Model release
- Thread starter Kali
- Start date
PNWPhotos.com a friendly and growing community of photographers with an interest in the Pacific Northwest region.
We feature a Photography Discussion Forum and Pacific Northwest Photo Gallery. It's a fun and friendly place to talk with other photographers, ask questions, share you knowledge, view and post photos and more!
Posting them on her website is OK as long as she's not selling the photos.
Let's say she is trying to make a living at it. Next year is the annual "Poodles and Pomeranian Puddle Jumping Puppy-Palooza" and she wants to be the official show photographer. So she contacts the organization and says "Hey, do you want to hire me?" One of the first questions they'll ask in return is "Can we see some of your dog photography?" She then points them to the photos on her website and says "Yes, here's some samples from the "Beagle Bash" that I took last month..."
There's probably nothing wrong with that scenario. The Beagle Bash photographer may have an exclusive for that show, but he doesn't have an exclusive on all dog shows everywhere. You always have competition. So if she is using the images in hope of getting future work, that's fine. The show photographer probably won't like it, but from a legal point of view, I think it's OK.
What's not cool is undercutting the show's photographer and selling your own photos. There are costs involved in being the official photographer, and they often agree to give the event something in return, possibly a discount, win pictures for their magazine, photos of the event staff. In return they get an exclusive. By selling the photos, you/she would be infringing on that. The photographer could potentially have grounds for legal action, since you don't have permission to shoot those photos. (If the other photographer has an exclusive, even if you tried to get permission by asking the event organizers, they cannot give you permission to sell the images, so there's no possible way to get permission when there's an exclusive agreement...)
The two did sort of blend a bit there, or least it would seem if you weren't following things closely. Since Jake has a press pass for the venue, he has permission to shoot on the property. That's the first half. The "fair use" comes into play when he gave the photo(s) to his editor for use in the Seattle Times, that's the second half. Jake didn't have a model release from the player, but since it's editorial use, it's still legal for the paper to print the photo.
So what about selling the photo as art? Let's say I go to an event where Ichiro's signing baseballs. I get a great shot of him signing a ball for some kid who's got a jersey on, and bat and glove, and it's just cute as can be...
I can use it in the Times for editorial use, that's pretty clear. From what you're saying, I can sell copies to folks at the event. What about selling prints in general? Does that make a difference, or is it "commercial" only when it endorses a product or service. (i.e. I can't sell it to Louisville Slugger for an ad without a release...)
Yes, you can sell those images from an event. For example, I once did a shoot for Nordstroms, where Sarah Jessica Parker was signing perfume bottles for a new perfume being introduced. I was there at the invitation of Nordstroms (so no permission issues). We sold hundreds of photos of her signing bottles and shaking hands of fans. It went on for hours. Nobody, including Sarah Jessica Parker, signed any model release. Nordstroms restricted all other photography, going so far as to require people in line to hand over their cell phones before they stepped up to get their bottle and handshake so they couldn't take cell phone snaps.
This is more relevant to the original question about the dog show. In my example, just as the dog show, no release was signed and none was necessary for simply selling photos to the event guests. It is not commercial use. I had permission from the organizer. Had another photographer showed up and tried to take pictures, security would have ejected them from the property, just like they might at a dog show if you don't follow the rules. But they could still sell the photos they took prior to being booted out, so long at it isn't for commercial use, and there were no other restrictions as a condition of entry.
Could I sell those photos as art? [Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney either.]
Probably. Strictly speaking, art is generally not considered commercial use. If you framed and printed your cute Ichiro photo, and displayed it in a legit art gallery, then you probably don't need a release. The subjects (Ichiro and the boy) have no expectation of privacy at a public signing in which they allowed the photo to be taken. You are not exploiting either of them to promote a product or service.
I do art photography as well as commercial, and often use models. I've had numerous exhibitions and gallery shows. I've never had a gallery owner ask me for model releases. I've known other photographers who have produced art coffee-table books with no model releases, and the publishers didn't ask. The only thing I've ever been asked is to provide proof of age for nude models, but never a model release.
