I just got a package from Parade!!!!Help!!!

gpgold

I just got a package telling me that my submission for their Snapshot feature has been accepted for final consideration from around 100,000 sent in. They sent a packet including a release request necessary from everyone in the image.



When I took the shot I actually asked the gentleman if I could shoot over his shoulder and he said OK. I am an amateur and never thought of getting a written release. I probably would never have thought about trying to submit a photo if friends hadn't pushed me. My question - is it necessary to have a release from someone who can't be recognized in the image? I realize that if it ever got into Parade (which has the largest circulation in the country) the gentleman could become aware of the image. BTW - they state that it may be used in the mag or their on-line gallery. I'll take either!

I obviously will not give them any fake info, but I sure hope I don't miss the chance.

regards,

Gary

Dee

Unrecognizable....>

gpgold wrote:

I just got a package telling me that my submission for their Snapshot feature has been accepted for final consideration from around 100,000 sent in. They sent a packet including a release request necessary from everyone in the image.



When I took the shot I actually asked the gentleman if I could shoot over his shoulder and he said OK. I am an amateur and never thought of getting a written release. I probably would never have thought about trying to submit a photo if friends hadn't pushed me. My question - is it necessary to have a release from someone who can't be recognized in the image? I realize that if it ever got into Parade (which has the largest circulation in the country) the gentleman could become aware of the image. BTW - they state that it may be used in the mag or their on-line gallery. I'll take either!

I obviously will not give them any fake info, but I sure hope I don't miss the chance.

regards,

Gary

You could argue that the painter is not recognizable therefore no model release is required.

Worth a try...

Next time I bet you'll carry some releases with you in your camera bag...

David_S85

Dee wrote:

You could argue that the painter is not recognizable therefore no model release is required.

Worth a try...

Next time I bet you'll carry some releases with you in your camera bag...

The artist himself might not be recognizable, but I'll bet filters to camera straps that the painting he's doing is copyright by him, and you're showing that piece of artwork in your own photo. Might want to get his permission, just in case.

gpgold

David_S85 wrote:

The artist himself might not be recognizable, but I'll bet filters to camera straps that the painting he's doing is copyright by him, and you're showing that piece of artwork in your own photo. Might want to get his permission, just in case.

This was a random shot when I was basically finished shooting at the Poppie Reserve. There is no chance of getting written permission, but I had his permission to shoot. I have no idea who he is.

Gary

David_S85

gpgold wrote:

This was a random shot when I was basically finished shooting at the Poppie Reserve. There is no chance of getting written permission, but I had his permission to shoot. I have no idea who he is.

Gary

Eeeewww. That's a thorny problemo. Let's all send ESP messages to Shay Stephens to process this situation while he sleeps. When he wakes up, he'll come right over and share his guidance on this one. :help

gpgold

David_S85 wrote:

Eeeewww. That's a thorny problemo. Let's all send ESP messages to Shay Stephens to process this situation while he sleeps. When he wakes up, he'll come right over and share his guidance on this one. :help

Thanks David. I have a gut feeling that I may be SOL. My only glory may be the packet on my desk requesting the original photo file and the releases. It's a nice letter though.

Gary

Dee

You're right!

David_S85 wrote:

The artist himself might not be recognizable, but I'll bet filters to camera straps that the painting he's doing is copyright by him, and you're showing that piece of artwork in your own photo. Might want to get his permission, just in case.

About the artwork.... rats....

Just goes to prove don't enter photos with people/art unless you have model and property releases signed. Too bad...

gpgold

Dee wrote:

About the artwork.... rats....

Just goes to prove don't enter photos with people/art unless you have model and property releases signed. Too bad...

I guess this is how we learn. Unfortunately!

Gary

gpgold

Dee wrote:

About the artwork.... rats....

Just goes to prove don't enter photos with people/art unless you have model and property releases signed. Too bad...

Last night I e-mailed the photo editor (with a heavy heart) and let him know the situation. I received a reply this morning - no problem, since the individual can't be identified no release will be necessary. Am I relieved!

regards,

Gary

wxwax

David_S85 wrote:

The artist himself might not be recognizable, but I'll bet filters to camera straps that the painting he's doing is copyright by him, and you're showing that piece of artwork in your own photo. Might want to get his permission, just in case.

I think that's a valid issue.

wxwax

gpgold wrote:

Last night I e-mailed the photo editor (with a heavy heart) and let him know the situation. I received a reply this morning - no problem, since the individual can't be identified no release will be necessary. Am I relieved!

regards,

Gary

Cool. Check whatever contract/agreement you sign - I wouldn't be surprised if they make you liable should the guy have a problem.

gpgold

wxwax wrote:

Cool. Check whatever contract/agreement you sign - I wouldn't be surprised if they make you liable should the guy have a problem.

