Blogging Ethics Question

rgphoto · September 7, 2010

My blog is sort of my photographic journal. I write about my recent photographic adventures and shoots. Lately, I've shot a few portrait/model shoots. Is it ok for me to post about portrait/model shoots and include images from the shoot?

I know posting the images on your website doesn't require a model release form, but it does seem, at least to me, to be a bit of an invasion of privacy to my client.

I'd like to hear what you guys think. Thanks!

Svennie · September 7, 2010

rgphoto wrote: »

I know posting the images on your website doesn't require a model release form, but it does seem, at least to me, to be a bit of an invasion of privacy to my client.

I think you do need a release, as it is just a publication of some sort. Or at least an understanding between you and your model that you will be using them online.
I ask them and they tell me which photos I can put online. Then I show them the closed smugmug gallery and they can veto any photo before I open the gallery to the public.

indiegirl · September 8, 2010

All my paying clients sign an agreement including a release. Any of my friends or family I at least ask. As I understand it, street PJ is fine to publish without a release (for exhibition purposes only). PPA has good guidelines.

angevin1 · September 8, 2010

rgphoto wrote: »

Is it ok for me to post about portrait/model shoots and include images from the shoot?

I know posting the images on your website doesn't require a model release form, but it does seem, at least to me, to be a bit of an invasion of privacy to my client.

No. Not okay at all if you respect your clients and their inherent right to privacy. I have done seems like dozens, but prob more like A dozen nudes and the like, and we both knew right up front, no one else would see them save for their sweetee's. And really clothed or not, all clients deserve whatever level of privacy they seek from you.

That said

The classyshot site in my sig line is just that: A blog or journal of sorts displaying a few of the wonderful folks I've shot. I have shot models, and have their releases, but have not actually used them (yet). Everyone else has given permission, or we both knew they didn't want them displayed for all to see up front, so no one even knows I shot them at all, unless THEY choose to show them.

One gal I shot early on was just fine an dandy with her photo's being displayed. At least and until her BF got all agitated about them after his guy pals saw them ( Insert Wolf-Whistle here!). She immediately threw a hissy-fit over the phone and I had them down in seconds. No further issues.

So bottom line, Make certain to have their permission! And in-writing is a good way to go forth safely!

rgphoto · September 8, 2010

Ok this has been helpful. Thank you! I'm going to start offering a release form to my clients.

Photog4Christ · September 8, 2010

rgphoto wrote: »

My blog is sort of my photographic journal. I write about my recent photographic adventures and shoots. Lately, I've shot a few portrait/model shoots. Is it ok for me to post about portrait/model shoots and include images from the shoot?

I know posting the images on your website doesn't require a model release form, but it does seem, at least to me, to be a bit of an invasion of privacy to my client.

I'd like to hear what you guys think. Thanks!

You should ALWAYS get a release on EVERY shoot. Why? Because that way your butt is covered and then you do have it for those situations in which a release is required.

You do not need a release for editorial purposes, so if your blog is 100% editorial and not intended to promote your business, etc... then you don't need a release.

rgphoto · September 8, 2010

Can someone point me to a free model release or contract that I can alter for my use?

Dan7312 · September 8, 2010

Look at the bottom this http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=97869 page.

rgphoto wrote: »

Can someone point me to a free model release or contract that I can alter for my use?

rgphoto · September 9, 2010

Great, thank you!

jandrewnelson · September 9, 2010

indiegirl wrote: »

All my paying clients sign an agreement including a release. Any of my friends or family I at least ask. As I understand it, street PJ is fine to publish without a release (for exhibition purposes only). PPA has good guidelines.

Would it be possible for you to email me a copy of the agreement and/or release that you use?

Blessings
Jerry
www.smugmug.meesoon.com

indiegirl · September 9, 2010

I went to PPA and used theirs, modifying for the laws in my state and personal photography practices. You can do a Google search for model releases if you are not a PPA member. Dig a little and you'll find some pretty complete ones you can modify.

Art Scott · September 9, 2010

I think ther are some very good ones at DAN HELLER's website............................

