 Melissa A. Arndt |
Publishing Photo without release form Can a photographer legally publish a photo of a person without them knowing? In this instance a friend asked to photograph another friend with the agreement that the photo would not be published in anyway. A while later the photo appeared in a magazine.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Todd Bennett |
Melissa, You may want to check out this thread. Read Mark's detailed response. http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/QnAdetail.php?threadID=32328
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Editorial is different than what is being discussed over there. For editorial purposes, releases are not required.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Todd Bennett |
Jerry, Your are right. I wasn't even thinking about that; but, it depends on the type of magazine. A fashion magazine is going to have model release signed; but, for a newspaper/magazine it isn't required. It depends on whether it is deemed "newsworthy." I should have been a little more detailed in my answer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Todd Bennett |
Jerry, Sorry, you are right. I had a blonde moment. Editorial use, one isn't required. My apologies.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Sorry guys, the release laws are changing and for one thing, the newsworthy exception that we relied on for years is being undermined by a series of state and federal court decisions extending the zones of privacy and in a number of instances stating the public did not have a right to know (without getting a release from the subject). Nowdays, even newspaper and news services are asking for releases of some of the most benign work you can imagine if the people depicted are recognizable. Magazines may fall under the news umbrella but it depends on the publication, how the photo was used and whether it accurately depicts the individual. Those situations these days get "iffy" quite frequently and more and more editors are insisting on releases to err on the safe side. Reputable stock agencies are also requesting that you at least have appropriate releases "on file" before submitting the work and attest to that on the stock usage/delivery memorandum. The situation that Melissa mentioned above could be a real can of worms depending on a myriad of factors including how old the person depicted is now and how old at the time the shot was made. If she flat out refused any publication, which is certainly her choice, THAT in itself could get the photographer and publication sued for invasion of privacy, possibly libel/defamation, ad infinitim. If I were the photographer I'd notify the publication and tell their lawyer to put the wagons in a circle. That's the kind of stuff suits get made of and another reason for releases. I apologize to the disinterested here. ;>)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
The release laws are changing? Perhaps you could share with us more specifically what laws have changed and when these changes took place? One of the publications I shoot for is a major newspaper and in 15 plus years I've shot for them not one time has an editor required a release. It would help if you could give us some specific court examples.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
A lot of the changes are due to the (I really hate to use this word) popparazzi. Even the famous are beginning to find a cove of peace in the raging river of life. More and more courts are ruling against photographers. I place this problem square on the shoulders of the popparazzi. Popparazzi are even being found guilty of stalking. Yes, get a release signed. If the subject will not sign, don't take the shot.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
We've been down that road ray. I've already told you where to begin your search either using your own crackerjack legal research skills OR using your personal battery of lawyers (that I STILL don't understand why you versus your employer needs. OTOH, you have yet to produce a single citation to any authority where a release was NOT required and it was covered by the newsworthy right-to-know exception. As to the newspaper you've shot for for 15 years, I didn't know they had a newspaper or press coverage in your part of Missouri. Would that be the "Weekly Reader"? BTW, is that part of the state the one that produced John Ashcroft? Thanks for your input though. I know we all deeply and humbly appreciate it. ;>) Have a better than mediocre weekend.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Hey Mark, I thought you might be interested in this. Here's a magnum photog...I don't see him getting releases: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM Here's another: http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photography/interview_06.html And, another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek These 2 aint light weights either. Maybe they are just doing it for demonstration and don't have plans to publish. But, to do what they do, I don't see how it's practical to stop and get them to sign a release. Do you have any insight on this?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Hi Jerry. I looked at the Meyerowitz video. It's a nice quick instructional video on street photography and the spontaniety of it. Our philosophies differ somewhat but I see his points. OTOH, he doesn't talk about usage rights so IMO, he's teaching on this video for personal use, hanging on the wall at home although if you look at the completed single frames, it seems to me that most of the subjects aren't recognizable and thus not really for publication. I also don't see Magnum suggesting in any way that they are advocating shooting for publication without releases. And yes, I agree with you in that to do exactly what they're doing, you can't stop and get releases but then again, what's the true (monetary and publication) value of that style/kind of work with recognizable persons in the shots? My point, once again, is that the privacy laws vary from state to state and get complicated when dealing with national publications. That's why national publications have lawyers to answer these particular questions. BUT to be on the safe side (which won't prevent a lawsuit usually but is the first line of defense if you do get sued) is have a release.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Hi Jerry. I looked at the Meyerowitz video. It's a nice quick instructional video on street photography and the spontaniety of it. Our philosophies differ somewhat but I see his points. OTOH, he doesn't talk about usage rights so IMO, he's teaching on this video for personal use, hanging on the wall at home although if you look at the completed single frames, it seems to me that most of the subjects aren't recognizable and thus not really for publication. I also don't see Magnum suggesting in any way that they are advocating shooting for publication without releases. And yes, I agree with you in that to do exactly what they're doing, you can't stop and get releases but then again, what's the true (monetary and publication) value of that style/kind of work with recognizable persons in the shots? My point, once again, is that the privacy laws vary from state to state and get complicated when dealing with national publications. That's why national publications have lawyers to answer these particular questions. BUT to be on the safe side (which won't prevent a lawsuit usually but is the first line of defense if you do get sued) is have a release.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||