I would concur w/Graywolf. Here's the answer from the latest issue of Pop Photo to a similar question regarding images from street photography.
"No release is necessary if you're shooting in public places such as sidewalks for fine-art or gallery exhibitions, or for editorial use - even if the subjects are clearly identifiable. But if the same photo will appear in an ad or in promotional material or it's taken on private property, you must get written permission from everyone in the shot" An then, of course, the caveat is..."legal issues are never black and white, so you should ask a lawyer about specific situations." Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 7:34 AM Subject: Re: OT:Model Release > There are a lot of legal points involved, but it usually comes down to money. If > they do not smell money most folks will not bother with legal proceedings. Now a > while a magazine is percived as a fount of money, a personal webpage is not. > Furthermore, if you are only announcing the photo here on the list you are in > effect just showing it to friends. > > So, if there is no money involved, nor defamation of character, I would not > worry about it. If on the otherhand I was selling the images, to others than who > appear in them, I would damn well make sure I had releases. > > -- > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > Since I'm trying to work up the courage to post a photo or 2 here for > > comment I have a dumb question to ask. > > In what circumstances is it required to obtain a "Model Release" or are > > these a thing of the past? > > Is posting to the web a time when one should get one, what if one wants to > > sell a photo including one or more people? > > As you can tell I'm a newbie to showing my stuff to other than family and > > friends! > > > > Don > > > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html > > >
