BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Model Releases at Weddings

My wedding couple client has signed the release allowing me to use their photos for display, etc. However, do I also need releases from the bridesmaids and groomsmen if using their group shot for display? For that matter, how 'bout releases for all of the other wedding guests who are laughing in the background as that groom goes ever-so-high for the garter? Maybe obsessive, but just wanting to cover all the "CYA" bases. Thanks for any input!

To love this question, log in above
May 02, 2006

The way around this is to provide guests with sufficient notice, prominently displayed at every entry to each venue where you will photographing that says, essentially, entry to the event constitutes their implied consent and sufficient consideration to be photographed and to have those photographs published in print or electronically.

And there you have it.
Mark

To love this comment, log in above
May 02, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
May 02, 2006

1) If a guest called and said take my photos off the web, would you?
2) If a guest asked you not to photograph them at the event, would you? What if the B&G specifically asked you to photograph them?
3) Not only is it OK to photograph people in public (this is why the paparazzi can do what they do), but at a wedding, it is expected. So, legally, there wouldn't be an issue. As long as the images were not posted in a mean-spirited way. For example, I have seen photographers take unflattering photos, intentionally, of a guest that was being rude or obnoxious and post them somewhere on the internet to poke fun. I think in a case like that, the person whose photo you took would have a case against you.

Now, back to my questions. If asked, I would take photos off my website or on-line galleries. I have thousands and thousands of photos to use. While it would suck if it was a great one, I tend to honor an individuals right to privacy. That doesn't mean I have to. I don't. But, I do feel the obligation toward my fellow people.

If the B&G asked me to photograph someone, and when I went to snap, they said no. Then, I would honor that, and just notify the bride or groom that they said no. Easy.

As far as a release goes, you really only need that if you are submitting to a publication. This means that the publication, and/or presumably, you, will make profit from their likeness. This requires a specific release, and you have to go through the process of getting that directly from each person who is being published.

But, for puttng on your website, on-line galleries, and such, my understanding of the law is that you don't need a specific release for that. You were a photographer at an event. Everyone knew that a photographer would be present, they are in a public place, during a public event, with a photographer present. It just can't get any more clear cut than that.

To love this comment, log in above
May 03, 2006

Nancy

To love this comment, log in above
May 03, 2006

I think it's a twisted screwed up law, but it must exist for a reason.

To love this comment, log in above
May 03, 2006

If you are standing inside your home, and someone on a public street takes a picture of you through a window, they have invaded your privacy. You are NOT in a public place.

Yes, celebrities are photographed in their back yards all the time, but that doesn't mean it is legal.

To love this comment, log in above
May 03, 2006

Your first concept regarding photographing private people in a public places misunderstands the fundamental right to privacy concept along with an individual's right to control the usage of their own likeness or image. After that, you go on to misapply the privacy laws in the majority of states. Generally people do NOT understand this law, more specifically many photographers don't understand it well either, although it's not at all complex and Joe, I think you're making it more difficult than it is because you simply just don't like the law(s) as they may apply to you.

As far as photographing prominent people in public, they're fair game as long as the photograph can't be construed as defamatory or depicting the person in a false light. Prominent people in private, unless you've been invited into that property or space, it's NOT fair game, and unless you've got a release, you CANNOT publish with impugnity.

Chris is exactly correct. Merely being able to view the inside of a private home from the street does NOT extend the public boundaries to the livingroom interior. It's private space whether you can see into it or not. Think of it this way: Your scenario is analogous to a guy who knocks off a liquor store and gets away with it and that fact takes an unlawful act and makes it legal. Wrong-o!!

Finally Joe and Nancy, the issues are (again) privacy and one's legal right to control the use of their image or likeness. Joe's stretch of some sort of implied consent to publish some images some times just doesn't exist under American law. Even news media exceptions to the release laws are becoming less and less commonly held up by state courts. And web sites ARE publishing and DO require a release BEFORE you put it on your site. Not after someone asks you to take it off.
At that point, you're already subject to liability.

Failure to obtain proper releases won't prevent you from getting sued, but they will serve as your first line of defense in the event you are sued.

Okie dokie gang?
Take it light.
Mark

To love this comment, log in above
May 03, 2006

BTW Joe, one last point. Yes, people attending a wedding may certainly and reasonably expect to be photographed. But that's a long way from granting anyone, including the bride or groom, the license to publish those photos in any manner or form without their express (not implied but "express" consent. And, as I said earlier, "publish" means either to print or display in an electronic medium, whether or not it's for profit. Now THAT's clear cut and also the law. What happens if you photograph someone at a private wedding in a public park who's attending the deal with someone that their wife doesn't think they should be attending it with and you publish that photo without a release (or knowing their personal history). Are you liable for defamation and damages? Think about it.

Oh, and paparazzi do what they do, not because the law necessarily under some circumstances (not all, but some) allows them to invade someones privacy, but because publishers print the stuff paparazzi shoot. That in turn often gets the publisher AND the photographer sued for things like defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of an image or likeness. It also may entitle plaintiffs to punitive damages especially when an aggrieved party can demonstrate the photographer and/or the publisher acted in bad faith, with malice and/or the intent to injure the person depicted in their person or reputation.

Mark
==============================
"Deminimis non-curat lex" (The law shall not concern itself with trifles.) Anon. Latin author.

To love this comment, log in above
May 03, 2006