Another lawsuit to keep an eye on

[markfh]

Not a lot of information in this article that concerns a photograph taken at a public venue. It will be interesting to hear the photographers side of this.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=9

[TheObiJuan]

Jesus, if I had to get a release for every public shot I took....
I understand the man's position for shooting, but that would just suck to have to get a release.

[wjmphoto]

The shooter screwed up. You don't take an image and then sell it to a stock agency or any commercial purposes without a release from the subject. Any type of commercial sale of your images is going to require a release from the subject and if you don't get one you are open to a lawsuit if you they find out. (Stock agencies also require releases to be on files in order for you to do business with them as a photographer. It would not surprise me if this guys gets kicked from the stock agency in question for doing this. Pretty stupid of him to do this and lose his income stream.)

[Craig]

I'm suprised that the stock agency and the card company used an image that didn't have a signed release. That's shame on them. I thought they were tightening the screws after the Folgers lawsuit.

[daveb]

Originally Posted by wjmphoto

The shooter screwed up. You don't take an image and then sell it to a stock agency or any commercial purposes without a release from the subject. Any type of commercial sale of your images is going to require a release from the subject and if you don't get one you are open to a lawsuit if you they find out. (Stock agencies also require releases to be on files in order for you to do business with them as a photographer. It would not surprise me if this guys gets kicked from the stock agency in question for doing this. Pretty stupid of him to do this and lose his income stream.)

Not totally correct ... there is a nuance here ... the image without a model release may be sold through stock agencies and limited to editorial use... moreover it is the responsibility of the publisher to ensure that if a release is needed one is in place.

so depending how the photographer "licensed" the image (if he marked it No MR - and Editorial) he may well be very much in the clear


I have a bunch of images that are stock and are editorial use only

[daveb]

Originally Posted by Craig

I'm suprised that the stock agency and the card company used an image that didn't have a signed release. That's shame on them. I thought they were tightening the screws after the Folgers lawsuit.

Do you have a link to info on the Folgers Lawsuit???

[Steelsun]

But the Folger's lawsuit ended up being mostly overturned/nulled on appeal, didn't it? They guy ended up getting a minor amount of $ for the trouble.

[Steelsun]

Woops - It was Taster's CHoice.
Here's a humorous article on it and the appeal:
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/1...of_appeal.html

[dreemes]

Originally Posted by Steelsun

Woops - It was Taster's CHoice.
Here's a humorous article on it and the appeal:
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/1...of_appeal.html

Thats what happens when you don't have that cup of coffee in the morning.

[wjmphoto]

Originally Posted by daveb

Not totally correct ... there is a nuance here ... the image without a model release may be sold through stock agencies and limited to editorial use... moreover it is the responsibility of the publisher to ensure that if a release is needed one is in place.

so depending how the photographer "licensed" the image (if he marked it No MR - and Editorial) he may well be very much in the clear


I have a bunch of images that are stock and are editorial use only

I guess it depends on who you work with.

istock:


9.0 - Model Release:

1. All photographs where an identifiable human face is present require a model release. There are no exceptions.
2. If the photograph is of a minor (a child under the age of 18), a model release must be signed by a parent or legal guardian.
3. If the photo is of the photographer (a self portrait), a model release is still required.
4. A model release should be uploaded with each file. If you're uploading successive shots of the same model, the model release should be uploaded with each shot.
5. A valid witness signature must appear on the model release. It must be someone other than the photographer.

Regardless of editorial or not, it is the responsibility of the photographer to get the model release, not the publisher to see that there was one in the first place. If the shooter is too lazy to carry releases on them for images that they may consider selling, they should not be shooting in the first place. Whether we as photographers want to believe it or not, people have a right to publicity and they also have a right to not be defamed through use of their photos. The shooter in this case was stupid and deserves to be sued and lose.

[Coelus]

Most of this stuff will probably never apply to me, but I do have a related question.

What about the signs and disclaimers I've seem posted around an area that tell you your image may be on TV show X or Movie X, etc. that's being filmed wth the bounds of the singage? These things are sold and distributed, it's just a different medium.

[fivegrand]

Originally Posted by Coelus

What about the signs and disclaimers I've seem posted around an area that tell you your image may be on TV show X or Movie X, etc. that's being filmed wth the bounds of the singage? These things are sold and distributed, it's just a different medium.

Public notice within the venue, which is usually private property.

If you don't want to be recorded, you have fair and public warning that you should not enter.

This is how it works in Oregon, other states may differ.

Oregon also has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" law, which prevents/dismisses suits of this nature when it is determined that at the time of the depiction, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.

[markfh]

Originally Posted by Coelus

Most of this stuff will probably never apply to me, but I do have a related question.

What about the signs and disclaimers I've seem posted around an area that tell you your image may be on TV show X or Movie X, etc. that's being filmed wth the bounds of the singage? These things are sold and distributed, it's just a different medium.

I'd be careful there as well. If it specifies who you may be photographed or video taped by they might have an exclusive contract. Just a guess...

[daveb]

Originally Posted by wjmphoto

I guess it depends on who you work with.

istock:


9.0 - Model Release:

1. All photographs where an identifiable human face is present require a model release. There are no exceptions.
2. If the photograph is of a minor (a child under the age of 18), a model release must be signed by a parent or legal guardian.
3. If the photo is of the photographer (a self portrait), a model release is still required.
4. A model release should be uploaded with each file. If you're uploading successive shots of the same model, the model release should be uploaded with each shot.
5. A valid witness signature must appear on the model release. It must be someone other than the photographer.

Regardless of editorial or not, it is the responsibility of the photographer to get the model release, not the publisher to see that there was one in the first place. If the shooter is too lazy to carry releases on them for images that they may consider selling, they should not be shooting in the first place. Whether we as photographers want to believe it or not, people have a right to publicity and they also have a right to not be defamed through use of their photos. The shooter in this case was stupid and deserves to be sued and lose.

Tap the brakes bro

These stipulations are in place on istock. The images are sold Royalty Free meaning there is no restriction on their use.

I am on Alamy and images without release may be sold as Rights Managed with the restriction to only Editorial use.

There is a total difference in usage between RF and RM images

I just sold a image of a firefighter to a first responder magazine through a broker. That image would not require a "release"

You may want to take a read here and get some facts...
http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer

[daveb]

Hey Just BTW I just saw this on Alamy:

From Member services


Although we can sell images without releases for editorial purposes, having a model or property release greatly enhances the saleability of an image. For images that are relevant to the advertising market, having a release is essential.
Clients expect images, portraying people or property in them, to have signed releases. Even if an image depicts a crowd scene, any person identifiable in any way in the image would warrant a model release. Images with releases have a greater sales potential than similar unreleased images. But again, the need for a released image is determined by how a buyer proposes to use the image. Unreleased images have no legal ramifications as far as editorial usage is concerned, but they cannot be used for advertising purposes. Such images should have their license types set to L as opposed to RF.
So if the image contains property which requires release, you need to mark it as "Yes".
If the proper releases are not available, you always have the option of marking the images as "Licensed" and to set the restrictions in such a way that the images can be used for editorial purposes only.