Would I be allowed to sell this print (without model release)

eoren1

Have a show coming up and would like to display this photo for sale. It was taken during the "Lantern Festival" in our town which is outdoors and where kids make these lanterns out of soda bottles. Some are made by artists. I like this shot but am unsure if having the woman in it without a model release makes it a shot that I could not sell.
Look forward to your thoughts.
E

LiquidAir

I'd say she is not recognizable, so I think you don't need to worry if you are selling prints. If you are selling it as stock, mark it as unreleased in the description so potential customers can make up their own minds.

wxwax

She's pretty hard to make out. I wouldn't worry about it.

eoren1

Thanks for the quick reply!
E

nipprdog

wxwax wrote:

She's pretty hard to make out.

that's because she doesn't have lips.

StevenV

Ianal...
as i undersand it, you can sell any image you'd like... it's just that someone may come back and ask you to compensate them if they feel you've profited from their image or implied that they're endorsing something without their permission.

they may even have their lawyers do the asking


i'd agree with the others here, not recognizable.

Stormdancing

Hate to be the downside here, but......

No the woman is not recognizable, but Tiger is. Disney is downright mean about their copyright.

Poseidon

I was thinking the same thing ^^^

I think Tigger will cause far more problems then the lady.... Actually that was what I thought you were asking about...

eoren1

Hadn't even thought about Tigger!!!!!
So some artist in this town paints a likeness of Tigger on a bottle/lantern and can get away with selling it for $20 (as well as lots of other easily recognizable figures). But the photographer who takes a photo to capture the event and later decides to offer it for sale in that same city may get dinged?
E

Angelo

There are two simple reasons why you can sell this image withbout a release:

a) she's not recognisable

and, even if she were recognisable

b) you don't need a release if you're selling a print as an art piece and not for commercial use.

Stormdancing

I think it was Andy that posted this link in an older thread.
There are some surprizing landmarks and characters on the list.

http://www.stockindustry.org/resources/specialReleases.html

I've always shied away from anything on this list.

Art Scott

Are you absolutely positive that is Tigger

Poseidon wrote:

I was thinking the same thing ^^^

I think Tigger will cause far more problems then the lady.... Actually that was what I thought you were asking about...

Come on now....that ain't Tigger....but it could very easily be Tiggers' twin brother........Chigger.........He ain't nearly as talented as Tiger, so he never went into show biz :D:D:D:D

jdryan3

eoren1 wrote:

Hadn't even thought about Tigger!!!!!
So some artist in this town paints a likeness of Tigger on a bottle/lantern and can get away with selling it for $20 (as well as lots of other easily recognizable figures). But the photographer who takes a photo to capture the event and later decides to offer it for sale in that same city may get dinged?
E

Assuming it is Tigger, there is a big difference between getting away with something and not getting caught (yet). :nono

This artist may still come to the attention of Disney and, as you put it, get dinged.

dogwood

jdryan3 wrote:

Assuming it is Tigger, there is a big difference between getting away with something and not getting caught (yet). :nono

This artist may still come to the attention of Disney and, as you put it, get dinged.

True-- you could always clone or fuzz tigger though.

Seymore

dogwood wrote:

True-- you could always clone or fuzz tigger though.

Or change his color drastically and add a pair of horns... Artistic creativity at its finest!

eoren1

Thanks for all the help everyone.
Decided to go with the shot as-is (well, not quite - only noticed those blue reflections after seeing it on a 4x6 print). I think the woman is fairly unrecognizable - my wife thought it was her for a bit but I remember that she was elsewhere during that shot. The Tigger issue...well you can only see 1/2 of him so who is to say that the other half wasn't the artist's own depiction of a half-tigger/half-.... mythical creature???
I'll let you know how it goes.
E

Final version:

Seefutlung

I echo Angelo, model releases are only neceaasry if the image is used for commercial/marketing purposes. As this is an expression of you (ergo "art") no model release is required. If the image was sold to the lantern makers and used as an endorsement/advertisment ... then you'd need a model release.

Remember, that even though by law you don't nned a release for this image if sold as art does not mean you may not get sued. What it does mean is that you have a very good chance of winning in court.

Gary

Seymore

eoren1 wrote:

I'll let you know how it goes.
E

Final version:

Ummmmmmmm... I'm seeing a RED-X.

eoren1

Sorry Seymore. Should work now. Had put it in a private gallery without external links at first.

Also, I thought to make a small print to put in the shop's window until the showing. The group that puts this on ends up listing the stores showing art and the type of art being shown but I thought that having this there for a week prior to the showing might help bring in a few more people. It also is quite similar to my business card that I made for this event. The final print will be 7x10.
Any thoughts?
E



Business card:

I have prices for prints on the back of the card.
E

SBP

For future reference on copyright model releases etc
there are 2 places where you can download model releases and read some good infor on this. check out nppa.com and editorialphotographers.com
go to the business section.
I agree that she is not recognizable and you don't need a release although I am not a lawyer. It's always nice to have them ---just in case.
Sherrlyn.smugmug.com

slapshot

eoren1 wrote:

Thanks for all the help everyone.
Decided to go with the shot as-is (well, not quite - only noticed those blue reflections after seeing it on a 4x6 print). I think the woman is fairly unrecognizable - my wife thought it was her for a bit but I remember that she was elsewhere during that shot. The Tigger issue...well you can only see 1/2 of him so who is to say that the other half wasn't the artist's own depiction of a half-tigger/half-.... mythical creature???
I'll let you know how it goes.
E

Final version:

sorry if this offends, but I find it amusing that you are so concerned about getting a model release for a heavily shadowed, quarter cropped woman's face that could easily look like thousands of individuals; but then readily dismiss the issue of including Tigger and Winnie the Pooh, two of the most recognizable characters in the world, copyrighted by one of the world's largest companies which has a penchant for vigorously protecting its intellectual property...hmmm

I'm sure then that you wouldn't mind if Disney started using your photo without your permission...not a big deal, right?