 Katherine A. Welles |
Model release required for people with no faces? I just had a great picture turned down by a stock photo site because they said I needed a model release. The picture is of two people walking down the street with their backs to me. The photo does not show a single pixel of either of their faces. Why do I need a model release for this? I was under the impression that a face had to be showing, or at least enough of a face to be recognizable? How does the backside of someone constitute a need for a release? I'm really upset about this, but I fear that if I complain to the site they will put me on a mental blacklist or something, which I can't afford. Thanks!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Todd Bennett |
Katherine, You may want to check the company's policy regarding this. Technically, from what I understand, you may not need a model release; but, it could simply be their policy so as not to get involved in any kind of legal action, to cover their butt so to speak. It also may be that they need a property release due to a building or other structure in the photo being recognizable. I have read a lot of threads on this site about model/property releases and there are a lot of photographers that get them no matter what. Maybe Mark F. can chime in here and give some more input.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mark Feldstein |
YIKES !!! People without faces !!!! Sounds like a Twilight Zone episode. Were these taken on this planet? Nope Katherine, they're quite wrong. If the person(s) unrecognizable, no release is required. Todd is absolutely correct, btw. It seems to me however, that your agency should say what they mean, not what they think they should say. If other releases were necessary they should say so. If they just want to blow you off, they should just say "sorry, not interested". And they shouldn't use a model release as a pretext for rejection unless that's exactly the reason why. Maybe they need an education in the model release law and you'd be better off finding another agency to do business with.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Katherine A. Welles |
In the picture, there are no visible buildings or other people. it is very closely cropped, and everything else is out of focus or so far away that it is unrecognizable. I'm thinking Todd is onto something with the CYA reason. I am going to take this opportunity, however, to ask the following: what is the definition of "unrecognizable?" I have understood that it is judged based on facial aspects and percentage and/or clarity of faces in the picture, but I don't see anywhere where that is in writing. Is "unrecognizable" purposely vague to allow room for pictures like mine to get thrown out, or am I reading to much into this? I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it so I'm sorry if it seems like I am, but the main reason I am upset about this is that it calls into question everything I thought I knew about model releases, and makes me want to avoid taking pictures of people again without having release forms with me (which is very annoying). Anyway, other sites were OK with the same picture so maybe it is just a CYA issue. Thanks again for the responses!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ariel Lepor |
If you can recognize people from behind, which you can, you require a model release. Mark is right, except maybe you can recognize the people in this photo, if you knew them.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Katherine A. Welles |
So, to sum up: a person's face showing is not the sole requisite for being recognizable? It seems like everyone follows the general rule of thumb that face=recognition no face=no recognition. I guess you are saying that this is not the case. It is good to find this out now! Thanks!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ariel Lepor |
There is a better rule than face=recognition. If you can prove that it was a person or private property which you were photographing, you need a model release. So: recognition=recognition. PS: A smudged face isn't recognizable, so face doesn't always equal recognition.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Well, now you guys are extrapolating into the cosmic. It's faces in 99.9 per cent of the instances. Chances are the same pair of pants or shirt or backpack or hat was sold more than once so that doesn't matter. Katherine said it was cropped tight. As I said earlier, I'd find another stock agency, one that understands the laws of privacy and model releases.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||