Posted by Don George on September 28, 2012 at 5:22 PM
When in GTNP I came upon a group shooting an advertisement for jeans.
I took several shots of a Model riding a horse in front of the Morman barns on Antelope Flats. If her face isn't showing do I need a model release to post a picture on a forum such as this? They had a permit from the NPS to shoot.
I do not believe you need a model release to use the photo in any manner if the person in the photo is unrecognizable. Although in some cases it is still polite to ask the model.
Now post the pics, we want to see a pretty girl riding a horse in a beautiful setting.
We've always taken a very conservative approach, but never got in trouble for doing so.
If a bunch of people are available (and enthusiastically so in the case of models and commercial shoots) to point to the image and identify the person and say "Yup, that's Mary Model, and the shoot was on this day and this location," I'm betting the courts would call that "recognizable." As for posting here without a release, we've always avoided it because "display" of such images without a release is verboten too.
Others perspective on this will almost certainly be different, but those principles guided us through over 25 years of commercial and recreational shooting without a single complaint. Or law suit.
Posted by Bob Miller on September 28, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Though I very much respect Hanks experience, I do believe that this site is considered editorial unless you choose to offer the image for sale. Being that the model is unrecognizable and the use is editorial I think you are safe to post. Giddy-Up!
We backed off because in the opinion of our attorneys, if you're also posting for sale or include a link to your site offering photos for sale, the photo is a commercial display and subject to the same restrictions on model releases. The points were included in a long list of things that we, as commercial photographers, couldn't do with photos not having releases. I didn't pursue it in detail with them, but they said there's case law to back it up.
Posted by Don George on September 28, 2012 at 9:51 PM
Thanks for the opinions. I think I'll follow Hank's advice no sense looking for trouble.
Hank brings up some good points. I can see how a professional photography organization might get their feathers in a ruffle if they were to see photographs of their models or otherwise posted on the Internet. After all the professional organization has invested a lot of time, sweat and otherwise into the product that they are producing and might feel that a hobbyist photographer who has taken pictures of the event and posted them on the Internet would be stealing in some way.
But in the case of a production that is happening in a public location, particularly a National Park, I would think that the poster of such photographs would be given more leeway depending on how those photos are being used.
The example that comes to mind would be a photojournalist, newspaper photographer or just a hobbyist like me that decided to shoot the activities on any given day in our National Park. This photographer might have photographed a bear crossing the road, park rangers meeting in the parking lot before a day’s work, tourists enjoying the geysers, and perhaps a production crew shooting a professional job. Since this production was in a National Park which most people would think is the most public of places, would it still be considered taboo to post these photographs in question? Would it be considered taboo to simply point your camera in the direction of this production? Or perhaps I’m a 9 to 5’ver with one precious week of vacation. I have been waiting for years to shoot this old barn and the one day I have allotted to stand at this so public and popular location, darn it… there is some production blocking the view. Well shucks… I’m not going to cry, I’m going to shoot it anyway and post up, even if this was not what I was hoping for. Is this taboo? I hope not.
I certainly do not follow Hollywood but from time to time movies are being shot in popular locations where hobbyist photographers might take photographs of this event. Would it be taboo to post these photos on the Internet?
To me Hank is one of the most respected contributing photographers of this website and I have been fortunate to read some of his insightful replies in my short few years as a member. This line of questioning is no way designed to be a challenge to his above reply.
Thanks Richard, and I see your thoughts more as exploration than contradiction. It all hinges, I think, on what falls into the "editorial use" definition and practice. Our atty's say that's getting more scrutiny now. If it was a photo of the commercial shoot showing both the model and the photo crew, and the point was to document an event, no sweat I'm sure. But leave out the camera crew and "use" all their hard work and expense to make a great photo that appears affiliated with your own commercial ventures, and you're likely to get a little too acquainted with indoor entertainment.
Posted by Carol Nichols on September 30, 2012 at 11:36 PM
This is a very interesting topic to me. I have an image of an artist taken in Grand Teton NP a couple of years ago. He is painting the mountains and the fall foliage and was doing this in a very popular area. The photo only shows the back of the man, his painting and the surrounding landscape. I very much like this image but have often wondered if it would be okay to post it on NPN or not (I have no interest in selling it). I'm sure the artist and anyone who knows him would recognize him, but no part of his face shows. Do you think this image would be ok to post here?
Posted by Lorna Taylor on October 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Hi Carol, I have been following the topic as well as I come across this quite often. I think you image of the artist would be fine for posting. As the Artist is in a public place just doing his thing. The only times it is a problem is when there is an expectation of privacy on the person being photographed or in a case that Hank mentioned. When you photograph a commercial shoot in a documented way there is no perceived infringement of rights on behave of the company paying for the shoot. But if you shoot the shot in a commercial way such as the model , the jeans and the horse in a way that looks more like a fashion shot or a model shot then you would be infringing on that companies rights to these images and could land yourself in some hot water. If you shoot a travel or documentary style portrait than you should be O.K. to post such images , but if you shoot a portrait or model shoot without a model release and post those image they are now technically part of your commercial portfolio and you can land yourself in trouble if the person decides to take action whither or not you made any profits on the shot. Also be careful how you label your documentary shots ,to call someone sleeping on a bench homeless can land yourself in trouble. Hope that helps.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 1, 2012 at 5:47 PM
Discussion
10 repliesI took several shots of a Model riding a horse in front of the Morman barns on Antelope Flats. If her face isn't showing do I need a model release to post a picture on a forum such as this? They had a permit from the NPS to shoot.
Now post the pics, we want to see a pretty girl riding a horse in a beautiful setting.
If a bunch of people are available (and enthusiastically so in the case of models and commercial shoots) to point to the image and identify the person and say "Yup, that's Mary Model, and the shoot was on this day and this location," I'm betting the courts would call that "recognizable." As for posting here without a release, we've always avoided it because "display" of such images without a release is verboten too.
Others perspective on this will almost certainly be different, but those principles guided us through over 25 years of commercial and recreational shooting without a single complaint. Or law suit.
We backed off because in the opinion of our attorneys, if you're also posting for sale or include a link to your site offering photos for sale, the photo is a commercial display and subject to the same restrictions on model releases. The points were included in a long list of things that we, as commercial photographers, couldn't do with photos not having releases. I didn't pursue it in detail with them, but they said there's case law to back it up.
But in the case of a production that is happening in a public location, particularly a National Park, I would think that the poster of such photographs would be given more leeway depending on how those photos are being used.
The example that comes to mind would be a photojournalist, newspaper photographer or just a hobbyist like me that decided to shoot the activities on any given day in our National Park. This photographer might have photographed a bear crossing the road, park rangers meeting in the parking lot before a day’s work, tourists enjoying the geysers, and perhaps a production crew shooting a professional job. Since this production was in a National Park which most people would think is the most public of places, would it still be considered taboo to post these photographs in question? Would it be considered taboo to simply point your camera in the direction of this production? Or perhaps I’m a 9 to 5’ver with one precious week of vacation. I have been waiting for years to shoot this old barn and the one day I have allotted to stand at this so public and popular location, darn it… there is some production blocking the view. Well shucks… I’m not going to cry, I’m going to shoot it anyway and post up, even if this was not what I was hoping for. Is this taboo? I hope not.
I certainly do not follow Hollywood but from time to time movies are being shot in popular locations where hobbyist photographers might take photographs of this event. Would it be taboo to post these photos on the Internet?
To me Hank is one of the most respected contributing photographers of this website and I have been fortunate to read some of his insightful replies in my short few years as a member. This line of questioning is no way designed to be a challenge to his above reply.
I know, this reply is of absolutely no use...