orljustin is obviously an intellectual properties attorney.
You can tell by the way he said....Period.
Anyone with that much confidence has got to be right....and I read it on the internet, which means it's doubly right.
I'm guessing there's a good reason why stock photo sites like iStockPhoto.com REQUIRE model releases to be uploaded with EVERY photo that has a recognizable person visible. No matter that its blurry or silhouette or whatever. If there is a chance of recognizing an individual, model release required. No mention of "it was a public venue" or "it's art, not promotional." (See http://www.istockphoto.com/faq.php?FormName=FaqSearchForm&Category=13#faq123)
It takes all of a minute to pull out a pad of Model Release forms and have a subject sign one. Why would you risk your business otherwise? Arrogance, perhaps.
Good Evening Folks,
Thank you all for your condolences (pm's) It has been a long week so far, but getting somewhat easier with each day. As for the picture, I will re-edit so that no one is recognized. Thanks for all your help
Have a good evening
Jim...
May your father's memory be for a blessing.
Good luck with your endeavor. I don't think you metioned. Is this a themed book, or "JGoetz's Greatest Hits, Vol 1." ?
Good Evening and Thank You,
It will be titled something like, " Nature, Wildlife and Memories in Maryland ''
Have a good evening
Jim...
I'm guessing there's a good reason why stock photo sites like iStockPhoto.com REQUIRE model releases to be uploaded with EVERY photo that has a recognizable person visible. No matter that its blurry or silhouette or whatever. If there is a chance of recognizing an individual, model release required. No mention of "it was a public venue" or "it's art, not promotional." (See http://www.istockphoto.com/faq.php?FormName=FaqSearchForm&Category=13#faq123)
Good luck.
Pulling out a COMMERCIAL STOCK PHOTO AGENCY as some sort of defense to your position is just silly. We are dealing with a form of "ART" here, which does NOT require model releases. Sorry.
Yup, dug up from the grave however I feel that since I read all five pages in a row with no break, I can give a perspective to others out there who may come across this as well.
Observations from reading this thread:
My Qualification: Numerous books including the Constitution of the United States (lol) and too many misinformed threads like this one, etc.
My Observation: The "legality" of selling photographs is quite simple, however the interpretation of such is one of the most complex. This statement serves itself true when it all starts with the 1st amendment of the Constitution.
Bottom line: Lawyers CAN'T help (unless you can hire a six-figured rights attorney who are all taken by those who really need to worry...corporate world). Fellow photographers CAN'T help. Internet research CAN'T help. The Constitution CAN'T help. Books CAN'T help.
However, all can provide insight to examples that will help you formulate your own comfort in making a decision on what's right or wrong.
When all is said and done: Common sense, self-evaluation/reflection, and risk assessment are the three keys. As the adage goes, do whatever you think your career, pockets, or reputation as an individual and/or business can handle.
In my mind it's all about how well I can look at myself in the mirror each morning. If you look at the travel portraits on my website, you will note that a couple of the photographs are not for sale. For example, the old homeless woman is in my opinion one of the most emotionally charged photographs I've ever taken. However, in my mind I can't allow myself to take advantage of selling prints of a homeless lady trying to make the best for herself and her conditions when I was a tourist who used a telephoto lens from across the street to invade her space for that 1/500th of a second.
My Flickr Photostream My Website Stephan Photos Nikon D300 | 24-70mm 2.8 | 70-200mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.4D | SB-800 Speedlight | Gitzo 1325 w/Markins M20
Yup, dug up from the grave however I feel that since I read all five pages in a row with no break, I can give a perspective to others out there who may come across this as well.
Observations from reading this thread:
My Qualification: Numerous books including the Constitution of the United States (lol) and too many misinformed threads like this one, etc.
My Observation: The "legality" of selling photographs is quite simple, however the interpretation of such is one of the most complex. This statement serves itself true when it all starts with the 1st amendment of the Constitution.
Bottom line: Lawyers CAN'T help (unless you can hire a six-figured rights attorney who are all taken by those who really need to worry...corporate world). Fellow photographers CAN'T help. Internet research CAN'T help. The Constitution CAN'T help. Books CAN'T help.
However, all can provide insight to examples that will help you formulate your own comfort in making a decision on what's right or wrong.
When all is said and done: Common sense, self-evaluation/reflection, and risk assessment are the three keys. As the adage goes, do whatever you think your career, pockets, or reputation as an individual and/or business can handle.
In my mind it's all about how well I can look at myself in the mirror each morning. If you look at the travel portraits on my website, you will note that a couple of the photographs are not for sale. For example, the old homeless woman is in my opinion one of the most emotionally charged photographs I've ever taken. However, in my mind I can't allow myself to take advantage of selling prints of a homeless lady trying to make the best for herself and her conditions when I was a tourist who used a telephoto lens from across the street to invade her space for that 1/500th of a second.