Thanks for your concern. I am fairly comfortable with the fact that the photo editor gave it his blessing following my explanation. I hope no complications will ensue, but I will be thrilled just to make their gallery. Although I must admit it would be very cool to make the magazine.

regards,

Gary

Angelo

gpgold wrote:

Last night I e-mailed the photo editor (with a heavy heart) and let him know the situation. I received a reply this morning - no problem, since the individual can't be identified no release will be necessary. Am I relieved!

This issue has been debated in several threads. Please share this with everyone, it's important news. Congratulations.

David_S85

Looks like you got it worked out GP. Glad to hear this good news!

gpgold

Angelo wrote:

This issue has been debated in several threads. Please share this with everyone, it's important news. Congratulations.

Thanks Angelo - I had actually checked out some threads before I did my post and the debate seemed inconclusive. I will see if I can find one that is recent and relate the editor's comments.

regards,

Gary

Late Addition - can you give me a link where this would be useful info - I did a quick search and am not sure where to post.

IanZ28

forgive my limited knowledge of law......but,

if you do not profit from the photo then there is little grounds for a lawsuit. Especially considering there is really no harm caused by a non-discript subject. (unless of course he is Pablo Picasso re-incarnate or some very famous artist). The courts would find that the photo in no way violated the persons rights (even without consent - unless it's his private property).

I personally think the artist would be thrilled at the sight of a picture of him painting a field. I've found most artist are very friendly and would welcome such a "public" photo........that's part of why we pursue these "artistic" hobbies anyways.

If you are ever contacted concerning legal issues with the painter consider offering him equal rights to your image.

gpgold

IanZ28 wrote:

forgive my limited knowledge of law......but,

if you do not profit from the photo then there is little grounds for a lawsuit. Especially considering there is really no harm caused by a non-discript subject. (unless of course he is Pablo Picasso re-incarnate or some very famous artist). The courts would find that the photo in no way violated the persons rights (even without consent - unless it's his private property).

I personally think the artist would be thrilled at the sight of a picture of him painting a field. I've found most artist are very friendly and would welcome such a "public" photo........that's part of why we pursue these "artistic" hobbies anyways.

If you are ever contacted concerning legal issues with the painter consider offering him equal rights to your image.

Ian,

Thanks for the discussion. This thread predates my current thread about Parade. I found what you have stated to be true. In fact my image doesn't require a subject release since he is not identified.

regards,

Gary

simon bennett

IanZ28 wrote:

forgive my limited knowledge of law......but,

if you do not profit from the photo then there is little grounds for a lawsuit. Especially considering there is really no harm caused by a non-discript subject. (unless of course he is Pablo Picasso re-incarnate or some very famous artist).

That's an interesting point you make: So it's ok as long as the person isn't recognisable. Isn't that all a matter of perspective?

Qs:
Is there any profit from the distribution of the magazine in question?
If so, and no release has been signed; does the person in the shot retain certain rights to:

a) the use of their appearance
b) the use of their intellectual property (painting)

Scenario: Person in shot enters same painting in art comp X years hence. Painting wins comp. Person becomes famous. Painting becomes legal.

Just a thought.

I'd be attempting to get in touch with this person. Hey... share your good fortune and let him know his role in a great cover shot. I reckon he'd be quite happy.

Regards,
Simon.

gpgold

simon bennett wrote:

That's an interesting point you make: So it's ok as long as the person isn't recognisable. Isn't that all a matter of perspective?

Qs:
Is there any profit from the distribution of the magazine in question?
If so, and no release has been signed; does the person in the shot retain certain rights to:

a) the use of their appearance
b) the use of their intellectual property (painting)

Scenario: Person in shot enters same painting in art comp X years hence. Painting wins comp. Person becomes famous. Painting becomes legal.

Just a thought.

I'd be attempting to get in touch with this person. Hey... share your good fortune and let him know his role in a great cover shot. I reckon he'd be quite happy.

Regards,
Simon.

Simon,

It was an amazing Spring for flowers in Southern California. I took the shot at the Poppy Reserve which is over 75 miles from where I live. In other words this was a random encounter. I did ask if I could take a photo, but I didn't get any release (as an amateur it was not something I would think about).

The magazine editor did not require a release as I have noted (rxcept from me). However, if there is any chance in the world for this fellow to be found it will be if he tries to contact me after the photo is in Parade - they claim to have the largest circulation of any magazine so he may see it.

regards,

Gary

IanZ28

simon bennett wrote:

That's an interesting point you make: So it's ok as long as the person isn't recognisable. Isn't that all a matter of perspective?

