Model and Property Releases


Dec 3, 2008
1
0
0
#1
Just out of curiosity, if the ownership of a photograph belongs to the photographer (other than cases such as contracted, employment etc), then when would Model Releases and Property Releases be required?

Is it just an 'additional protection' for the photographers?
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#2
These are taken from American Society of Media Photographers
Property and Model Releases
Why you need releases

A release is a written agreement between you and the person you are photographing, or the person who owns the property you are photographing. The purpose of the release is to protect you from any future lawsuits the person might file for claims such as defamation and invasion of privacy.

A model release says the person being photographed has given consent to be photographed and to the use of the images you capture. It doesn’t just apply to professional models or situations where people know they are posing for photos. You should seek to get a signed model release any time that your photos contain recognizable images of people, unless you are certain that you will never want to use them for anything other than editorial purposes.

A property release says that the owner of a certain property, such as a pet or a building, has given you consent to take and use images of the property. You don’t need one for public property, such as government buildings (although you may run into problems just from photographing them, for security reasons). But for images of private property — and particularly of objects that are closely identified with specific people — you are safer if you get a release.

The releases you obtain should be saved forever and should be linked in some way with the photographs to which they relate. You can expect to be asked to produce them whenever you license an image, and you will need them if you ever have to defend yourself in court.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#3
Model release, extract take from Wikipedia

A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another. The legal rights of the signatories in reference to the material is thereafter subject to the allowances and restrictions stated in the release, and also possibly in exchange for compensation paid to the photographed.

Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph.

Note that the photographer is typically not the publisher of the photograph, but sells the photograph to someone else to publish. Liability rests solely with the publisher, except under special conditions. It is typical for the photographer to obtain the model release because he is merely present at the time and can get it, but also because it gives him more opportunity to sell the photograph later to a party who wishes to publish it. Unless a photo is actually published, the need (or use) of a model release is undefined. And, since some forms of publication do not require a model release (e.g., news articles), the existence (or non-existence) of a release is irrelevant.

Note that the issue of model release forms and liability waivers is a legal area related to privacy and is separate from copyright. Also, the need for model releases pertains to public use of the photos: i.e., publishing them, commercially or not. The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or non-commercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal exposure, at least in the United States.

The legal issues surrounding model releases are complex and vary by jurisdiction. Although the risk to photographers is virtually nil (so long as proper disclosures of the existence of a release, and its content is made to whoever licenses the photo for publication), the business need for having releases rises substantially if the main source of income from the photographer's work lies within industries that would require them (such as advertising). In short, photo journalists never need to obtain model releases for images they shoot for (or sell to) news or qualified editorial publications.

Photographers who also publish images need releases to protect themselves, but there is a distinction between making an image available for sale (even via a website), which is not considered publication in a form that would require a release, and the use of the same image to promote a product or service in a way that would require a release. Whether or not publishing a photo via the internet requires a release is currently[as of?] being debated in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is likely that any and all exposure to the public of unreleased photos via any vehicle will constitute civil liability for the photographer. As such, in a strict sense, photographers of unreleased photos, especially photographs primarily depicting recognizable people, have no meaningful claim to copyright in and to such works, since inherent in the constitutional right of copyright is a "right" to "copy," meaning to publish. Since most legal advisors now argue that any photo of a person for which a signed model release does not exist leaves a publisher susceptible to civil action, it cannot be argued that any "right to copy" inheres to such images.
 

Jan 21, 2007
18
1
0
#5
Does anyone know how to get a property release form signed by ION ORCHARD?

Do the photographer have to pay the owner of property to sign the release?
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#7
Does anyone know how to get a property release form signed by ION ORCHARD?

Do the photographer have to pay the owner of property to sign the release?
It's all up to the owner of ION.

Try calling them at 62388228. Or visit their website: http://www.ionorchard.com/en/about-ion-orchard
 

Volks

New Member
May 17, 2006
158
1
0
#8
Model Release is obvious which I don't discuss further.

Property Release ? There is NO need if you are not shooting this building within the premises. Furthermore, it is not likely that they grant you such Right - too troublesome ,un- necessary & risk taking for a Manager - Not even a Manager has the right to help you sign this sort of paper. It has to go quite a few level up - with the Right people merely cannot be bothered with such trivial matter. Unless it is James Cameroon team making a big hit using the building.

