Model Release Questions...

[NYPhotographer]

What is the name of your state? New York State

Hey,

My name is Rafi and I'm a young photographer living
in Brooklyn,NY


I have a lot of different questions about model releases for Photography.

1. If you shoot a wedding and sell the pictures on
you website in a gallery with a password to the client
you don't need a model release, but if the client
gives the password to friends and family and you start
selling them don't you need a model release since
you are making profit?


I will post more as I think of them thanks.

[quincy]

If you take wedding photos, you own the copyrights to the photos, but you are limited in what you can do with these photos.

You would need permission from those photographed to sell pictures of the wedding directly to others. To sell photos of the wedding to others without this permission can violate rights of both privacy and publicity.

You also need permission from those photographed to display the photos on a regular website. A password-protected website is fine as long as it is part of the contract agreed to and signed. To display the photos without such permission could be problematic.

Generally, a wedding photographer will have a contract that the wedding couple agrees to - for instance, a contract that outlines the places the photos should be taken, the people that should be photographed, the particular events that take place during the wedding (like cake-cutting) that should be photographed, etc., and the contract will have, spelled out, the cost of the picture-taking and the cost of any photo "packages" available for purchase after the wedding.

The contract allows the wedding couple to purchase X amount of photos at X amount of dollars. While the photographer does not sell any rights in the photos (for instance, the wedding couple cannot legally purchase one photo and make a hundred copies of it to distribute or it would infringe on the photographer's copyright), the wedding couple in turn does not sell any rights to their image. The photographer cannot sell photos of them, say, to Bride magazine, without permission, and likewise, the photographer would be wise to not sell the photos to anyone but the bridal couple (or the person(s) who signed the contract).

You cannot, therefore, make a profit off of wedding photos by selling them to other people unless those pictured in the wedding photos have given you express, preferably written, permission to do so.

In addition, to avoid problems on your password-protected website, if the wedding couple gives out the password to others, it is wisest still to ONLY sell THROUGH the wedding couple and not directly to others. With the password, people can view the website and pass on their photo choices to the wedding couple, who can, in turn, order the photos for them, thereby ensuring the photos are only going to the people the wedding couple intends them to go to. If the wedding couple WANTS you to sell directly to those accessing the site, make sure you have a written agreement with this wedding couple clearly spelling this out.

[NYPhotographer]

Thanks,

I know I own the right and I would need permission from
the couple. But I was asking if I would need model releases from
everyone at the party, not so that I could sell it as stock
but so that I could sell it to them too...

[quincy]

Sorry, NYPhotographer. I was messing around with my answer and editing it a bit when you posted.

You would not need releases from those you photographed at the wedding - the wedding contract the couple signed grants you permission to photograph everyone at the wedding, and those accepting invitations to the wedding have given their implied consent to be photographed by being present at the wedding. There is no expectation of privacy at a wedding and there is an expectation of being photographed.

But, as I mentioned in my "edited" post, in my mind it is wisest to deal directly only with the wedding couple and not with those attending the wedding, when it comes to the selling of the photos taken, unless you have a specific and explicit signed agreement from the couple saying you can sell directly to anyone accessing the site with the password.

The likelihood of someone getting the password that shouldn't have it, and then using it to order wedding photos, and then using these photos for a nefarious purpose are really really slim, but I tend to be overly cautious.

[NYPhotographer]

Thanks lots of help

the part where you said that the guests taking the invite and being
there is like a model release was what I needed.

You also need permission from those photographed to display the photos on a regular website.

Are you sure about this or only if I am selling it for profit or advertising.

[quincy]

By posting photos of others on a website, without permission, you run into possible invasion of privacy and right of publicity issues - people generally have the right to determine when, how, or if their image is used, and who views it, with exceptions made for newsworthy events or public events.

Granted, problems are more apt to arise when there is a commercial aspect involved in the display of photos, but there have been lawsuits started over photos appearing on websites like Facebook and MySpace, among others. A lawsuit over the posting of wedding photos, while unlikely, is always a possibility, unless you first obtain permission to post. Weddings are considered, usually, private events attended by people specifically chosen to attend, and are not, usually, open for public review, comment, or criticism.

[NYPhotographer]

Oh yeah by weddings that makes sense I was thinking
about someone in public I photographed. Why I know I can't
use it for commercial use but I could post it to show my skills.

The person is in public and has no privacy.

[NYPhotographer]

Another question...

There is this professional photographer that goes to
little league games to photograph the kids.
He is hired by the leagues to take the photos
and then post them online to sell them to the parents (this happens in a public place).

I don't understand why in this situation he wouldn't
need a release from the parents since he is selling them for profit?

[quincy]

Yup. People in public are generally fair game for a photographer, and photos of them can be displayed, again generally, without fear. Certainly, however, the best way to avoid any lawsuit is to obtain permission from any identifiable person or people photographed before displaying or selling the photo.

There have been lawsuits brought, and won, by people photographed in public. If someone is in public but is pictured doing something that would be considered private (adjusting a skirt that has blown up or sitting down with underwear showing or using an ATM machine, for instance), a wise photographer will not display or attempt to sell the photo. Any commercial use of a photo where a specific person or people are pictured should be used only after obtaining a release from those pictured, to best protect against any suit.

As for the photographs taken of the Little League games, releases from the parents would be wise. Even when a photographer takes group shots of children, if these children are recognizable, the photographer should obtain releases from the parents. Implied consent - where the parents know the pictures are being taken of their children and allow it to continue - will not protect the photographer if a parent decides to sue over the display and/or sale of the photos. I am surprised, actually, that a professional photographer has not protected himself with releases - unless, and this is probably the case, the "release" is part of the Little League contract the parents sign. If the League hired the photographer, I would bet the photographer is covered.