James has pretty well summarized the
conventional wisdom – if the subject is recognizable, and if the
photograph is used commercially (for advertising), then a release is required.
And releases are sometimes required for physical things and places (private
property) if it is recognizable and the images are used commercially.
But there is one other situation where
releases may not be legally required, but are still advisable. If there
is any concern that questions might later be raised about the “appropriateness”
of the photography, or about the behavior of the photographer, having a release
signed at the conclusion of the session goes a long way to dispelling any
dispute. So, if the subject is a minor, it is always wise to have a
release signed by the parents or guardians. And if the subject is nude,
having a signed release is also good insurance.
From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Schenken
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007
11:23 AM
To: List for Photo/Imaging
Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: sort of strange
question
It all depends:
It is my understanding ( not a lawyer ) that the issue of releases is a function
if identifiability and usage.
If the usage is commercial ( i.e., for advertising in it's many forms ), then a
release is likely to be required.
If the usage is editorial ( i.e., in a book, at an exhibit and not for sale, in
a newspaper, etc. and will not be used to advertise one of the preceding ) then
a release is generally not required.
If the usage could be construed as being detrimental to the person, then a
release is definitely required.
OTOH
If the person is identifiable by a third party, then see the usage rules but a
release is a really good idea.
If the person is not identifiable by a third party, then no release is
required.
BTW these rules apply to objects as well. If it's private property (or a
private person), and you could make any money from the image, then get a
release.
The usual caveats about consulting with legal authorities before acting on this
information applies. <grin> - that means don't cite this post as part of
your defense.,
Cheers,
James
At 06:19 AM 12/14/2007 -0500, you wrote:
I have a question that seems strange in a way but I am
coming to the experts :)
Ok, if you take pictures of people you need permission to use them, but if you
take pictures of 'body parts' do you still need permission? I mean, who
is to say who owns the hands you are shooting? Or does it matter where
you take them? If you take them in public is it alright to use? But
then again if say, you are at a wedding and shoot just hands, are they not in
public domain? Just wondering (well, not just, but wondering).
Thanks to anyone who can help. Linda
James Schenken
