BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Property release

To love this question, log in above
April 22, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
April 22, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
June 10, 2007

Sports figures are especially controlling of their images, how and where they're used and/or distributed. Yes. Again it matters not where it was taken.

Sure, ask for a release at the time it was taken. Chances are whomever it is will defer the release to their agent or publicist to say yes or no. If it's yes, make sure it's in writing.

The compensation offered in exchange for a signed model release is up to the two parties entering into the agreement to sign the release. It's called legal "consideration".

Now it's your turn Suzanne. You need to go out and buy a book on release law, business practices for photographers and start self-educating. And that ain't no "bull" either.
OK, now I'm off the clock.
M

To love this comment, log in above
June 10, 2007

You will find some great info to these questions there that will be a bit more clearer. I highly recommend her book as well which you can purchase from the site.

Ray

To love this comment, log in above
June 10, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
June 11, 2007

Unfortunately, I think your answer, which is probably correct, just serves to carry this too far. Are you implying that baseball players [whose pictures are snapped by newspaper reporters and fans during a game]really sign releases before these are published. Come on.

Doesn't common sense play a role in this debate. I mean, if there were something that demeans a subject [person] - well, OK. But - a recognizeable bull????

To love this comment, log in above
June 11, 2007

The news paper reporter is concidered to be editorial/newsworthy and therefore no release is required. The fans on the other hand, if they were to publish them and the player or league or whomever found out, they could get into trouble.

There was a post on here a few months ago about a lady that posted some NASCAR photos, which she took at a race, on her website. She didn't make any money off of them, she simply posted them on her site. NASCAR found them and asked her to remove them or they would proceed with further action (if my memory serves me correctly).

To love this comment, log in above
June 11, 2007

Last time I checked, whether sporting events fall under the "News Exception" may be a "wobbler" depending on the photograph. Does the public have a "need to know" about what happened at a baseball game yesterday afternoon?

Can a bull sign their name? Depends on whether they're over 18 or not, how well they've been educated I guess, and of coruse, whether they may be suffering from "hoof and mouth" disease, which is something I try to avoid for a number of reasons.

Better to get a release from the owner of the bull. Why? Because it's THEIR property and they have a right to control how the image of their animals is used and controlled whether for profit or not. The same is true of other types of property owners.
M.

To love this comment, log in above
June 11, 2007

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2007/mar/pt_releaseme.shtml

Ray

To love this comment, log in above
June 11, 2007

One, I’m not the first person that you have attacked when a question is raised about your response to one’s query concerning privacy, releases, etc. For over a year I have also added my input only to constantly be berated in a most unprofessional manner by you.

Two, as I have stated to you in the past, I have retained my own attorney’s on the subject of privacy, releases, copyrights and HIPAA. In addition, I have consulted with my publisher’s attorneys as well as conducted my own extensive research for the past several years. And for a damn good reason for I photograph some of the most sensitive subjects one could imagine! One look at my gallery and you will see what I’m talking about. I’m a contributing photographer for one of the largest publishers in the world and my work appears monthly in their magazines and has appeared in their books for the past sixteen years.

Three, Carolyn E. Wright is a practicing attorney and you are not and neither I’m I. She is highly renowned in her field of law for photographers. She lectures on the subject and has published a book (Photographer’s Legal Guide) and was recently interviewed in Outdoor Photographer. Her site does offer some very direct and clear explanations on many of the topics that have appeared here and I thought that would be helpful to members here at BP.

As far as your response on this thread, no it was not clear. You go on about credentials at a Giants game and getting access to the game and from my point of view had nothing to do with the question at hand. Your response about getting a release for the bull photo was over the top since it was never established just how the image was to be used. I still get a chuckle at some BP member getting releases for farm silos taken from public roads.

I’m sorry you took it to this level Mark. I’m not some kid with a new camera. I’m 49 and like you have been in this business for a long time. I came here to BP to help others with my experience. Many here look up to you Mark and understandably so for you have helped many.

I do know that you sometimes provide what I consider inaccurate information and have gone as far to state that you are an attorney from time to time. Okay let’s get the cat out of the bag. Yes, you may have at one time educated in the school of jurisprudence but from what you have stated in the past you are not a practicing attorney. It is even questionable if you ever passed the bar. I do know my attorney looked up your name in some publication that lists attorneys and your name did not come up.

