DSLRUsers.com

Hi

I'm hoping some of the pro's out there can help me out with a little issue. I've done a lot of searching through various forums trying to come to terms with the points related to model release forms. Please forgive me if the answers I'm looking for have been discussed before - I just need to be sure.

Recently, I've started earning a little bit of income by taking promotional shots of people where I work and also of bands playing at my local pub. In both cases, I've been paid by the owners.

If the shots are to be used commercially by me (as in a gallery, stock site, book or some other exhibition), my understanding is that I am responsible for obtaining a signed release form. Is this right?

But, do I need to get a release signed if I'm just selling the photos to the person who hired me?

In other words, if the owner of the pub pays me to take photos of a band and then uses those photos for his own promotional material, does it become the owners responsibility to obtain a release or is it still mine (as the photographer who's made money from the image)? Should both get releases signed?

As usual with these legal things, I just don't want one of these people coming back to me in 5 years time demanding money!

Thanks.

DanW wrote:If the shots are to be used commercially by me (as in a gallery, stock site, book or some other exhibition), my understanding is that I am responsible for obtaining a signed release form. Is this right?

My understanding is , Yes. Explicitly state what you would be using the images for.

DanW wrote:But, do I need to get a release signed if I'm just selling the photos to the person who hired me?

yes, if you want to use these images elsewhere.
Your contract (written) should state whether you are giving them full rights of the photos (probably not a good idea; but depends on what you are charging them)

DanW wrote:In other words, if the owner of the pub pays me to take photos of a band and then uses those photos for his own promotional material, does it become the owners responsibility to obtain a release or is it still mine (as the photographer who's made money from the image)? Should both get releases signed?

Yes
You get the band to sign model releases. Then you can do whatever you want with the images; including selling.
I am not so sure about the details on this.... it MAY be that the owner has a contract with the band to be photographed and used in promotional material.... hmmm.... Not sure.

I am sure someone will be able to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks.

surenj wrote:depends on what you are charging them

At the pub: a round of chicken parmigianas and a jug of beer . I'm talking with some of the bands about making some formal arrangements hence the need to sort out the forms. The work photos (real cash) have just been an informal arrangement but again, trying to get a formal one worked out.

I wasn't sure what the deal was so to cover myself, I've already gotten the forms for the bands signed. The work one's I left to my boss but now I'm thinking of getting them done too - just to be safe.

DanW wrote:At the pub: a round of chicken parmigianas and a jug of beer

Dude, you gotta be safe! If this comes back to you [and I hope it never will] they won't be asking for beer or ! Besides if you are turning pro, it's good to have this clear in your mind for bigger and better gigs.

DanW wrote:Recently, I've started earning a little bit of income by taking promotional shots of people where I work and also of bands playing at my local pub. In both cases, I've been paid by the owners.

Promotional shots of people where you work are one thing. You will need a model release for them unless they are taken in a public place (or even, actually from a public place).

The bands are public performances so you won't need a model release.

You would need permission from the subjects if you use the images for commercial purposes but the uses you describe do not sound like commercial purposes. That is when you are using the image to sell something other than the image itself. It does not include exhibitions (even if the prints are for sale) or presenting your work publically. For example: http://www.artslaw.com.au/LegalInformat ... Rights.asp

The above comments assume you did not agree to surrender your copyright when you took the images

Murray Foote wrote:

DanW wrote:Recently, I've started earning a little bit of income by taking promotional shots of people where I work and also of bands playing at my local pub. In both cases, I've been paid by the owners.

Promotional shots of people where you work are one thing. You will need a model release for them unless they are taken in a public place (or even, actually from a public place).

The bands are public performances so you won't need a model release.

Not so fast ...

As I understood the situation, the performances were actually within a pub, which is private property.

Regardless,

The basics, as I understand them, are that if the images are to be used for purposes other than art or the public interest, then a model release should be obtained.

The bottom line is that if you are able to obtain a model release, why would you not do this? That then gives you the rights to use those images as you see fit, or to pass those rights on to other interested parties if need be.

Be wary of websites like facebook et al; make sure that you read and comprehend their Ts&Cs before you upload stuff to them. You may be giving them rights that you might not have, or you might be giving them rights that you do not wish them to have. This also applies to many of the online printing services around the traps.

The above comments assume you did not agree to surrender your copyright when you took the images

or at any later point in time.

gstark wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:

DanW wrote:Recently, I've started earning a little bit of income by taking promotional shots of people where I work and also of bands playing at my local pub. In both cases, I've been paid by the owners.

The bands are public performances so you won't need a model release.

Not so fast ...
As I understood the situation, the performances were actually within a pub, which is private property.

From the link above with a particularly relevant sentence in bold and underlined:

Photographing people on private property

There is no restriction on taking photographs of people on private property from public property. According to Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) there is no freedom from view, so people who are photographed on their property from a public location have no legal claim against you if what is captured in the photograph can be seen from the street. The same applies to photographs taken from private land when you have permission to take photographs. You should be careful that you are not being a nuisance and interfering with someone’s right to use and enjoy the land (see the case of Bathurst City Council v Saban (1985)).

gstark wrote:The bottom line is that if you are able to obtain a model release, why would you not do this? That then gives you the rights to use those images as you see fit, or to pass those rights on to other interested parties if need be.

That's my thinking at the moment. I've arranged releases for those shots already done and will bring a stack of blank forms with me for the next round.

Murray Foote wrote:You would need permission from the subjects if you use the images for commercial purposes but the uses you describe do not sound like commercial purposes. That is when you are using the image to sell something other than the image itself.

This is where it got a bit gray for me. I don't see any commercial needs for the photos (at the moment anyway) and I was quite happy to simply take the photos and pass them and their copyrights on - but I was concerned about the pub using them for their own advertising. I think to be safe, as surenj suggested, both the pub owner and I will get releases from the band members.

It's interesting that paragraph on shots of private things from public property. Sounds like the issue that Google had when they introduced "Street View". I still find it slightly disconcerting that they have a photo looking right down my driveway at my house.

Murray Foote wrote:http://www.artslaw.com.au/LegalInformation/StreetPhotographersRights.asp

makes for some very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.