Example: I do a photo sitting of a child and feel one photos well represents my work. I post it on my website. Should I get a release? I found the following website which says I do not. (See Section 8)
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
2007-10-30 03:58:49 · 10 answers · asked by april_hwth 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
Yes.
I have ALL clients sign a release, regardless of what I'm taking. It's simply a section in my contract that everyone signs. It states that I have copyright, that they (may) have license rights, and that I can use it on the web, for advertising, in my studio, basically any purpose I deem appropriate except for sales - unless of course I paid them to model.
I had one client who was concerned about their one year old appearing in photos with just their diaper on. They purchased the photos because they loved them, but did not want them otherwise displayed. I didn't even post them on a secure site with a password - why take the chance.
Most people are pretty proud that you'd consider their children for your portfolio, but some do not. You have to take it on a case by case basis.
Regardless, make it part of a standard contract and it won't seem like such a big deal.
2007-10-30 04:31:51 · answer #1 · answered by DigiDoc 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the "need to worry," and the "risk and rewards" sections that highlight why a professional will, almost, always obtain a model release, befor publishing the images in ANY form of distribution.
I have done shots at events sponsored by a local newspaper. None of these shots have EVER been intended for publication in the newspaper. In fact, the intention of these photos has always been to, merely, POST them on a board at the NEXT event at that venue. Still, the newspaper insisted that I get model releases. The reason is that most of the subjects were children, and, with kids, I, and the paper had to recognize the sensitivity of using children's images IN ANY FORM. Hence, the releases signed by the parents.
The parents might not have been able to, legally, stop the posting of the images, but the risks of possible hassles, outweighed the potential rewards. The model releases made the likelyhood of a hassle one step removed.
2007-10-30 11:11:56 · answer #2 · answered by Vince M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The question is whether you are using the pictures for commercial purposes. If you are simply showing your work the picture will fall under the fair use clause. You will not need to have a release.
If you had a picture that could be considered defamatory then I would avoid putting it up as that could be another mess.
Now if you are promoting your work, I.E. offering the pictures up for sale then you clearly can not use the picture even if you do not make any sales.
Now a common mistake that many photographer is not reading the fine print of their own Model releases. On the very first line of almost all valid model releases, it will say "For valuable consideration".
What this means is you have to actually give something to the model to make the contract valid. This could be one dollar or a print. Simply having them sign it is not enough.
As a side note if you did put any picture up and someone objected to being shown I would still take it down as you would most likely win, but that still wouldn't prevent you from going to court if push came to shove
2007-10-30 05:38:17 · answer #3 · answered by Michael L 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If photos were taken at a public event then it is basically understood that anyone attending the even is in the "public domain." However, if the photos were taken at private sittings, then you absolutely must have a release. The photo of the child that you describes sounds like a posed photo and, yes, you need a release...a parental release if the child is a minor. You should never post photos of minors anywhere without their parents' consent.
2007-10-30 04:04:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
model release photos online portfolio
2016-02-03 17:03:58 · answer #5 · answered by Courtney 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes... always get a model release from anyone that you take in a private setting if there's a chance you may publish the photo or use it on a website...
"Happy snaps" or public photos usually don't count, but use your best judgement.
2007-10-30 04:44:28 · answer #6 · answered by MrNormal 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dan Hellers site was speaking on "property releases", which are different than "model releases".
Always get a release from any client/model that sits in front of your camera. You dont need property releases for any property that is within easy public view, for locations, backdrops, etc.... If you shoot within a location that is private property, and not within public view, get a "property release", just to keep any future problems from propping up.
2007-10-30 07:44:59 · answer #7 · answered by photoguy_ryan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i would say yes because if some one wants to use an image you display and you don't have model release or some one sees there children in the Internet and you don't have permission it may give you problems
2007-10-30 04:09:24 · answer #8 · answered by Mike 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be a good idea to get the permission first. Unless they already signed something saying that you have the rights to that picture. Most people wouldn't mind though, if it's just for your online portfolio. They probably would be flattered. Good luck.
2007-10-30 04:04:50 · answer #9 · answered by blndbeauty217 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is always best to get releases from all models, especially children.
2007-10-30 04:02:45 · answer #10 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