Qs:
Is there any profit from the distribution of the magazine in question?
If so, and no release has been signed; does the person in the shot retain certain rights to:

a) the use of their appearance
b) the use of their intellectual property (painting)

Scenario: Person in shot enters same painting in art comp X years hence. Painting wins comp. Person becomes famous. Painting becomes legal.

Just a thought.

I'd be attempting to get in touch with this person. Hey... share your good fortune and let him know his role in a great cover shot. I reckon he'd be quite happy.

Regards,
Simon.

You could be right and it is interesting the way courts rule........But, would the lawsuit be against the photographer or the magazine (considering profit made) in reference to your statements?

Considering there is no "harm" caused (non-comprimising situation - and non-identifiable subject/painting) by this innocent and beautiful photo and the fact that it was taken in a public environment I find it hard to believe courts would rule against the photographer.

Sad that it has even come to this in America.

Maybe, the land owner should sue the painter for trespassing.......

Ian

p.s. good to see you here by the way simon.

lr1811

call...

gpgold wrote:

Simon,

It was an amazing Spring for flowers in Southern California. I took the shot at the Poppy Reserve which is over 75 miles from where I live. In other words this was a random encounter. I did ask if I could take a photo, but I didn't get any release (as an amateur it was not something I would think about).

The magazine editor did not require a release as I have noted (rxcept from me). However, if there is any chance in the world for this fellow to be found it will be if he tries to contact me after the photo is in Parade - they claim to have the largest circulation of any magazine so he may see it.

regards,

Gary

I am not familiar with the "poppy Reserve" but is there an office there or someone that manages that area? Again, I don't know the area, it could be just a large hill for all I know! But if so, maybe you could contact he/she via telephone, explain the situation, and e-mail the photo to him/her. Who knows, maybe this is a local artist that works there often.

Just a thought...

and btw, nice shot!!!!

Brian

gpgold

lr1811 wrote:

I am not familiar with the "poppy Reserve" but is there an office there or someone that manages that area? If you, maybe you could contact he/she via telephone, explain the situation, and e-mail the photo to him/her. Who knows, maybe this is a local artist that works there often.

Just a thought...

and btw, nice shot!!!!

Brian

Brian,

You could have a future as a detective. It's a good idea, unfortunately the visitor center is closed for the season. I still think that once this is in the magazine there is a chance he will see it.

regards,

Gary

lr1811

true

gpgold wrote:

Brian,

You could have a future as a detective. It's a good idea, unfortunately the visitor center is closed for the season. I still think that once this is in the magazine there is a chance he will see it.

regards,

Gary

I'm a criminal investigator.

Netgarden

Hi gary, I remember your photo from STF, congrats! I love it. Hope you get permission, it sure seems like the man ok'd the photo, so hope that suffices!

gpgold

lr1811 wrote:

I'm a criminal investigator.

Is it really true? Or are you kidding?

Gary

gpgold

Netgarden wrote:

Hi gary, I remember your photo from STF, congrats! I love it. Hope you get permission, it sure seems like the man ok'd the photo, so hope that suffices!

Thanks very much. It will be in Parade this Sunday. They said it was not a problem. Hopefully they know what they're doing. I recognized your name from STF. It's nice to be a part of this forum. The atmosphere is so positive.

regards,

Gary

DeanMcM

Congratulations!

gpgold wrote:

I just got a package telling me that my submission for their Snapshot feature has been accepted for final consideration from around 100,000 sent in. They sent a packet including a release request necessary from everyone in the image.

I saw it this morning in the Parade! beautiful photo!

Andy

overheard at the little league game today...
"hey wow, margie, come look at this picture!!"

a couple moms were ooohing and aahhing over your pic

gpgold

DeanMcM wrote:

gpgold wrote:

I just got a package telling me that my submission for their Snapshot feature has been accepted for final consideration from around 100,000 sent in. They sent a packet including a release request necessary from everyone in the image.

I saw it this morning in the Parade! beautiful photo!

Thanks very much. I am enjoying the moment. I just went out and bought a few extra copies of the paper!

regards,

Gary

gpgold

andy wrote:

"hey wow, margie, come look at this picture!!"

a couple moms were ooohing and aahhing over your pic

Andy,

That story makes my day. To hear random appreciation is very special.

regards,

Gary

jthomas

Congratulations! I seldom look at Parade but my wife laid that picture out for me to see this morning because she liked it. I took one look and said - hey, I remember that one from the forum!

Good going!