Release for Candids?

[Daylon]

Just curious, what do you guys use for shooting a couple of hours of candids?

Was thinking some sort of very simply signup-sheet sorta thing.. (not to mention that it's a good oppty for building contacts for potential future business)

D.

Also, shooting my first bridal session this afternoon - do you use standard model releases for bridals?

[HotHolly]

Originally Posted by Daylon

Also, shooting my first bridal session this afternoon - do you use standard model releases for bridals?

Yep.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

If what you call "candids" are street shots of people in general public areas there is a big discussion about needing releases. (do a search on the NY Hasidic Jew who tried to sue a photographer who was taking street shots with a remotely fired camera that went to the NY Supreme Court).

Generally you don't need releases and the Court in the above case sided with the photographer even though he was using the photos for commercial use in both a book and a touring photographic show, but that ruling only holds totally true in NY state.

[Daylon]

No, these are going to be candids in a restaurant for a party -

D.

Originally Posted by DEMDeepEllumMusic

If what you call "candids" are street shots of people in general public areas there is a big discussion about needing releases. (do a search on the NY Hasidic Jew who tried to sue a photographer who was taking street shots with a remotely fired camera that went to the NY Supreme Court).

Generally you don't need releases and the Court in the above case sided with the photographer even though he was using the photos for commercial use in both a book and a touring photographic show, but that ruling only holds totally true in NY state.

[bondarnes]

Daylon, I will bring copies of what we use. If you place it in the context of your original order agreement it becomes less of an obstacle than if you slap a sheet in front of some and say, "Sign this so I can use your images any way I see fit>"

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Now you get onto Private Property and the laws are all different. Go with what Don said in this case.

[Daylon]

Thanks Don - I have a property release i was going to use - just wasn't sure on the candid stuff -

Originally Posted by DEMDeepEllumMusic

Now you get onto Private Property and the laws are all different. Go with what Don said in this case.

[chris1999]

according to a few sources I've read on the subject, the problem isn't whether you'll be sued or not. The photographer isnt the one liable. The publisher is the one who is taking the risk. (given that you dont misrepresent yourself as the image being released when it is not, or gotten through illegal means, etc) As long as you aren't knowingly selling images that require releases to people it's not on you. The problem arises when those publishers don't want to take the chance of being sued and want releases for everything regardless of whether its required or not. So, you might not necessarily have a problem legally yourself, you'll just possibly miss out on a sale if the publisher wants releases you dont have (and don't legally need). If you're the publisher too, then forget everything I said :) There's also a big grey area about what the intent of the photo is. A street scene where a specific person isnt the focus is pretty harmless. A candid of a particular person watching a parade might be a different story.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Originally Posted by chris1999

A street scene where a specific person isnt the focus is pretty harmless. A candid of a particular person watching a parade might be a different story.

Chris you need to go read some more, The Courts have agreed, even with a remote fired camera in the NY case, that if you are shooting in a public place on public property (street, city/state/federal park, public beaches, etc) you do not need releases from the subject because the perceived level of privacy is not there. (this does not cover lewd and lacivious shots that are considered to be normal levels of expected privacy even in a public place).

Now if you are on public land and they are on private land the laws are a little more in the grey area but usually the courts have sided with the photographer, if this were not the case then there would be no paparazzi on the planet since there is no way that they could get photos that they do and have them published. Now there could be a question on the latest Lindsey Lohan shots over this weekend of her passed out drunk and also being escorted to an alley to get sick because the car could have been parked on private property at the time while the alley could be a public alley the photographer may have had to step onto private land to get the shots that they did.

Now the laws change completely when you enter private property and those do need releases and the subject is considered a "model" by the courts in most cases though general party shots could be covered by a blanket waiver issued by the host and the guests all know that the photos will be taken at the event.

What is interesting is when you go to an event like Burning Man which is a private affair but being held on BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land which is federal property. When I shot in the past I did sign a waiver with the BM organization and also before I took any shots of people I did get their tacit approval and if the shot was questionable at all I did have model releases with me. Now I even had art instalation releases to be signed by the artists but I soon found out that no artists at the event (other than performance artists) had an questions or problems of their work being documented because many times the work was going to burn in the next few days anyway. (BTW they require people who do go through the waiver process to have a # tag on each camera that they are using so that if they are pushing or breaking the rules that they can be reported to the local Rangers *BM volunteer police force.)

[chris1999]

deep ellum. im not disagreeing with your statement on the whole. what i am saying is, publishers might not want to take the chance. i know photographers who have been denied a sale because the publisher wanted to cover what were probably unnecessary bases.