Welcome to the ACE Index, the
definitive web directory for locating
camera equipment, used cameras, photo labs, camera repair
and photo equipment manufacturers in 34 countries.
This is an archived message in our
forum
Posted by Doug Clifford on July 15, 1999 at 07:43:24:
In Reply to: Model Releases for Photo Contests? posted by Mike on July 14, 1999 at 10:17:07:
: I am volunteering on a festival committee, and we're holding a photo contest. Photos submitted must relate to activities of the festival itself, including events held for the general public. Many, if not most, of these photos will have people in them. My understanding is that if the photos are not sold for profit, releases are not necessary. Will we have the right to display them and award (cash) prizes to the winning photographers?
Hello Mike,
First I have to make it clear I am not a lawyer and the following is not to be construed as legal advice. :-) I have been a photographer for 39 years and have learned a thing or two about model releases.
Your statement "if the photos are not sold for profit, releases are not necessary" is generally true with numerous exceptions. The courts have generally relied on New York state statutes which define a photograph as "an article of commerce" when it has been sold and money has changed hands.
Laws relating to model releases stem from the right of people to have an expectation of privacy, so photographs of people taken in a public place doing public things are much safer than photos taken surreptitiously over someone's high backyard fence of people doing private things. Public figures (politicians, celebrities and their immediate family members) don't enjoy the same right to privacy.
Problems occur most often when a photographer photographs someone doing something embarrassing and then exploits that photograph and subjects the person depicted to scorn and ridicule. Another way to guarantee litigation is to attach a misleading or derogatory caption to an otherwise ordinary photo. On such example occurred several years ago when a midwest daily newspaper staff photographer took a picture of man sleeping on a park bench during the hot summer day, and then captioned the picture with a sentence labeling the man "a vagrant". It was poor judgment and the newspaper quickly paid several thousand dollars rather than try to justify their First Amendment protection. Accredited news photographers and television news video cameramen have an almost absolute right to photograph what they want to without legal repercussions.
I don't think there is much risk in awarding small cash prizes to winners of the photo contest, however there are some things which should not be done with the winning photographs: they should not be used on future promotional posters for the next festival, they should not be transferred to tee-shirts or other memorabilia which is then sold, and extreme care should be used in selecting winning photos which depict minor children. (Only the parent or guardian can sign a release for such pictures.) Contest judges should not choose winning pictures which show anyone in a ridiculous or embarrassing pose, no matter how funny it may seem.
Obviously if the people are not recognizable in a photograph, as in photos where the people are shot from behind, or their faces are not distinct, then there is no need for a model release. The need for a model release also expires when a person photographed subsequently dies.
There are many different forms a model release can take, from a simple statement that the person photographed releases the use of the picture for (and then list the possible uses) to extremely complex releases which are used by professional photographers and which cover every possible use and misuse. A model release requires the signature of the subject(s) and in the case of a minor, the signature of the minor's parent or guardian. There must also be something of value or consideration given to the subject in exchange for signing the model release. This can be a promise to give them a print WHETHER THE PHOTO IS USED OR NOT and then following through and seeing they receive a print. If not a photo, the consideration can be as little as $1. (This practice has led to a new occupation for some people in third world countries who make themselves available to traveling photographers -- for a price.
One other thing, model releases are not limited to people. Private property is also protected. This means you cannot take a photograph of someone's house or estate, or someone's handmade crafts and then use the photos to make money.
end of archived message
[ Post New Message ] [ View Current Messages ] [ FAQ ]