Angelo · September 10, 2010

indiegirl wrote: »

I went to PPA and used theirs, modifying for the laws in my state and personal photography practices. You can do a Google search for model releases if you are not a PPA member. Dig a little and you'll find some pretty complete ones you can modify.

Art Scott wrote: »

I think ther are some very good ones at DAN HELLER's website............................

you do realize we have a collection of links assembled on the "Photographer's Resources" sticky at the top of the MYOB forum?

indiegirl · September 10, 2010

Angelo wrote: »

you do realize we have a collection of links assembled on the "Photographer's Resources" sticky at the top of the MYOB forum?

Doh!

Angelo · September 10, 2010

indiegirl wrote: »

Doh!

we even have an emoticon for THAT

indiegirl · September 10, 2010

Angelo wrote: »

we even have an emoticon for THAT

Where's something to throw at Angelo?

Angelo · September 11, 2010

indiegirl wrote: »

Where's something to throw at Angelo?

that would be my avatar

FedererPhoto · September 14, 2010

I think you need to, at the very least, have a release with the contracting parties. I have it as part of my job description/contract and I make it a point to point it out to every client.

However, it's not like every single guest at every wedding I've ever blogged signed anything. Anyone mugging for a wedding photographers camera knows and understands that image may get used, in this day and age, possibly online. I think as long as you aren't being outlandish in your presentation, you can satisfy your need to publish your work while at the same time be respectful of your non-released yet-understanding subjects. I think people understand that we need to make a living by showing previous work.... Obviously anyone requesting a take-down would get it in less than a heartbeat, though in 3 years of blogging, I haven't had a single request.

There is the law (need the release of everyone) and then there is a reasonable reality. They are not always the same.

rgphoto · September 14, 2010

FedererPhoto wrote: »

I think you need to, at the very least, have a release with the contracting parties. I have it as part of my job description/contract and I make it a point to point it out to every client.

However, it's not like every single guest at every wedding I've ever blogged signed anything. Anyone mugging for a wedding photographers camera knows and understands that image may get used, in this day and age, possibly online. I think as long as you aren't being outlandish in your presentation, you can satisfy your need to publish your work while at the same time be respectful of your non-released yet-understanding subjects. I think people understand that we need to make a living by showing previous work.... Obviously anyone requesting a take-down would get it in less than a heartbeat, though in 3 years of blogging, I haven't had a single request.

There is the law (need the release of everyone) and then there is a reasonable reality. They are not always the same.

Thank you, this is great advice! I think my case is a bit different than everyone else's here. I really only use photography as a side gig to pay for groceries, etc. while I'm in school for mech engineering. I don't use a contract, and my 'clients' pay cash. I really only shoot a couple gigs a month.

However, in this case, I shot a 16 year old girl who was looking to get into modeling. Well, actually she was a bit embarrassed about it; and it was in fact her mom who wanted her to get into modeling. I think it would be best in this case to hold off on posting the photos (although I am very happy with the results). I will write-up/modify an existing release form to use at future shoots.

Thanks so much guys!

FedererPhoto · September 15, 2010

rgphoto wrote: »

Thank you, this is great advice! I think my case is a bit different than everyone else's here. I really only use photography as a side gig to pay for groceries, etc. while I'm in school for mech engineering. I don't use a contract, and my 'clients' pay cash. I really only shoot a couple gigs a month.

It doesn't matter how many you shoot per month, or how much money you make from it.... you can be sued just as easily as a huge studio. You really should have contracts signed -- it protects you, and clarifies the agreement you have with your clients (which is a win-win). It needn't be overly-complex... but you really should have one.

Photog4Christ · September 17, 2010

FedererPhoto wrote: »

I think you need to, at the very least, have a release with the contracting parties. I have it as part of my job description/contract and I make it a point to point it out to every client.