Good Morning Stephan & a belated Happy New Year
Thank you for your input. The picture in question was edited and went to print accordingly.
Have a good day
Jim...
Good Morning Stephan & a belated Happy New Year
Thank you for your input. The picture in question was edited and went to print accordingly.
Have a good day
Jim...
Always good to see someone make a decision for right or wrong and take action rather than mull around in indecisiveness. Too many out there cut themselves (and their business) short by being intimidated from what they hear others say who they don't even know (online forums...gotta love them and gotta hate them at the same time).
My Flickr Photostream My Website Stephan Photos Nikon D300 | 24-70mm 2.8 | 70-200mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.4D | SB-800 Speedlight | Gitzo 1325 w/Markins M20
Comments
If you have something of value to add, feel free. Otherwise, keep reading.
Thanks.
I would suggest the same to you. The poster was incorrect in their statement.
Keep it up.
Will do. Thanks.
orljustin is obviously an intellectual properties attorney.
You can tell by the way he said....Period.
Anyone with that much confidence has got to be right....and I read it on the internet, which means it's doubly right.
I'm guessing there's a good reason why stock photo sites like iStockPhoto.com REQUIRE model releases to be uploaded with EVERY photo that has a recognizable person visible. No matter that its blurry or silhouette or whatever. If there is a chance of recognizing an individual, model release required. No mention of "it was a public venue" or "it's art, not promotional." (See http://www.istockphoto.com/faq.php?FormName=FaqSearchForm&Category=13#faq123)
It takes all of a minute to pull out a pad of Model Release forms and have a subject sign one. Why would you risk your business otherwise? Arrogance, perhaps.
Good luck.
http://www.takeflightphoto.com
http://www.usdgcphotos.com
Here's the deal.
Your posts are less than helpful. Not just in this thread but all of them.
If you can't post something that is more helpful and less sarcastic, please don't bother posting.
Dgrin is a fairly friendly place and we'd like to keep it like that.
Thanks,
Ian
Thank you all for your condolences (pm's) It has been a long week so far, but getting somewhat easier with each day. As for the picture, I will re-edit so that no one is recognized. Thanks for all your help
Have a good evening
Jim...
It will be titled something like, " Nature, Wildlife and Memories in Maryland ''
Have a good evening
Jim...
Pulling out a COMMERCIAL STOCK PHOTO AGENCY as some sort of defense to your position is just silly. We are dealing with a form of "ART" here, which does NOT require model releases. Sorry.
Here is a location you can read about the difference between using a person's likeness for promotional purposes and for "art'.
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
I believe I solved my dilemma. Thanks for all the responses
Have a good evening
Jim...
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
Something different
Have a good evening
Jim...
Observations from reading this thread:
My Qualification: Numerous books including the Constitution of the United States (lol) and too many misinformed threads like this one, etc.
My Observation: The "legality" of selling photographs is quite simple, however the interpretation of such is one of the most complex. This statement serves itself true when it all starts with the 1st amendment of the Constitution.
Bottom line: Lawyers CAN'T help (unless you can hire a six-figured rights attorney who are all taken by those who really need to worry...corporate world). Fellow photographers CAN'T help. Internet research CAN'T help. The Constitution CAN'T help. Books CAN'T help.
However, all can provide insight to examples that will help you formulate your own comfort in making a decision on what's right or wrong.
When all is said and done: Common sense, self-evaluation/reflection, and risk assessment are the three keys. As the adage goes, do whatever you think your career, pockets, or reputation as an individual and/or business can handle.
In my mind it's all about how well I can look at myself in the mirror each morning. If you look at the travel portraits on my website, you will note that a couple of the photographs are not for sale. For example, the old homeless woman is in my opinion one of the most emotionally charged photographs I've ever taken. However, in my mind I can't allow myself to take advantage of selling prints of a homeless lady trying to make the best for herself and her conditions when I was a tourist who used a telephoto lens from across the street to invade her space for that 1/500th of a second.
My Website Stephan Photos
Nikon D300 | 24-70mm 2.8 | 70-200mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.4D | SB-800 Speedlight | Gitzo 1325 w/Markins M20
Thank you for your input. The picture in question was edited and went to print accordingly.
Have a good day
Jim...
Always good to see someone make a decision for right or wrong and take action rather than mull around in indecisiveness. Too many out there cut themselves (and their business) short by being intimidated from what they hear others say who they don't even know (online forums...gotta love them and gotta hate them at the same time).
My Website Stephan Photos
Nikon D300 | 24-70mm 2.8 | 70-200mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.4D | SB-800 Speedlight | Gitzo 1325 w/Markins M20