And on a final note about your comment about on the first rule in the publicity biz. Totally dumb. I’ve spent eight years as a public information officer and I do know a thing or two about the publicity biz.

Ray

To love this comment, log in above
June 12, 2007

Ohhhhhhhhhhh, I rest my case on that issue and we don't need to discuss "totally dumb" now do we or is that a publicist expression? So, why'd ya leave that field? Seems like you missed your calling in that area.

And, you still haven't pointed out exactly what wasn't clear, whether it's in your view or someone elses. You know Raymond, diatribes are so much more interesting when YOU have a POINT !!!

BTW, you have to submit your own listing to Martindale Hubbel or Parker's in California. If I wanted to be listed in an attorney directory I'd do just that.

I still don't know why you keep mentioning HIPAA because photographic rights to privacy have nothing to do with the Health Insurance Portability Act. That's MEDICAL privacy, and I doubt it even applies to ambulance chasers or their publications. But if you have a cite in the statute I'd be glad to look at it.

As to Carolyn, I know who she is. I'm sure you view her as a sort of guru or intellectual property law, as you've indicated. But she is afterall another lawyer who has her own perspectives on these issues as I am and I do. That's not to say, however, that neither one of us has never made a mistake. You probably know that...nah. You probably don't.

And, apparently you haven't figured out that that there are different legal jurisdictions in this country, including federal, that handle privacy issues and releases in different ways than either California or Missouri. Yet you continue to make blanket assertions about laws regarding people in other states by citing headnotes and case law and law reviews taken out of context in other circuits.

In essence Ray, I won't cross swords with you or any of your prattle because that would be as though I were deuling with an unarmed person.

Now, in terms of my final note on the subject, if I were you, you'd best spend your free time looking up the laws of defamation.
Take it light buddy ;>)
Mark

To love this comment, log in above
June 12, 2007

1. Keep in mind that I actually ride with the paramedics to their calls. I do this here in my hometown area and I do this by invitation for other EMS providers all over the country. This riding that I do is done with a contract between the EMS provider and myself.
2. The EMS providers perform electronic transmission of their patient claims so that makes them a covered entity under HIPAA guidelines (part 160.103)
3. Since I’m under a contract to perform services to the covered entity a “Business Associate Agreement” is required and as a business associate I too must abide by HIPAA laws as if I too were a covered entity (part 164.504).

So my publishers are not required to follow HIPAA but by the nature of my arrangement with the EMS providers that allow me to ride with the paramedics, I must abide by HIPAA as I noted above. So in EMS photography depending on how one obtains the images does in fact bring in a new wrinkle that one must follow known as HIPAA.

Okay so now let’s chat about photographs and privacy as required by HIPAA. Quite simply HIPAA requires that unless expressly consented by the patient, covered entities must follow specific “de-identification” before any PHI (private health information) can be shared with other non covered entity’s that do not have an direct relation with the patient. These 18 required de-identifiers include “Full face photographic images and any comparable images;” (most of this you will find in part 164.514). This requirement never really impacted me anyway since the patient was photographed in an area of “expected privacy” (back of ambulance) and therefore HIPAA or not, a release was always required.

So that should make you a little smarter about HIPAA and how it does relate specifically to EMS photography. But hey, this April I am a guest presenter at a large Fire/EMS convention in Las Vegas and this is one of the topics on my course agenda in addition to numerous other areas concerning emergency scene photography. Since you clearly have a mediocre knowledge of HIPPA and my business maybe you might want to attend and broaden your mind a bit?

Say I like your stab at calling me an “ambulance chaser”. I kind of like the sound of it! Might look good on my business card, “Ray Kemp – Ambulance Chaser”. But let me set the record straight about my work.

My work of photographing paramedics, fire/rescue personnel and law officers has been used to promote and educate the fine people in these life saving professions for nearly 20 years. My work appears in emergency services trade magazines, newspapers and has been published in several paramedic-training textbooks with three more currently in the works. I have granted the use of my work gratis for paramedic, ACLS and public safety classes all over the world. So don’t get the idea I’m some sort of gore chasing monger looking to photograph the demise of others. It goes much deeper than that and obviously deeper than what you can comprehend.

Let’s see what else… Oh yeah, my eight years as a public information officer. Yup, worked for a large EMS operation here in Missouri as a paramedic then later was promoted into management to head up the public information division. At the time I was freelancing with my camera for several publication so the two professions worked well together. I later left to pursue my photography work full time and never looked back. It is great to still work the people in EMS as a photographer however.

