>As I have always understood, anybody in a public place is fair
>game and no model release is needed unless the photograph is going
>to be used for commercial purposes. If I snap a shot of a wide
>body waddling across the parking lot at the mall, I can make 11x14
>prints, show them to my co-workers and friends, enter one in a
>TOPE event, pretty much do anything with this image that I don't
>get paid for. But if I sell the shot to an advertising agency and
>it's used in a Slim-Fast ad, I would have to have a model release.
>Walt Wayman
The 'public place' proviso was my understanding too but, non-commercial? A
photojournalist takes images without releases and uses them for commercial
purposes, especially if freelance. That undercuts the dividing line,
whether the subject has celebrity or not and the argument of 'in the public
interest' can be flimsy.
Isn't it better to argue that a model release is for a model, hired for the
purpose, to avoid claims further than that payment? To go around getting
signatures in the street seems overly cautious. For photo competitions to
demand releases for street images would be bizarre - pusillanimous
behaviour in an overly litigious society.
AndrewF
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|