Stock photos and model release why?

tripwater

Hey all,

I would like to know why when I read up on candid shots of people and the legality of such, it is fine if in a public place yet when submitting stock photos companies require model releases? I can take candid shots of people and sell them on smugmug or off a gallery but stock sites require a model release when you get someone's feet or the back of their head in a picture...

One thing that bothers me is I have downloaded many stock photos for my day time job and some of which contain city crowds FILLED with people that you can see their faces, sides of their faces and recognizable clothes etc. and I guarantee you the photographer did not get a model release for all those people yet I downloaded it off one of these sites that required one.

Can someone please educate me and clarify why this is so?

Thank you for your time.

Art Scott

It becomes the difference between you selling your work as a piece of Art......or you allowing a stock agency to sell that work to PORMOTE another business......that is really over simplified but should get you in the right direction.....

DISCLAIMER: I am by no means an attorney......so take my definitions with as much salt as they are actually worth.:D

tripwater

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I started really thinking about this as I was reading a National Geographic Photographer Guide book. I started thinking...Ok so you are in Africa or some remote place taking photos of people that live in huts and then.... you hand them the form printed out from your computer in English stating 'Please sign this so I can legally sell this photo of you'.

You either have rights to sell a photo of someone or you do not. By definition, If I take a photo of a celebrity and sell it to a tabloid for profit ( not art ) it does not require a release so why does a stock photo? I just find this gray area ridiculous and boring.

I am just trying to understand this whole gray area. I know that I am asking a legal question that will more than likely not be answered here. It will be redirected to an attorney.

Thank you for any advice or response to this.

Cygnus Studios

There is a recent trend of Cover Your _ _ _ (C.O.A) in all sorts of new ways that were not/are not required by law, however offer a greater degree of protection. Just because you are within the law does not protect you from lawsuits. Since all parties involved will be included in such lawsuits, many firms are now requiring model releases even though they are not technically needed or required.
Just do a google search on photographers being sued and you will find multiple examples. Now most will not succeed, but time and lots of money is being spent.

moose135

tripwater wrote:

By definition, If I take a photo of a celebrity and sell it to a tabloid for profit ( not art ) it does not require a release so why does a stock photo?

That photo you sell to the tabloid would fall under Editorial use. You couldn't sell that same photo to a department store that would use it in an ad promoting the store - that becomes commercial use, and would require a release.

orljustin

tripwater wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to respond.
You either have rights to sell a photo of someone or you do not. By definition, If I take a photo of a celebrity and sell it to a tabloid for profit ( not art ) it does not require a release so why does a stock photo? I just find this gray area ridiculous and boring.

Then you are obviously not cut out for the business of stock photography. It isn't very hard.

Yes, you may sell whatever image to whomever you like. It is the usage that requires the release. By providing the release to your agency, you are warranting to the end buyer that they have permission to use your image in a commercial context, including permission to use the likeness of the people within. Whether a release is required for a specific person depends on the context of that person within the image.

You can read all you like about releases, although you may find it ridiculous and boring, here:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

tripwater

orljustin wrote:

Then you are obviously not cut out for the business of stock photography. It isn't very hard.

Yes, you may sell whatever image to whomever you like. It is the usage that requires the release. By providing the release to your agency, you are warranting to the end buyer that they have permission to use your image in a commercial context, including permission to use the likeness of the people within. Whether a release is required for a specific person depends on the context of that person within the image.

You can read all you like about releases, although you may find it ridiculous and boring, here:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

I would like to thank everyone else for the informative posts without sarcasm. Thank you for your time.

Angelo

tripwater wrote:

I would like to thank everyone else for the informative posts without sarcasm. Thank you for your time.

Is this matter cleared up for now?

tripwater

Angelo wrote:

Is this matter cleared up for now?

Yes sir. I wanted to know the difference between the 2 and it was explained.

Thanks.

orljustin

tripwater wrote:

I would like to thank everyone else for the informative posts without sarcasm. Thank you for your time.

Oh, I get it. You can find it "ridiculous and boring" but we can't address that in our replies? Next time, try to be a bit more serious in your inquiries, and maybe you'll get a response that suits you better.

tripwater

orljustin wrote:

Oh, I get it. You can find it "ridiculous and boring" but we can't address that in our replies? Next time, try to be a bit more serious in your inquiries, and maybe you'll get a response that suits you better.

Really? We are going there? 17 posts and suddenly you are the person to jump in and toss sarcasm...nice. I thought I was in an adult forum, not a chat room. My comment that I find it boring was not this thread or this discussion but the legality and the gray area. Anytime I find contradictions and large gray area that I can't find a definite answer to, it bores me. Much like this conversation with you has now bored me.

To the rest of you that were mature and helpful, I apologize for wasting bandwidth on this what is now an off topic. I will not waste anymore time on this discussion.

Mods, you can archive it or remove it as I bet it is only going to be answered with more jabs and sarcasm and at this point has nothing to do with the original topic.

Thanks again.

I will do the research on my own from here.

orljustin

tripwater wrote:

I will do the research on my own from here.

Be sure not to use the link I gave you in my "sarcastic" response.

Angelo

chill out guys. only civil discussion is allowed here.

Angelo

tripwater - there really isn't a lot of gray area in this. based on your posts it appears you're confusing the terms or the definitions of what is commercial.

as for the images you've downloaded from stock sites you'd have to reference the licensing agreements for each image to determine permissible use before making comparisons.

more help and discussion is always available here.

.