Photo copyright and releases

[Rich Rohrich]

Can you guys who have sold photos to publications give me some pointers on where to look for info on photo releases, fair usage info, model release etc.

Basically I'm trying to understand my liabilities taking pictures of people, as well as bikes and cars at a public event. If those pictures will be used in a print publication, or as part of a commerical documentary film that will be released on DVD what am I looking at?

How's that for a nice open ended question? :whoa:

 

[Okiewan]

Can't help ya with the copyright stuff, the one shot that's going in a pub in an editoral was granted use for 1 year... some charge by the circulation, I guess it varies.

As far as people ... not sure how it applies to crowds in a public place? I had to get a model release signed by all the people (2) in the shoot mentioned above, but it was a shot specifically with them as the subject. It's not reasonable to get releases signed by a crowd and I'd bet not required. Ya think sports photogs get the stadium to sign releases when they shoot a game? ;)

 

[Rich Rohrich]

I figured there has to be something that covers fair use as it releates to people and things in public settings.

Any idea what I have to do as far as granting use of my pics?

 

[Okiewan]

The people you are suppling too should supply the paperwork/release. WalMart supplied for my shoot.

 

[Masterphil]

How do the press/tabloids get away with using pictures that most people don't want taken of themselves? Isin't that, in some way, an invasion of privacy? Or do they have some special "loop hole" that non-press photog's don't have?

 

[Okiewan]

Can't be an invasion of privacy if you are in a public place ...

 

[Masterphil]

Guess not.

 

[RADRick]

Can you guys who have sold photos to publications give me some pointers on where to look for info on photo releases, fair usage info, model release etc.

Basically I'm trying to understand my liabilities taking pictures of people, as well as bikes and cars at a public event. If those pictures will be used in a print publication, or as part of a commerical documentary film that will be released on DVD what am I looking at?

How's that for a nice open ended question? :whoa:

Finally, something I do know about. :laugh:
Fair use is generally considered any use that is not of a commercial nature. That doesn't mean that since you are selling the photo that it is not fair use. Selling a photo as coverage of an event is fair use. Selling that same photo for use in an ad by a company whose product or logo appear in it is not. Using an event photo on your website to promote yourself or showcase the event is fair use. Using that same photo to advertise the event is not.

The appearance of people in a photo can complicate matters somewhat. If they are unrecognizable, no release is needed and the photo can be used commercially or as fair use. With recognizable people commercial use is not a good idea without a release. People photographed in public have no expectation of privacy, but they can not have their likeness used commercially without consent. Fair use like a news story or to illustrate a situation does not require a release. There are some caveats, though. If you are on private property when taking the photo, you may be subject to restrictions from being able to use photos of people. For instance, at someone's wedding where a hired photog was given all rights to photograph. Plan on keeping those pics in your private scrapbook. Also, taking photos at a concert and selling them can be a no-no unless it is to an accredited news outlet. Most performers are protected from all but fair use of their photos.

As for inanimate objects, it depends. Harley is very protective of their name and logos and will sue your ass off if their trademarks appear somewhere they don't approve of. An example was a case where a porno film was made in a dealership using the bikes as background. Harley not only sued the production company to force obscuring of their logos in the film, but the dealer almost lost their franchise when they were identified as the location. Shooting a bike to sell as a feature for a motorcycle magazine is, of course, perfectly legal. If a model appears with the bike she needs to sign a release. If there's nudity, she needs to provide proof of age, which must be photocopied and submitted with the photography. Using a photo of a bike showing the brand to sell aftermarket parts will likely get you in trouble, especially if it's a Harley.

The rule of thumb regarding non-commercial use of people in public is that so long as you don't pose or direct them, they are fair game. There are also laws the preclude you from using a person's likeness to ridicule or embarass. For instance, catching someone drunk and acting a fool in public is perfectly OK. Using a photo of someone in a story about Herpes without their consent is not. There is also the problem of location. Some photos can be excluded from commercial use simply because of an identifiable aspect like a building. The GE building in N.Y. is such a case. Because of the trademarked identity of the building any photo in which it appears that doesn't qualify as fair use requires permission from the owners. Publicly-funded landmarks like the Washington or Lincoln Monuments are fair game for commercial or fair use. The Empire State Building is not.

There are a lot of pitfalls in street photography and some walk a fine line between legal and liable. Publication outlets expect that your submissions are cleared and free from legal entanglements. Don't expect that they will defend you if a plaintiff surfaces after they publish your submission. There are a lot of knowledgeable places on the web where you can get more details. Start with the copyright office of the federal government.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer nor is the above to be considered legal advice. :laugh:

 

[Okiewan]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer nor is the above to be considered legal advice.

Well that was damn sure confusing enough to have been written by one :)

 

[Rich Rohrich]

Thanks for the incredibly detailed response Rick. Info presented from real world experience in the trenches is always greatly appreciated. :cool:

 

[RADRick]

Thanks for the incredibly detailed response Rick. Info presented from real world experience in the trenches is always greatly appreciated. :cool:

You're welcome, sir. If I was in CA at my computer I would have been able to provide links to websites with more info, but since I'm in FL being a beach bum this month, I couldn't. ;)

 

[Rich Rohrich]

No problem, I have a bunch of links for various bits of copyright info. I just was hoping for some real world experience thoughts, which you provided in spades. Thanks.

 

[photojojo]

Yeah...what Rick said....The only thing I would add is that if I am on public property I can take a picture of anything I want as long as it is for editorial use. Some may tell you different and it's usually not worth arguing about it. Besides by the time they noticed I took a picture I'm already done.

 

[Rich Rohrich]

So if a picture is taken in public to be used in a documentary film would it normally be considered "editorial use"?