One exception would be promoting the show. I probably don't need a release to hang a photo on the gallery wall. But if the gallery wants to use that same image on postcards and ads promoting the exhibition, then that changes the purpose to commercial use, and I would then need a model release. Again, it is the end use that determines the need for a model release. There may be other exceptions I don't know about. For this reason, I normally have my models sign a release when I'm doing an art shoot.
Snuffy, I'd take it with you... There's a million tourists in Vegas, and most of them are carrying cameras. It depends on the Casino, but I'm guessing that most of them would be OK with you carrying your camera, especially if it's in a case, on your way through the casino.
If you pull it out and start shooting in the gaming area, you will probably get to meet some security guards very quickly. But just having it on your person? Shouldn't be an issue. Many casinos are designed so that you practically have to walk through them to get to other areas. You can't expect a hotel guest to go back to his room and drop off his camera if he wants go from the street to the buffet.
I'd take it with you, not take photos in the gaming areas, and if they do confront you for simply having it, it would most likely be in the tone of "I'm sorry sir, you can't have a camera in this area." rather than dragging you into the back office and calling the cops. If you do get told that, you simply leave the area and it's all good. They don't want to hassle their customers...
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
I'm guessing Nina will chime in on this one... (She photographs dogs professionally).
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. The following is my OPINION, nothing more. Laws may vary from state to state, so what is fine in State A may be illegal in State B.
I'm going to make a few assumptions:
1) You're not the official photographer for the show (Obviously, you wouldn't be asking if it was OK if you were.)
2) You haven't asked for permission from the event staff.
3) The show is on private property, rather than being in a public park etc.
4) You asked about posting the photos on your site. Not selling them etc.
Presumably you're doing it either to improve your skills, and/or to build your portfolio. i.e. to post some shots that say "Look, I can photograph dogs and the photos are great!"
Basically, the answer is a qualified "Yes, it's OK". Now for the fine print...
If the show has an official photographer, you will probably attract their attention, and they'll want to know what you're up to. You're going to reply "I'm just doing it to practice" or "Just shooting some stuff to post on my website".
At this point, the official photographer may, or may not, believe you. That depends on a variety of factors, including what gear you're using, and how many dogs you photograph etc. Show up with $10K worth of gear and shoot every dog? He/she is probably going to think your goal is to sell them. Got a shiny new P&S from Walmart? Have fun with that...
Shooting just a few dogs? Then you're fine. Owners have the right to shoot their own dog, or have a friend shoot it for them. Typically the show photographer isn't going to have an issue with that. When you start shooting them all, then we're back to the "You're going to try and sell those, aren't you?" scenario.
The show photographers work long and hard, and most have an exclusive for good reason. They put a lot of time, money and effort into shooting the show. If somebody comes along and competes with them, it makes it hard for them to make a living.
Putting your copyright on them doesn't change anything. You're the photographer, they're covered by your copyright no matter wheter you put a watermark on it or not.
Keep in mind that while they look alike to a casual observer, dogs have distinctive markings, and can be distinguished by their owners.
That brings up the question of what you're going to do with the shots. Are you making money from them? If you're just posting them to a personal website, you could be OK. Maybe you've got a "I love daschunds!" site, or maybe you are a photographer who wants to show "I'm good at low light action shots!" In that case, you're probably fine.
If you start selling the photos, that's a different story. You don't have the owner's permission, and as I mentioned, they can identify "Fluffy", even though you may think all dogs of that breed look alike. Without a release, they could make things miserable for you...
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. The following is my OPINION, nothing more. Laws may vary from state to state, so what is fine in State A may be illegal in State B.
I'm going to make a few assumptions:
1) You're not the official photographer for the show (Obviously, you wouldn't be asking if it was OK if you were.)
2) You haven't asked for permission from the event staff.
3) The show is on private property, rather than being in a public park etc.
4) You asked about posting the photos on your site. Not selling them etc.
Presumably you're doing it either to improve your skills, and/or to build your portfolio. i.e. to post some shots that say "Look, I can photograph dogs and the photos are great!"
Basically, the answer is a qualified "Yes, it's OK". Now for the fine print...
