Do i need a model release for street shots?

[airmj]

Do photographers need a model release for portrait shots of people on the streets?

The photos will be posted on sort of a gallery website. The website is 'community' in nature but will have banner ads for revenue.


I've asked several people and haven't got a definite answer so far.

Is it enough that they acknowledge you taking their photo, or do they have to sign some sort of model release?


Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

 

[wesley]

Do photographers need a model release for portrait shots of people on the streets?

The photos will be posted on sort of a gallery website. The website is 'community' in nature but will have banner ads for revenue.


I've asked several people and haven't got a definite answer so far.

Is it enough that they acknowledge you taking their photo, or do they have to sign some sort of model release?


Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Yes, you need one if the faces are recognizable. Your terms of usage is in a gray area, so it's better to get one just in case something goes wrong and you end up with a potential lawsuit on your hands.

Wes

 

[airmj]

How about photographers that cover nightclub events, where there are 3 or more faces in every shot. Does this mean they have to get each and everyone's signature?

 

[wesley]

How about photographers that cover nightclub events, where there are 3 or more faces in every shot. Does this mean they have to get each and everyone's signature?

Depends on usage. If the image is use in an editorial context, then there no need for model release. But if the image is used in a advertisement, then there's a need to get model releases for all the subjects.

Wes

 

[airforce1]

Yes for sale or commercial usage. As long there is intent to sell, model release is a must.

 

[airmj]

So if the photos are used in a gallery that has no commercial intend, something like clubsnap's street/candids galleries, a model release is not needed?

If such is the case will the subjects in the photos still be able to take up any legal action against the photographer if they choose to for any reason?

Is there any place where we can read up on these sort of terms and conditions?

Thanks again for the replies :thumbsup:

 

[airmj]

Another question, what's the legal age for them to sign a model release for adults? is it 21? I know in the states it's 18.

 

[airforce1]

Some articles to share

http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release

 

[voldisinarta]

Depends on usage. If the image is use in an editorial context, then there no need for model release. But if the image is used in a advertisement, then there's a need to get model releases for all the subjects. Wes

Yes for sale or commercial usage. As long there is intent to sell, model release is a must.

Hi Guys,

Just wanna know... If I shoot street candid photo for my church bulletin, do I need a model release? It is an "editorial content" and on the other hand, I "sell" the picture (I receive a small token from the editor)

Thanks 'n good day...

 

[AReality]

This is Singapore. not USA.


.

 

[g-khoo]

Hi Guys,

Just wanna know... If I shoot street candid photo for my church bulletin, do I need a model release? It is an "editorial content" and on the other hand, I "sell" the picture (I receive a small token from the editor)

Thanks 'n good day...

Hmmm I dont think its necessary.

I've read before that model release for street shoots are only required if:

1.) The photo is used for commercial purposes
2.) You are making profit from the photo(but i guess its the same as above pt)
3.) The subject in the photo is to be used for editorial content which will have direct effect on the subject himself/herself
4.) You are intending to manipulate the photo or add supporting content to the photo that will cause the subject to be degraded

Hopes this helps.

 

[Hitz]

This is Singapore. not USA..

Exactly. If taking pictures in Singapore, you have to consult Singapore laws. US federal and state laws that govern model releases have no jurisdiction outside the United States. If not sure, get professional legal advice from local lawyer.

 

[ortega]

editorial useage does not need a model release

 

[agape01]

Exactly. If taking pictures in Singapore, you have to consult Singapore laws. US federal and state laws that govern model releases have no jurisdiction outside the United States. If not sure, get professional legal advice from local lawyer.

As already mentioned, if you want to put the shots up in a stock agency irregardless wherever you are, the photographer is to abide by the terms of the stock agency.

 

[Hitz]

As already mentioned, if you want to put the shots up in a stock agency irregardless wherever you are, the photographer is to abide by the terms of the stock agency.

Well, the author asked: "If such is the case will the subjects in the photos still be able to take up any legal action against the photographer if they choose to for any reason?" The place does matter in respect to that question and only qualified lawyer can give advice on whether you are going to be sued in Texas, fined in Singapore or killed in Russia for taking/using that picture without a permission.

