact same as me but in more detail.. they are not a legal requirment in any circumstance in the UK .. but very handy to have if the need arrises :)
 
My pictures dont fall into either catagory.. yet I make money from them..
 
big soft moose said:
To be honest i'm not 100% sure either, my suspicion is that they arent a legal requirement, but they are a practical requirement as they are pretty much always requested if you sell images to stock or direct to advert agencies etc

(my employer has the policy that we must get model release forms for every image we use where anyone is recognisable )
Click to expand...

They're not required in the UK and have no legal standing here. But from a practical stand point they have 'persuasive' value if ever needed in court (ie you can show the court the subject knew exactly how a photo would be used when it was taken).

Stock agencies always ask for them as all of their customers will want one and in some jurisdictions they are needed.
 
While out shooting random strangers on the street (who are aware of me and my camera, and have no issues being photographed) I have shot many portraits. Getty, via Flickr, has requested to license them, but need signed "model release forms" and an ID type photo of the "models"
I do not understand how that is possible. So maybe as a future act, I should carry the forms and also shoot an ID photo of the 'model'? :-/
 
sultanofswing said:
While out shooting random strangers on the street (who are aware of me and my camera, and have no issues being photographed) I have shot many portraits. Getty, via Flickr, has requested to license them, but need signed "model release forms" and an ID type photo of the "models"
I do not understand how that is possible. So maybe as a future act, I should carry the forms and also shoot an ID photo of the 'model'? :-/
Click to expand...

Model release may not be a legal requirement, but agencies want to cover themselves. If someone pictured comes on to them asking for cash, it costs time and money in solicitor's letters just to tell them to bog off.

Then there is the problem of context, as DemiLion says, and agencies have no real control over that. In commercial use, there are potential issues of untrue product endorsement, and in editorial there's a danger of an image portraying something derogatory like implied involvement in prostitution or drugs abuse or whatever*.

On the other hand, this is an opportunity for an enterprising photographer as there is always demand for pictures of people doing ordinary things, but they rarely have model releases for obvious practical reasons. But if you can get that side sorted, there's good money to be made ;)

*Edit: Strange things can happen. Case in point I was involved with - totally innocent picture of an Asian girl and her BF at a car rally. She was incredibly attractive and he was waving at the camera, while the caption read 'Hands up if you would...' Soon after we got a legal letter claiming the picture had wrecked this girl's arranged marriage and her life was ruined. They had no legal case, but after that we tightened up on model releases.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
You don't need them for editorial (in the uk) which is what Paps and press are doing- but you do for comercial/advertising (which is where a lot of stock goes)
Click to expand...

I would have thought that photos for editorial can end up for comercial/advertising?
 
Major Eazy said:
I would have thought that photos for editorial can end up for comercial/advertising?
Click to expand...

The common assumption that there's some kind of fundamental difference between editorial and commercial is a myth. There is no legal difference.

As a very general rule, editorial might be assumed to be dealing in facts - and truth is an absolute defence (if you can prove it in court, which is not the same thing ;)). But that's a very dangerous generalisation.

On the other hand, commercial use almost by definition has some kind of product or service involved and that automatically presents inherent risks.
 
DemiLion said:
You're almost right, but not quite there! :D

Legally there is no requirement for consent to publish in this country, with a few minor exceptions such as Sect 85 of the CDPA1988 and in a very, very few cases Art 8 of the HRA 1998.

Likewise in this country, there's no legal difference between a photo published for editorial use or one used in a commercial.

The huge difference is what the photo implies.

In the UK, specifically in England and Wales, we have one of the loosest set of defamation laws in the world ( although that's in the process of being changed) and this is the principle threat to commercial use.

If a photograph implies that a person endorses a product which they may not, then there is a possibility that they can bring a defamation case.

That's what consent forms ( model release is really poor wording derived from the USA) protect against.

It doesn't even have to be a seperate document, as consent would normally be written into a contract.

That applies to adults as well as children.

There are a few, rare, circumstances that may affect a publication, such as a court injunction and/or a child protection order, but most people won't get anywhere close to being affected by these.

:)
Click to expand...

This is actually the case *everywhere,* even here in the USA. The problem is model releases/waivers are not well understood by photographers or clients so everyone get's one for everything possible. And then everyone expects them because you "have to have them."...
And then there is the trend towards litigation/protection from litigation...it's become a bit of a CYA document to minimize the risk from stupidity.
 
big soft moose said:
my suspicion is that they arent a legal requirement, but they are a practical requirement as they are pretty much always requested if you sell images to stock or direct to advert agencies etc
Click to expand...