If the show has an official photographer, you will probably attract their attention, and they'll want to know what you're up to. You're going to reply "I'm just doing it to practice" or "Just shooting some stuff to post on my website".
At this point, the official photographer may, or may not, believe you. That depends on a variety of factors, including what gear you're using, and how many dogs you photograph etc. Show up with $10K worth of gear and shoot every dog? He/she is probably going to think your goal is to sell them. Got a shiny new P&S from Walmart? Have fun with that...
Shooting just a few dogs? Then you're fine. Owners have the right to shoot their own dog, or have a friend shoot it for them. Typically the show photographer isn't going to have an issue with that. When you start shooting them all, then we're back to the "You're going to try and sell those, aren't you?" scenario.
The show photographers work long and hard, and most have an exclusive for good reason. They put a lot of time, money and effort into shooting the show. If somebody comes along and competes with them, it makes it hard for them to make a living.
Putting your copyright on them doesn't change anything. You're the photographer, they're covered by your copyright no matter wheter you put a watermark on it or not.
Keep in mind that while they look alike to a casual observer, dogs have distinctive markings, and can be distinguished by their owners.
That brings up the question of what you're going to do with the shots. Are you making money from them? If you're just posting them to a personal website, you could be OK. Maybe you've got a "I love daschunds!" site, or maybe you are a photographer who wants to show "I'm good at low light action shots!" In that case, you're probably fine.
If you start selling the photos, that's a different story. You don't have the owner's permission, and as I mentioned, they can identify "Fluffy", even though you may think all dogs of that breed look alike. Without a release, they could make things miserable for you...
OK, with all that said, a couple of suggestions.
Get there early and talk to the show staff and photographer, if applicable.
Tell them what you're doing and why. Be honest about it. Dog Shows are a small world, and those folks pretty much all know one another. If you say "Oh, just a few shots for my website..." and a week later you're pimping the stuff on Facebook and selling them, word will get around. Not the kind of reputation you want to have.
Don't think you won't get noticed, since you will. I've been "ratted out" numerous times when shooting with Nina. "Hey, there's some guy over there with a big lens and he's shooting all the dogs in that ring..." Of course in this case the reply is "Yeah, I know, he's working for me..."
Keep in mind that if you're shooting on private property and don't have permission, they can ask you to leave. I'm not enough of a legal beagle to know if they can do anything more, but I do know they can request you leave the property. Even if you buy a ticket for the event, there's usually some fine print about photography etc. They may allow it for personal use only, or they may simply say "No photography".
(These same rules apply to other sporting events. Want to see my photos of Pro Bull Riders or Ichiro Suzuki? No problem, they're on my website. Want to buy a copy of either one? Sorry, no can do, I don't have rights to sell those images.)
Get there early and talk to the show staff and photographer, if applicable.
Tell them what you're doing and why. Be honest about it. Dog Shows are a small world, and those folks pretty much all know one another. If you say "Oh, just a few shots for my website..." and a week later you're pimping the stuff on Facebook and selling them, word will get around. Not the kind of reputation you want to have.
Don't think you won't get noticed, since you will. I've been "ratted out" numerous times when shooting with Nina. "Hey, there's some guy over there with a big lens and he's shooting all the dogs in that ring..." Of course in this case the reply is "Yeah, I know, he's working for me..."
Keep in mind that if you're shooting on private property and don't have permission, they can ask you to leave. I'm not enough of a legal beagle to know if they can do anything more, but I do know they can request you leave the property. Even if you buy a ticket for the event, there's usually some fine print about photography etc. They may allow it for personal use only, or they may simply say "No photography".
(These same rules apply to other sporting events. Want to see my photos of Pro Bull Riders or Ichiro Suzuki? No problem, they're on my website. Want to buy a copy of either one? Sorry, no can do, I don't have rights to sell those images.)
Thanks Much Jake!! This question was posed as I have a friend trying to make a living doing pet photography. I know for a fact that she was not the Shows Photographer, but she did taker many photos of the Dogs and various breeds and post them on her business site. Soooo, since she often asks for my opinion I want to be sure I have my facts straight when I tell her she may need to ask permission, get releases, etc..She seems oblivious.