Now working with an agency is a different story. Some agencies may require model release, others will only accept film, and many work with renowned photographers only. Unless your name is Annie Leibovitz, you have to play by their rules.

 

[vince123123]

Yeap, I'm unaware that there are any Singapore laws (case law or statute) stating that anyone has a cause of action against a photographer who does not have a model release - be it commercial, personal, editorial or otherwise.

For those who say that model releases are required (whether for or not for editorial/commercial/whatever) could you kindly provide some authority or references to support these opinions? Or otherwise, you could qualify them as simply personal opinion unsubstantiated.

This is Singapore. not USA.
.

Exactly. If taking pictures in Singapore, you have to consult Singapore laws. US federal and state laws that govern model releases have no jurisdiction outside the United States. If not sure, get professional legal advice from local lawyer.

Stock photography sites may require model releases so as to protect THEIR ass in the united states. Whether they require a model release or not is irrelevant to the question of whether anyone can take legal action against a photographer who doens't have a model release. It is just their company policy and relates solely to their point of view.

Well, the author asked: "If such is the case will the subjects in the photos still be able to take up any legal action against the photographer if they choose to for any reason?" The place does matter in respect to that question and only qualified lawyer can give advice on whether you are going to be sued in Texas, fined in Singapore or killed in Russia for taking/using that picture without a permission.

Now working with an agency is a different story. Some agencies may require model release, others will only accept film, and many work with renowned photographers only. Unless your name is Annie Leibovitz, you have to play by their rules.

 

[vince123123]

To answer your question of whether a photographer "needs" a model release - if you're running your own site in Singapore, chances are the answer is no.

If you are hosting your pictures on a site elsewhere, then you will need one if the site owner states that you need to give him one before he will host your photos - note that this is different from a question whether there is a "legal requirement" to have one, or a question whether there is legal liability from failing to obtain one.

If you're damn kiasu, sure go ahead and get one. But I'm not sure if you should let the failiure to get one, be a deal breaker for your project.

Do photographers need a model release for portrait shots of people on the streets?

The photos will be posted on sort of a gallery website. The website is 'community' in nature but will have banner ads for revenue.


I've asked several people and haven't got a definite answer so far.

Is it enough that they acknowledge you taking their photo, or do they have to sign some sort of model release?


Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

 

[airmj]

To answer your question of whether a photographer "needs" a model release - if you're running your own site in Singapore, chances are the answer is no.

If you are hosting your pictures on a site elsewhere, then you will need one if the site owner states that you need to give him one before he will host your photos - note that this is different from a question whether there is a "legal requirement" to have one, or a question whether there is legal liability from failing to obtain one.

If you're damn kiasu, sure go ahead and get one. But I'm not sure if you should let the failiure to get one, be a deal breaker for your project.

Thanks for clearing things up vince, yes the whole model release issue will make or break my project, so i'm very anxious to find out about such issues in singapore.

After going through the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore website, this is the closest i can find from their FAQ:

I provide photography services. Do I own the copyright to the photos that I take for my clients? If I don't, is there any way that I can own the copyright? I want to showcase the best photos in my website and brochures.
In general, clients who pay for your services own the copyright to the photos taken. However, you have limited rights in that if the photos are required for any particular purpose (e.g. a corporate client wants glamour shots of the senior management, to use in its annual report) made known to you in advance. Your clients should tell you and you are entitled to prevent the photos from being used for other purposes.

In practice, however, many photographers have their own terms of engagement with clients. The parties are free to have their own agreement, which automatically overrides the above default position. Thus, for example, you and your clients can mutually agree with your clients that you will own the copyright in the photos but that your clients can use the photos for certain purposes; or that your clients own the copyright but you have the licence to reproduce the photos in your website and brochures.


It doesn't say anything about non client-photography issues. As such is the problem in my case, as well as a lot of casual photographers i think.

 

[Yatlapball]

Just to toss another spanner into the works. Pertaining to voldisinarta's question. What if the subject in the photo is not a christian? Maybe believer of some other religion, an atheist, or at the extreme an anti-christ? By putting his/her face in a church bulletin... :think:

 

[Trigger Happy]

i wrote to the SPF and their answer was more slippery than soap on teflon, even after i pressed the issue. after a third attempt to clarify the point they ignored me altogether.