Photo legal issues

Steven Sweeney · 02-28-2006, 02:22 PM

I think you can go ahead and get a good night's rest and not worry too much.

A lot of this is worst-case scenario, just to give the full lay of the land. Siting the tar pits and the geothermal pools on the park map doesn't mean it isn't perfectly safe to skip down the boardwalks and work from the viewing platforms, as almost all of us are happy to do.

Warning signs rarely deter those with a bent for mischief, but this kind of information could, at the least, alert many well-meaning practitioners to hazards of which they might have been unaware, and to precautionary steps.

As our Vice-President can affirm, once you pull the trigger, somebody's "liable" to get hurt.

Jean Kelly · 02-28-2006, 04:41 PM

Thanks Michele and Steven, as this thing pulls together I'll probably ask more questions. I'm really excited about it and can't wait to get started.
But it all has to wait till summer when the gardens and foliage are all blooming!
Jean

Patt Legg · 02-28-2006, 07:16 PM

Wow

I really opened up a can of worms here with my original question. I want to thank all of you for some great insight into this world of ours about our chosen profession. You each have given some real fine advice and ideas on both the matter of privacy and taxes.

With all of this in mind I have come to the conclusion that 1. I may re-think my profession.
2. Quiver at the knees when my finger presses on my shutter button on the camera. 3Walk away from all those wonderful shots that I've taken avantage of prior, and /or 4
All of the above.

Actually I think that "common sense" used and as Steven suggested "put myself on the other side of the lens"--together along with some great wording in my release forms and a lot of prayer, I may continue with my choice of profession for now.

It seems that the longer you linger about all of this - the more it balloons into such scenerios that one would just need to envelope oneself in a bubble and never come out. So with that said , I shall thank you all again. I have said it before and I will say it again, " this site and forum with all of you inside just cannot be beat" . You are so helpful to us all. The insight is endless. BRAVO TO ALL.

With gratitude--

Steven Sweeney · 02-28-2006, 09:01 PM

We've managed to make a complex world of it, but clicking through to many of the articles on this site will go a long way toward making some sense of it --

http://www.publishingattorney.com/

Chris Saper · 02-28-2006, 09:39 PM

Steven et al,

Please correct me if I am wrong ( you will get extra credit

) but why in the world are we talking about this?????

Take your own reference photos.

Get releases or don't.

No reason to push the envelope, seriously! It's OK or not OK.

Respect your clients, and talk to them.

Get a copyright release from a photographer, or don't use the photo.

I don't really understand why it's necessary to dance on the edge unless you like that kind of thing.

Steven Sweeney · 02-28-2006, 11:09 PM

Yes, that's why, after setting out some signposts (in a fascinating discourse!) in response to the specific legal questions about privacy concerns, I suggested that everyone sleep easily and get up tomorrow and just do the right thing -- which all but about two in a thousand will do anyway.

Here's the kicker -- I have a legal background, yet I have never asked a portrait or figure subject to sign a release. It's nuts, I know, and I cannot justify it rationally. It's just that it makes me feel like Snidely Whiplash trying to get Nell to sign the Deed before the train arrives.

I don't recommend this odd behavior across the board, but I'm personally very comfortable with it, because I don't even come close to crossing the line. And if some subject ever suggested otherwise, I'd apologize and cease using the challenged image. And it would be over. Nobody who doesn't want to be in one of my paintings is going to be. Simple solution.

In Her Majesty's Service,
Dudley Do-Right

Steven Sweeney · 03-01-2006, 08:51 AM

Here's one last (from me) thought on the subject of releases.

When you ask a model or other painting subject to sign a release, you're asking him or her to give something to you, to hand over some rights to you. That's why it's called a "release."

How much have you been paying those folks in return?

If you're not giving a discount on a portrait for someone who is willing to sign a release -- why not? Is that fair?

In the public arena which gave rise to some of the questions in this thread, wouldn't it be possible in some contexts -- the ones where you've "just got to have" that image -- to say to a subject, "I'm an artist and I'm fascinated with the contrast between you playing guitar on the street, in front of that Bloomingdale's mannequin in the window. I think it would make a neat painting, but I want to do the right thing here. Could I give you $20 in exchange for a release so I can include you in a painting if I decide to do one?"

If the answer is "no," you've acquired more than a negative response. You've been told that the subject doesn't want to be in your painting. Move along.

Perhaps a harebrained thought from the fog of morning's half-wakefulness . . .

I do not mean by the use of the word "harebrained" to offend anyone from the rabbit community, but I would be willing to offer . . . $10 . . . in settlement of any claims.