And as far as my citing headnotes and case law. This all comes from other attorneys who are noted and published with books and articles on the subject of photography, releases, and privacy laws! Mark, they are noted practicing legal professionals in this business and you are not!! So what is so wrong with me sharing this information? I’ll tell you plain and simple. You can’t stand it if ANYONE offers a suggestion that may contradict yours. I’m not the only one who has called you out on this behavior of yours Mark.

Drop me an email and I’ll give you an address where you can serve me with your defamation suit.

Ray

To love this comment, log in above
June 12, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
June 12, 2007

First, I've done a bit of research and discovered that Ray isn't listed as a member of ASMP, NPPA, APA, or even Editorial photographers. These are professional associations that photojournalists belong to, including me. So, using Ray's linear thinking process, that strongly suggests he's not a photographer and certainly not a photojournalist. You work for a "trade publication" Ray. Hardly what the publishing world considers a news publication.

Also, I never saw Ray's name associated with St. Charles Mo. EMS or St. Louis, for that matter. So, again, using his line of thinking, IMHO, I think the only thing "embedded" here is his vivid imagination and again, a tendency to believe his own publicity releases here, as the former publicist he claims to be.

In addition, I wanted to mention that you (ray) haven't supplied a single (not one) verifible citation to contradict one piece of information I've provided here with respect to either privacy law, copyright or any other topic I've discussed here or anywhere else for that matter.

Instead, all you've done is hurl baseless scurulous accusations because I've criticized you for providing bad legal advice to people, explained why, and several times tried to prevent you from either causing harm to someone based on the incorrect advice you were giving, or cautioning you, for your sake, to be careful about what you were espousing here. I think I've been generous toward you. And, again, your criticism of my attitude in answering questions here, (or anywhere else for that matter), is just patent nonsense. I hate to say this, but in all fairness to me, I think your ax to grind is with how much I know, not what I know.

Insofar as my attitude toward you I take umbridge with people, who, like you appear to have a little knowledge, paint it with a very broad brush to apply it in all situations yet without any cautions or caveats whatsoever. In my opinion, that makes the legal advice you give here dangerous.

This coincidentally begs the question as to why you've invested so much money getting all these legal opinions regarding things like privacy in the EMS world. It seems a publisher should have been picking up the tab or their lawyers should have been advising you, not you paying them as you've represented on countless occasions. Unless, of course, you were obliged to be paying attorney fees for defending one or multiple lawsuits. I don't know. I don't care. But it IS very strange. I've asked around to my fellow photojournalists, they too agree it's very very strange to invest that much effort in an isolated area of the law.

Interesting too that lately, I notice when Debby talks, I don't see your lips moving at all. Very good guys. LOL !!! That's about the only thing about either one of you that impresses me in the least.

Now, I want to ask you one last question, rhetorical perhaps, but I'll ask nonetheless: What's the difference between a lawyer or an attorney and a "practicing attorney"? Are you saying that an attorney can't be an active member of a bar and do something else to earn a living while keeping up with particular areas of the law?

So, now can't we all get along, (with or without Carolyn's book? LOL !!!). I tried to patch things up with Debby but alas, she bears grudges as you do as well. Sorry. I think life is too short for such garbage.
M.

To love this comment, log in above
June 14, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
June 14, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
June 15, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
June 15, 2007

To love this comment, log in above
June 15, 2007

Remember none of you are experts unless you're more than 50 miles from home.

Mark, would you ask for a release to take a picture in one of the National Parks. I think not, because we all own them - sorta like they're in "the public domain."

Would you seek a release if you took the photo finish at a local horse race [a local track, not a major establishment like Churchill Downs.] Probably not.

The real issue, it seems to me, is how the image is to be used. If there's no intent to malign a subject, there's no damages and, therefore, no problem. But, Mark, what do the parapazzi [Spelling??] do? Of course, they all get releases. RIGHT???

If a professional might make a few scheckels from a picture - maybe a release is needed. In my mind, use of an image in a local photo contest [and even, BP] - NAH!!!

Think I'll read Carolyn's book.

And, as to the never-ending debate between the experience of two photographers - I'll raise you one Canon 30D and my Clone PC. Take that.

To love this comment, log in above
June 15, 2007