I think that's about right.

You never need a contract or a release until something goes wrong and they are used to clarify what the agreement was. However, unless used to promote something or in a defamatory way, a photograph of someone taken in public where they have no expectation of privacy can be used in many ways such as published in a book or magazine, exhibited in a gallery and sold as prints.

Newspaper photographers don't have any exceptions to the law, they are just members of the public who work as photographers. The law applies equally to everyone in the country.


Steve.
 
HoppyUK said:
The common assumption that there's some kind of fundamental difference between editorial and commercial is a myth. There is no legal difference.
Click to expand...

This^

I used to shoot editorial all the time. That usually comprised of portraits a great deal of the time. I used to get a release signed. There's no legal requirement to do so, but it covers you if there's any argument regarding payment, usage, or anything else you wish to stipulate on the release.


If I were you tho... I'd be more concerned about your license to use... that's what determines it's usage, and whether it can be re-used for a different purpose. You can really nail down the usage of an image with a license, and that is legally binding as it's signed by both parties (you and the client). A release frm is also legally binding if signed and witnessed.. too. Neither of these things are a legal requirement though.


[edit]

Incidentally.... grab a copy of Beyond the Lens, published by the AoP. It's a must read publication for anyone wanting to delve a little deeper into this murky area of myth and legend.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Newspaper photographers don't have any exceptions to the law, they are just members of the public who work as photographers. The law applies equally to everyone in the country.

Steve.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There are specific exemptions in law for accredited press photographers, specifically PACE amongst other things, but with regard to publication and consent, it makes little or no difference.
 
English law applies equally to everyone. It is not dependent on your occupation.

What are these specific excemptions you mention?


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
English law applies equally to everyone. It is not dependent on your occupation.

What are these specific excemptions you mention?

Steve.
Click to expand...



Again, wrong.
 
Fine by me, although it doesn't stop you being wrong on the following points:


a) Journalists (and therefore press photographers) have specific protections under English law.

b) English law certainly doesn't treat everybody as equals

c) English law varies dependant on your job in numerous circumstances. Police officers would be a good example.
 
DemiLion said:
Fine by me, although it doesn't stop you being wrong on the following points:


a) Journalists (and therefore press photographers) have specific protections under English law.

b) English law certainly doesn't treat everybody as equals

c) English law varies dependant on your job in numerous circumstances. Police officers would be a good example.
Click to expand...

Then please, what are these specific legal protections? And what makes one person with a camera a press photographer, different to anyone else with a camera?
 
HoppyUK said:
Then please, what are these specific legal protections? And what makes one person with a camera a press photographer, different to anyone else with a camera?
Click to expand...

There are a few laws that refer to 'bona fide' journalists. Now-a-days that's recognised to be a holder of a UK Press Card.

Amongst other things journalists are not subject to the DPA and are also afforded protection for their material against police search and seizure under PACE 1984 (Sects 9,13 & 14).
 
A Press Card.

EDIT:Crossed post with Mark
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
There are a few laws that refer to 'bona fide' journalists. Now-a-days that's recognised to be a holder of a UK Press Card.

Amongst other things journalists are not subject to the DPA and are also afforded protection for their material against police search and seizure under PACE 1984 (Sects 9,13 & 14).
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
That is material protection, not personal exemption from law and would apply to anyone's photograph, not just to someone who happened to (or claimed to) work for the press.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Durbs said:
Just a quick question, why do some photos with people in e.g. stock photos, or publicity shots taken at an event require model release forms, whereas I assume paps (and press) can take photos of celebs for professional publication without them?

What's the difference?
Click to expand...

It's a matter of usage. You can publish images containing people for any use which might be considered newsworthy, artistic, educational, or editorial. They fall under what is known as "exemptions" and a release is not required. However commercial use is different, providing you understand what commercial actually means. Commercial does not mean that you have taken money for the photograph, since you are likely to be paid (one hopes) for use under the various exemptions. Instead, commercial usage means use of the image (the person's likeness) to advertise or promote goods or services. A release is indeed required for this, the reason being that the individual concerned may not wish to have themselves associated with any given product or service. This is why stock agencies will normally insist on a release for photographs containing prominently recognisable individuals. Crowd scenes are treated differently however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top