Once again, it's all in what she does with the photos.
Posting them on her website is OK as long as she's not selling the photos.
Let's say she is trying to make a living at it. Next year is the annual "Poodles and Pomeranian Puddle Jumping Puppy-Palooza" and she wants to be the official show photographer. So she contacts the organization and says "Hey, do you want to hire me?" One of the first questions they'll ask in return is "Can we see some of your dog photography?" She then points them to the photos on her website and says "Yes, here's some samples from the "Beagle Bash" that I took last month..."
There's probably nothing wrong with that scenario. The Beagle Bash photographer may have an exclusive for that show, but he doesn't have an exclusive on all dog shows everywhere. You always have competition. So if she is using the images in hope of getting future work, that's fine. The show photographer probably won't like it, but from a legal point of view, I think it's OK.
What's not cool is undercutting the show's photographer and selling your own photos. There are costs involved in being the official photographer, and they often agree to give the event something in return, possibly a discount, win pictures for their magazine, photos of the event staff. In return they get an exclusive. By selling the photos, you/she would be infringing on that. The photographer could potentially have grounds for legal action, since you don't have permission to shoot those photos. (If the other photographer has an exclusive, even if you tried to get permission by asking the event organizers, they cannot give you permission to sell the images, so there's no possible way to get permission when there's an exclusive agreement...)
Last edited:
A small clarification: the need for a model release has nothing whatsoever to do with the photographer making money from selling the image. It has to do with commercial exploitation of the privacy rights of the model.
Lets say I take a great photo of Ichiro Suzuki at a game. I can sell that image to Sports Illustrated for their cover for thousands of dollars without a release. A photo in a news periodical is considered editorial use, not commercial use. My profit from the sale of that image is irrelevant. I cannot, on the other hand, sell that same image to General Mills to use on a Wheaties box. That would be commercial use, and would require a model release. I could not even give General Mills that image for free, for "photo credit" (ahem!). That would still be commercial use, even if I make no profit at all. It is the use of the image that determines if a model release is required, not my profit (or lack thereof).
This is why you normally don't require a model release if an event photographer is simply selling event photos back to the event guests. It isn't commercial use, therefore no release is required. Commercial in this legal context does not mean making money. Commercial means exploiting someone's likeness to promote a product or service.
Pets are a grey area in regards to a model or property release. As far as I understand it, a pet has no privacy rights. Only people have privacy rights. Therefore a pet doesn't warrant a model release. More likely, you'd need a property release if any release is required at all. It is a somewhat similar form for similar purposes.
Here is ASMPs tutorial and sample. They have sample releases for model and property, adult and minor.
http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html
All the legal issues aside, it is poor form to try to horn in on the business of the already-established event photographer. The event organizer has probably made special arrangements for that photographer to be there. Nobody will care if you take a few photos. But if you are clearly exploiting the event for your own profit and undermining the show's primary photographer, the organizers will likely eject you from the event. Dog shows are usually closed events, often on private property, and they have the right to boot you out for any reason. This is probably a more relevant consideration than the need for a model/property release.
Lets say I take a great photo of Ichiro Suzuki at a game. I can sell that image to Sports Illustrated for their cover for thousands of dollars without a release. A photo in a news periodical is considered editorial use, not commercial use. My profit from the sale of that image is irrelevant. I cannot, on the other hand, sell that same image to General Mills to use on a Wheaties box. That would be commercial use, and would require a model release. I could not even give General Mills that image for free, for "photo credit" (ahem!). That would still be commercial use, even if I make no profit at all. It is the use of the image that determines if a model release is required, not my profit (or lack thereof).
This is why you normally don't require a model release if an event photographer is simply selling event photos back to the event guests. It isn't commercial use, therefore no release is required. Commercial in this legal context does not mean making money. Commercial means exploiting someone's likeness to promote a product or service.
