 Posted 12/12/2006 9:27:23 AM
|
|
|
|
The terms and conditions for the site have been updated to better protect this site and myself moving forward. You must accept these terms in order to continue using the site.
Additionally, the new forum policy will be to remove content that is written about other users if that user requests a removal of the post. As one former member has pointed out to me, the laws in this area are not clear yet (at least not in this country) so I will choose to stay on the side of caution until the laws are more firm.
Eric
DailyAwards.com
|
|
|
Posted 12/12/2006 8:25:27 PM
|
|
|
|
I suspect this one could knock out about 50 percent of the images on this site:
"You must have written permission to upload images with models or recognizable people."
Where should we submit this material? Would a scan of the document with signatures be needed? Or maybe this is just CYA and this proof would be needed only in the event of a complaint. Just wondering. I wonder a lot. I wander too.......
|
|
|
Posted 12/12/2006 8:37:38 PM
|
|
|
|
| *chuckling* Dont wander too far......
I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong Profile -  Top 24 - 
|
|
|
Posted 12/13/2006 4:29:59 AM
|
|
|
|
| Most sites require 'models release' on recognizable faces/portraits. It's standard practice and a safety net for images posted of persons without consent. This was one of the first sites I had seen without the 'practice', so I am happy it has been initiated here. I know I would not want an image of one of my kids posted without my express consent. Standard pre-written model release forms can be found online. You just have to find them, and make sure they are written for benefit of both you and the model, in case liabilty issues arrise. I am sure some of the more well known portrait photogs on here could give some great links to this material.
|
|
|
Posted 12/13/2006 5:50:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Actually, the only time (so far as I understand) a model release is required is when their likeness will be used to promote. Editorial rights allow photographs of people to be displayed (newspapers, art, etc..) without a model release. So this requirement is a little odd in my opinion...
My Profile Top 12 Image Stats
Canon 40d, Canon 10-22, Tamron SP AF 17-50, Canon 70-300 IS, Canon 100mm Macro
|
|
|
Posted 12/13/2006 10:29:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Zeke Smith (12/13/2006)
Actually, the only time (so far as I understand) a model release is required is when their likeness will be used to promote. Editorial rights allow photographs of people to be displayed (newspapers, art, etc..) without a model release. So this requirement is a little odd in my opinion...per my attorney's advice...model release is truly only needed if you intend to profit from the likeness, either in advertising, stock, or selling to greeting/poster/etc. Say you intend to sell the shot as an art print and make 500.00 on it, you'd probably better have a model release. Also, if folks are at a public event where there is no expectation of privacy...you can get by with them for editorial use. Print the release on index card size post card, and keep a few in your bag. Many people express to me that the one thing they don't want is their picture all over the internet... Also, when the client signs the sales contract for weddings or portrait sittings, it includes a model release and a clause that I retain all rights and may sell, distribute, enter in contests etc. hope this helps someone.....
|
|
|
Posted 12/14/2006 9:19:53 AM
|
|
|
|
"You must have written permission to upload images with models or recognizable people."
Where should we submit this material? Would a scan of the document with signatures be needed? Or maybe this is just CYA and this proof would be needed only in the event of a complaint. Just wondering.
I don't think he wants to see the permissions (which could easily be faked anyway). He's just letting us know that we are responsible for
for having them, when applicable.
It's kind of like saying "You must be 18 to enter this site" and, if you break this rule, you are responsible for it, not the site owner/operators.
~ Nick
(Click on Homer to see My Profile!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." ~Delos McKown
|
|
|
Posted 12/14/2006 9:48:00 AM
|
|
|
|
nikimoto (12/14/2006) I don't think he wants to see the permissions (which could easily be faked anyway). He's just letting us know that we are responsible for having them, when applicable....
Yes, I agree with nikimoto. We live in a litigious society. We, as photographers, are responsible for obtaining the authorization to publish the image of a "non-celebrity". This website is not responsible for the actions of the photographer. The website assumes the photographer has the authorization and ownership rights to publish uploaded images.
A photographer can choose to skip the signed authorization process, on the advice of legal counsel, or for the sake of expediency. But, the photog assumes the risk, especially when the image is not newsworthy. Not everyone will grant permission to have their image taken and published. My opinion is that even if someone is photographed in a public place, they can stop you from posting their image on the internet, even if there is no income stream attached to the posting.
I carry forms for people to sign, if I capture their image and they are recognizable.
This website has helpful information. Publication of photographs
|
|
|
Posted 12/14/2006 12:52:49 PM
|
|
|
| | |
