i may have the oppertunity to sell it it the future....but photographers can snap pics of celebrities and sell them to supermarket rags without a release?
2006-12-06 14:52:08 · 5 answers · asked by jstrmbill 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
supermarket rags publish images of celebrities under editorial usage. As far as I know this is the only way a photographer can photograph a "public" figure and publish it with out a model release. A model release (and property release) is for the photographer's protection, not the model's or property owner's.
When a model poses for you that image usage is considered commercial not editorial.
hope this helps
2006-12-08 02:50:06 · answer #1 · answered by Tim O 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Celebrities and other public figures are subject to special rules because of their status. Even then they cannot legally be photographed when they are not out in public.
The rest of us, however, can restrict use of our images for your financial gain. The release form gives permission for you to sell the model's image. Very few will buy from you without the release.
I suggest that you read some of the web articles on the legal rights and responsibilities of photographers. There are some very serious laws concerning privacy that could result in legal problems for you.
Good Luck
2006-12-06 15:15:26 · answer #2 · answered by fredshelp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having your model to sign a release form is a protection for you. It grants you the right to use his/her image as stated on your release form. If you are selling your works, you have to protect yourselves as in any business. People will look for ways to sue you if you get famous. Remember the "Tasters' Choice" coffee case? The guy posed in 1986 and waited until it is profitable to sue Nestle in 2002. He won the case and Nestle paid him Millions.... Of course you can argue that the guy sue Nestle and not the photographer, and so as the celebs will sue the magazines instead. But if you are really going to do this as a business, do it right. Protect you works, protect yourself.
2006-12-06 19:33:38 · answer #3 · answered by cal_seal 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really...
That why many get sued.
One who poses does so in employment-hence some form of royalty.
A celeb may just be considered a celeb..
but when one begans making money -ect-
by stalking a particular person- it can infringe on liberty of that person.
It may become a libility to celeb career (over exposure) and one just can't take all the pictures one chooses.
court limits such these days.
2006-12-06 14:55:22 · answer #4 · answered by cork 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are celebrities and the photographer is a professional doing his job freelance or for magazine publishers.
2006-12-06 14:59:38 · answer #5 · answered by newyorkgal71 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