Pets are a grey area in regards to a model or property release. As far as I understand it, a pet has no privacy rights. Only people have privacy rights. Therefore a pet doesn't warrant a model release. More likely, you'd need a property release if any release is required at all. It is a somewhat similar form for similar purposes.
Here is ASMPs tutorial and sample. They have sample releases for model and property, adult and minor.
http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html
All the legal issues aside, it is poor form to try to horn in on the business of the already-established event photographer. The event organizer has probably made special arrangements for that photographer to be there. Nobody will care if you take a few photos. But if you are clearly exploiting the event for your own profit and undermining the show's primary photographer, the organizers will likely eject you from the event. Dog shows are usually closed events, often on private property, and they have the right to boot you out for any reason. This is probably a more relevant consideration than the need for a model/property release.
As I said before, I'm not a lawyer...
That said, I'm not sure I totally agree with Scott.
What he stated applies to photos on public property, at least as far as I'm aware. If you're on a public street and snap a photo of Ichiro, it's fair game for news papers and magazines etc, just as he stated. Also, as he stated, you can't use it commercially, i.e. to endorse a product or sell as a baseball card.
So, I agree with his comments if you're on public property. Where I'm not sure I agree is on private property. I don't know that you can even sell photos taken in Safeco Field for editorial use. The rules on the website say photos may be taken for personal use only. Can they legally enforce that? I don't know, you'd have to talk to a lawyer to get a legal opinion, and I"m guessing they might not all agree either...
That said, I'm not sure I totally agree with Scott.
What he stated applies to photos on public property, at least as far as I'm aware. If you're on a public street and snap a photo of Ichiro, it's fair game for news papers and magazines etc, just as he stated. Also, as he stated, you can't use it commercially, i.e. to endorse a product or sell as a baseball card.
So, I agree with his comments if you're on public property. Where I'm not sure I agree is on private property. I don't know that you can even sell photos taken in Safeco Field for editorial use. The rules on the website say photos may be taken for personal use only. Can they legally enforce that? I don't know, you'd have to talk to a lawyer to get a legal opinion, and I"m guessing they might not all agree either...
Jake, if the photographer has permission, I'd agree with your understanding. (Since Jake worked in newspapers for many years, he's definitely qualified to speak on this...)
On private property, the rights of the person being photographed don't change. (i.e. Editorial use is OK without permission, commercial use needs a release.) What changes is that the property owner can put conditions on your photography. If they give you permission, as with a press pass, then you're all set. If you buy a ticket, then you're bound by the rules of the venue. Even if you get in free, you are limited by the rules of the property owner.
Those of us who photograph trains often run afoul of the last one, with various transit agencies having varying rules on photography, ranging from no tripods, to no photography at all. The rules also change from time to time, and have been challenged by the ACLU and others. It gets into questions of "public access", for example is a subway station an private area or public? What if it says "passengers only beyond this point". Do the rules then change if you have a ticket? This stuff gets way more complicated than it would seem.
Another example is a Casino. Many of them prohibit photos in the gaming areas, to protect customers privacy. Since it's private property, they can enforce those rules.
Also, note there's a difference between "Public Property" and "Publically Owned Property". Just because property is owned by the Federal, State or Local government doesn't mean it's open for photography. It's publicly owned, but may not be "public property". Don't think there's a difference? Well, try walking into the Capitol or the Whitehouse to snap a few photos without permission. Or Area 51 or the Vault in Fort Knox. Once somebody posts bail for you, let me know how it went.
If you want to see just how complex and tangled this gets, do some research on "Paparazzis" and all the legal hassles they get into photographing the movie stars, especially when Star A is seen coming out of a hotel with Star B's wife. They're frequently sued, threatened and occasionally beaten up.
On private property, the rights of the person being photographed don't change. (i.e. Editorial use is OK without permission, commercial use needs a release.) What changes is that the property owner can put conditions on your photography. If they give you permission, as with a press pass, then you're all set. If you buy a ticket, then you're bound by the rules of the venue. Even if you get in free, you are limited by the rules of the property owner.