However, it's not like every single guest at every wedding I've ever blogged signed anything. Anyone mugging for a wedding photographers camera knows and understands that image may get used, in this day and age, possibly online. I think as long as you aren't being outlandish in your presentation, you can satisfy your need to publish your work while at the same time be respectful of your non-released yet-understanding subjects. I think people understand that we need to make a living by showing previous work.... Obviously anyone requesting a take-down would get it in less than a heartbeat, though in 3 years of blogging, I haven't had a single request.

There is the law (need the release of everyone) and then there is a reasonable reality. They are not always the same.

At a wedding, you only need the signature of BOTH the BRIDE and the GROOM and that is all. You do not need Mother of the Bride, Father of the Bride, Mother of the Groom, Father of the Groom, etc.... You do not need the mother of the Flower Girl, you don't need the signature of every guest in attendance. Why? Because a wedding is an event where it is expected that there will be a photographer. Everyone knows that there is going to be someone taking photos at a wedding. Therefore, there is an "expected loss of privacy" at a wedding and no need for a release from everyone in attendance.

r9jackson · September 20, 2010

Clause I use in my contracts
I believe that a release is needed and include the following clause in all my contracts:

10 Permission to use photos. I give Photographer explicit permission to use the photographs created or made on this date, for the sole purpose of fine art gallery shows and exhibits, photography books, and for use in photographer’s portfolio, self-promotion, lectures, newspaper or magazine publication, and web site (www.randyjacksonimages.com) or blog (www.randyonphotography.com).

chrisjohnson · September 22, 2010

I was in Germany yesterday and was surprised to notice that Google Street View is still a hot topic and the image privacy discussion is front page news. A few years ago I believed that this would be a "storm in a teacup" and we would quickly accept that images would be freely available on the net. I thought the objectors were being a bit silly. Now I am not so sure. I believe that people are taking a position on the ethics and that position is NOT supportive of publishing without permission.

As photographers we need to be sensitive to this trend in opinion. Among the hundred people at a wedding there are likely to be several who object with increasing conviction to their photo appearing on a photographer's blog. I now believe that this minority is fast becoming a majority.

The guests at a wedding are all prospective customers for the professional photographer, not only for prints but also for their own events. As good business people we should be proactive with our customers. Image privacy did not bother anybody a few years ago, but attitudes are changing fast.

I am inclined to turn this into an opportunity. Why not approach the guests individually and check whether they have any objection to distribution of their image? At the same time you can tell them how to order copies for their own use. My guess is people will be impressed that you take the trouble to ask and you will rise in their esteem. It becomes a great sales moment - you have a totally legitimate reason to bug everybody at the wedding to buy your services.

Talking about what you can get away with legally is the wrong way to look at this.

PS @Neal. I believe most people attending a wedding believe they are going to a private event and NOT to an event made public by the presence of a photographer.

Photog4Christ · September 23, 2010

Chris:

I agree with talking with the guests. It's looks good on you and you're right, it could lead to future bookings. But you're not going to be able to talk to all the guests.

PS @Neal. I believe most people attending a wedding believe they are going to a private event and NOT to an event made public by the presence of a photographer.

I realize that you are not in the United States. I consulted an attorney. My contract was written by The Photo Attorney and the statement I made about "expected loss of privacy" came from her and several other professional wedding photographers.

chrisjohnson · September 25, 2010

Photog4Christ wrote: »

Chris:

I agree with talking with the guests. It's looks good on you and you're right, it could lead to future bookings. But you're not going to be able to talk to all the guests.

PS @Neal. I believe most people attending a wedding believe they are going to a private event and NOT to an event made public by the presence of a photographer.

I realize that you are not in the United States. I consulted an attorney. My contract was written by The Photo Attorney and the statement I made about "expected loss of privacy" came from her and several other professional wedding photographers.

I am sure the attorneys are right and the small print in your contract is a smart idea. Still, this not the same as recognizing how people feel, which was my thought.

There is no time for the photographer to talk to all the guests. I suppose on the right occasion it might be worth bringing along a student to do the leg work and make the sales pitch.

