BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Deb Frantz		Model Releases I'm taking pictures for our church's capital appeal fund and some will be used in newsletters. If I capture someone (candid photo) and the photo is used, and that person comes back and says that I didn't have his/her permission, do I actually need a model release? The newsletter is just being mailed to the congregation. Hopefully, an answer can be found pretty quickly due to time being of importance. Thank you for your help. To love this question, log in above February 21, 2002

Jeff S. Kennedy		I'm no lawyer, I just play one on TV. ;-))) But this sounds like an editorial use for the photographs. As such, no release is required. Releases are only required when the photograph is to be used in a commercial way. Such as in an advertisement or sold. To love this comment, log in above February 22, 2002

John A. Lind		I'm not an attorney either, but agree with Jeff from your description. In general a model release is required if: (a) the person(s) are recognizable (b) the image will be used for "promotional" or "commercial" purposes to promote or sell goods or services (including those of the photographer who shot the photograph). Classic examples are advertising and photographs used in corporate annual reports. Which way your usage of these falls depends some on how the accompanying article(s) are written. Ostensibly, your newsletter is akin to a newspaper. If the article is written "third person" as reporting news about the fund drive, much as an independent newspaper would write it, you should be OK. If it's written as an advertisement or even like an "infomercial" to promote donating to the fund drive, you're now skirting on commercial use. Other issues: (a) Property: Unless this is being done on publicly owned property, ensure you have explicit permission from whoever owns the property on which the photographs are made. If it's church property, the permission is implicit in their asking you to do the photography. Classic example of "private" property on which the public is invited but requires permission: a shopping mall. (b) Libel: Even though you should be able to claim First Amendment "editorial" usage, it does not provide relief from a libel claim for a phtograph that is misleading, very embarrassing or defamatory. You shouldn't run into this, but may inadvertently hit the shutter release at the wrong time and catch someone in an embarrassing posture or pose which might offend them. It's one of the hazards of candids. If it occurs, simply don't use the photograph for anything. This doesn't mean you (or the church) cannot be sued for lack of "releases," but it does mean you have some manner of defense. I would hope nobody you encounter doing this would pursue litigation over something so trivial. The vast majority of attorneys would so advise a potential client who is seeking litigation (e.g. "get a life" and sue over something meaningful). Use common sense; those involved should know you're photographing them and if someone objects at that time, simply don't use it. (It doesn't mean you must surrender film to anyone; that's your property even if their image is on it.) -- John To love this comment, log in above February 23, 2002

This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here Report this Thread