We often like to start and finish our real life tales from the photosphere by saying, “Ya’ never know”. We always suggest that photographers of all persuasions, specialties, hobbyists and professionals alike always try to obtain model releases on the spot, all of the time, no matter what. In stereo we implore our listeners and readers, “Don’t even think about whether you need a model release. In the same time it takes to think about whether you think you need one, you could have obtained one”.
There is a buffet of reasons to do so. Most of the time the lack of a release will likely make your image unusable or worthless for many, if not all commercial purposes. Check out this story reported in The New York Post.
It appears that Canon is insisting on receiving signed model releases to even judge images for a contest it is running – smart move by Canon. So for those of you who believe that since generally speaking, editorial shots can be used without a model release, you have no reason to try to get one on an “editorial” or even spec shot, remember that had this shooter obtained releases on site he would not be suffering the aggravation and probable exclusion from a contest which he believes to be, important to his career.
So in this case, it looks like what the title says, no release means no glory and no money for the photographer.
#1 by Jack and Ed on September 11, 2012 - 4:13 pm
Jack here. Someone left the following comment “anonymously. We usually don’t post such for several reasons, but I thought this is worth answering.
Here’s the comment:
“C’mon Ed. How do you get a model release in a situation like this? The fotog is quite a distance away. The cops are in the mood for stopping the perp walk so a lensman can do the paperwork? Canon’s weenie policy is at fault here. It’s an editorial photo not an advertising one. Right? Would the Pulitzer Prize committee judging Best Editorial Photo of the Year demand such model release conditions?”
My answer, not Ed’s: Just because it’s “inconvenient” to get a release, doesn’t forgive you for not having one when needed. “Dear judge, it was just too hard to get one, so I guess I don’t need it”. Doesn’t work that way. Also, it is not “editorial”. Not even close, not a gray area, no question. Canon sponsoring a photo contest makes it an commercial enterprise. Period. That’s why they require a release. If they get sued for showing a photo without a release they will be writing someone a large check. Hence, they rightfully require a release. Also, in the future, please use your real name. We’ve had a bunch of comments left anonymously that were not worth approving. In the future, no name or way to track someone, no comment allowed. It eliminates one of the big problems on the Internet and keeps things civil. I started that rule many years ago with one of the first photography boards online, Photo News Network (PNN) that I founded with Gary Gladstone, and that policy is also used here.
#2 by Jack and Ed on September 11, 2012 - 11:27 pm
More from Ed:
Our clients obtain releases in situations like these every day of every week and have been doing so for decades. If they can’t, then they are aware of the limitations on use of the image and act accordingly. Many photographers – especially those who generally don’t work outside – are simply too shy to ask for the subject to sign a release. They are reticent or don’t won’t to be viewed as “intrusive”.
Famous legal concept – If you don’t ask you don’t get. Finally, any publication, stock agency, contest sponsor, ad agency or client has the right to insist on being provided with a signed model (or property) release as a condition of use or assignment whether or not one is required by state or federal law. You can decide whether or not to shoot or submit work under that condition. In real life, a model release can only make the image more valuable for licensing or sale purposes.
Pingback: Links – September 14, 2012 :: Beautiful Flower Pictures Blog