And if monetary re-imbursement you are willing to make ? Probably a few Ks since you ask.

If you have not started doing so then don't do it as you are opening a precedent case for the building owners to arm against you (us) , making future photographing difficult.

Streetdirectory.com has hundreds of such building being captured for Commercial gain, you think about it.
 

photoart

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2009
2,601
1
38
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#9
Different countries have different laws.

If the images are commerically used to gain profits, then it's advisable to have some kind of signed release form.

I read from some article somewhere, that for non-commerical uses, the photographer have the rights. For people in public places, as long as they appear in public then they have "automatically agreed" to be seen(either by human eyes or camera eyes). This is unless the photo is used for unlawful purposes(eg obscene websites)
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#10
in a short explanation, anything that does not belong to you, is not your property, it can be a dog, a bike, a piece of art installation, to a building, you will need a property release for using the photos contenting the property.
property release is the owner of the property give you the consent that you able to use the photo of his/her property to be use on publishing or for any commercial gain.

you can publish a photo of one's property without property release under editorial usage, like news, or in school text books.

if you are shooting inside your friend's HDB flat and intend to sell the photos, that is easy, but you are shooting a commercial building or like Merlion, I think you can forget about asking to get a property release form, put yourself in the owner's shoes, would you sign a such form to somebody, waiving your all your legal rights, and have no control of the photos how to be used and what if the photos use at wrong in the places? even $5k for signing the form also not worth the risk.

I don't know what is the intention use of your photos, if you want to sell it, no one will want to touch it without a property release.
since the photos only have limited usage, so most photographer don't even bother to shoot it at the first place.
 

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,490
10
38
#11
Does anyone know how to get a property release form signed by ION ORCHARD?

Do the photographer have to pay the owner of property to sign the release?
The original thread starter had disappeared after one post. A vague question will get a vague response IMHO.

You need to elaborate on the situation preferably.
 

Last edited:

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,490
10
38
#12
To add some general thoughts,

Do you need to have a property release if you photograph the interior of a building?

How about if you draw or stretch it? Do you need a release?

How about I sculpt it with clay or modeling craftwork?

Assuming I wanna draw ION orchard, I drew a blank wall with a common looking door from a part of the building. Do I need a release?

How about if I take a photo of the same blank wall with a door? Do I need a release? How about if I used Lego to build a similar appearance? What about if I drew or model when I was not there, ie, from my memory or from looking at existing photos?

When you are allowed into a private property, the owner or his assigns may impose certain house rules, such as no photography or filming. In practical sense most shopping center does not have such restrictions but certain places does, like theatre houses, museums, hotels, government establishments. Which is because these places are either security sensitive (gov est and hotels) or places that houses other intellectual properties, ie, a play or a concert for theatres, valuable paintings or artworks for museums, a design concept for theme hotels, etc, etc. When they allow photography or filming, it might be to the detriment of their value and their exclusivity. Thus when they does allow, they are going to impose restrictions, liabilities, compensation, etc, etc, in order to protect their rights.

We should be aware that when a property release comes into the picture, its not a form that anyone can download from the internet with all the clauses benefiting the photographer. The person signing is not going to be a kind granny who owns a nice little cute house. But most likely you will be dealing with a professional representative of a large company/cooperation owning the premise, signing a property release prepared by their legal dept.

Also, be careful with signing away rights you have no right to (eg your client's rights) and be careful with signing on liabilities to actions/situations beyond your control later down the road. (eg your client misuse and breach the terms, but you are the guy liable).

This is my personal interpretation and understanding, I may be wrong, thus if in doubt, please consult a reputable and relevant legal professional.

 

Last edited:

Ian

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,548
0
0
56
Perth Australia
#13
Let's clear this up once for all and finally.

Legally the only country that requires a model release is the USA. Last time I checked no other country has a legally enforceable requirement for a model or property release for the sale of an image. However, the use of a release is a very prudent and wise move in most non 3rd world countries as it can put to rest any claims by those photographed for modelling fees or other fees and charges as may occur. Quoting Wikipedea on a topic like this is insufficient as it's slanted to the USA's legal perspective and really only applies in the States. The simple rule is if you shoot professionally ALWAYS get a release for anything you photograph with the exception of crowd scenes. If you are shooting semi-professionally or intend a shot to sold get a release. If you are shooting for the press it's a very different issue as releases are not required as you are shooting "in the public interest".
 

Top Bottom