FedererPhoto · September 25, 2010

goldenballs wrote:

I am inclined to turn this into an opportunity. Why not approach the guests individually and check whether they have any objection to distribution of their image? At the same time you can tell them how to order copies for their own use. My guess is people will be impressed that you take the trouble to ask and you will rise in their esteem. It becomes a great sales moment - you have a totally legitimate reason to bug everybody at the wedding to buy your services.

Let's play a hypothetical here... You need roughly 10 seconds to explain to them the situation, 10 more 'explaining how to order copies', and 10 more pitching your services -- 30 seconds total (when you average out the old people who might need 4 minutes to understand what you are asking, the younger ones who answer immediately that it's okay, and then documenting which ones said 'no'). Then lets factor in the fact that it's very likely 25% of the people will start 'chit chatting' with you -- taking up an additional 2 minutes per every 4 people... do some math and it's looking like 1 minute per guest. (which makes the math easy too...

) Let's also give you the benefit of the doubt and say you talk to 2 people at a time (couples, friends, etc).

Then lets grab a typical wedding with 300 guests. That works out to 150 minutes, or 2.5 hours.

A typical 10 hour contract to cover the wedding means you are spending 25% of your time covering yourself in case someone attending the wedding cares if there image ends up on a blog (instead of making photographs). And when you look at it closer, you are probably spending more than 50% of the reception chasing down people to talk to them... not very good service in my mind. If I hired a photographer and spent thousands to have my event fully covered... then he showed up and spent the largest single block of his time simply talking to my guests, I'd be taking your butt to court.

Additionally -- you've now talked to everyone at the event, but haven't lowered your privacy liabilities in any way because you didn't get anything in writing. The best you did was annoy everyone and make your clients unhappy by producing a considerably worse product than you otherwise could (should) have.

Certainly this isn't what you are advocating... are you?

chrisjohnson · September 26, 2010

OK, hypothetically. You hire a student and pay minimum wage plus a commission if he/she gets you another assignment. Minimum wage in Minnesota is around 7$ an hour so x4 plus money for gas = 30$. Not a big cost to chat individually with 300 prospects. Like you say, you don't have time to do it. Of course should you hire the wrong person or get the story wrong - should not be a request to sign a legal disclaimer and you have no legal obligation to even ask - you might end up annoying people then everybody will be unhappy. However, the ethical angle gives you an opportunity to sell softly without appearing to sell.

FedererPhoto · September 26, 2010

I guess... but I'm not sure I'd trust a student working for minimum wage to 'sell' me very well.

But I do get your point - showing you care and talking to 300 people is, theoretically, great marketing. It just seems like a wasted effort (and yet another thing to worry about, and yet another intrusion into the guests day, rude given that his only purpose is to go around and 'sell' you rather than help add to the coverage, etc) given the rarity that someone cares and the fact that, when it comes to referrals, it doesn't matter if you show 'care about their feelings' -- the ones in the market are going to look at the photographs you deliver and see if they are any good, and that is what is going to determine the referral rate... not a 30-60 second convo about privacy paranoia with a minimum-wager who has no intimate knowledge of your business.

chrisjohnson · September 28, 2010

FedererPhoto wrote: »

I guess... but I'm not sure I'd trust a student working for minimum wage to 'sell' me very well.

But I do get your point - showing you care and talking to 300 people is, theoretically, great marketing. It just seems like a wasted effort (and yet another thing to worry about, and yet another intrusion into the guests day, rude given that his only purpose is to go around and 'sell' you rather than help add to the coverage, etc) given the rarity that someone cares and the fact that, when it comes to referrals, it doesn't matter if you show 'care about their feelings' -- the ones in the market are going to look at the photographs you deliver and see if they are any good, and that is what is going to determine the referral rate... not a 30-60 second convo about privacy paranoia with a minimum-wager who has no intimate knowledge of your business.

Now going off-topic so sorry. With any business expanding beyond being a one person band the key skill is to hire the right people I would not focus on minimum wage - get the right person. As we say in UK, you need a "smoozer" for this scenario, and the younger the better. People have sympathy for the young as long as they do not have tattoes

Blogging Ethics Question

Comments