Those of us who photograph trains often run afoul of the last one, with various transit agencies having varying rules on photography, ranging from no tripods, to no photography at all. The rules also change from time to time, and have been challenged by the ACLU and others. It gets into questions of "public access", for example is a subway station an private area or public? What if it says "passengers only beyond this point". Do the rules then change if you have a ticket? This stuff gets way more complicated than it would seem.
Another example is a Casino. Many of them prohibit photos in the gaming areas, to protect customers privacy. Since it's private property, they can enforce those rules.
Also, note there's a difference between "Public Property" and "Publically Owned Property". Just because property is owned by the Federal, State or Local government doesn't mean it's open for photography. It's publicly owned, but may not be "public property". Don't think there's a difference? Well, try walking into the Capitol or the Whitehouse to snap a few photos without permission. Or Area 51 or the Vault in Fort Knox. Once somebody posts bail for you, let me know how it went.
If you want to see just how complex and tangled this gets, do some research on "Paparazzis" and all the legal hassles they get into photographing the movie stars, especially when Star A is seen coming out of a hotel with Star B's wife. They're frequently sued, threatened and occasionally beaten up.
Last edited:
Public or private property has little bearing on the need for a model release. The need for a model release is based solely on the end use of the image. The location where the image was taken is irrelevant.
Where the private property comes in to play is in the ability to take photos in the first place, and under what conditions. A private property owner can decline to give you permission to take pictures at all, of course. And they can set conditions on their permission. It is very common for concert venues to forbid cameras entirely, or if they allow cameras, you agree not to sell the photos or use them commercially as a condition of entry. Some even claim copyright of any photos you take in their venue. This becomes a contract issue then, not a model release issue. Your ability to use the images is based on the conditions of entry, not on your model release (or lack thereof). Similar rules may be posted at major sports venues too. Photography rules might be in the small print on the back of your ticket, or posted near the entry. Most people don't notice this, or completely ignore it.
In the case of a venue posting rules governing photography on their private property, then having a model release won't help you. Even with a model release, you cannot sell the images if you agreed to the photography rules as a condition of entry. In such a case, you'd need both: permission from the venue and/or event organizer, AND a model release (for commercial use).
In the Ichiro example, I might also have to worry about Trademark issues. I cannot commercially exploit the Trademark of the team, even if I have permission from the venue and a model release signed by Ichiro. I would also need permission from the team if the team logo was visible in my photo. You won't normally have to worry about this for a dog show or most common event photography, though.
"Fair Use" is also a legal term, and many people misuse it in casual conversation. Fair Use sets specific rules about when someone can ignore or violate copyright law. I can quote text from a copyrighted work for a school assignment, for example, and the copyright holder can't sue me. But I can't quote that same text in an advertisement. Fair Use is a defense against a claim of copyright violation in certain circumstances. Press passes have nothing whatsoever to do with Fair Use. Press passes grant specific permissions of use by the venue/organizer/team/whatever, and usually grants access to areas where the general audience/fans can't go.
I have extensive experience in event photography. I did it for years as the primary source of my photography income. 99% of the time, you don't need a model release for event photos (for people or dogs). The only time you would need a model/property release is if you want to use the image to promote a product or service. In other words, for an ad of some sort, generally. As a practical matter, you don't need a model release to sell photos of guests (or their dogs) to the guests at an event, and you'd never get them to sign model releases in the first place. Don't bother wasting the energy trying.
Edit: I see Bob just posted much the same thing as regards to private property restrictions.
Where the private property comes in to play is in the ability to take photos in the first place, and under what conditions. A private property owner can decline to give you permission to take pictures at all, of course. And they can set conditions on their permission. It is very common for concert venues to forbid cameras entirely, or if they allow cameras, you agree not to sell the photos or use them commercially as a condition of entry. Some even claim copyright of any photos you take in their venue. This becomes a contract issue then, not a model release issue. Your ability to use the images is based on the conditions of entry, not on your model release (or lack thereof). Similar rules may be posted at major sports venues too. Photography rules might be in the small print on the back of your ticket, or posted near the entry. Most people don't notice this, or completely ignore it.
In the case of a venue posting rules governing photography on their private property, then having a model release won't help you. Even with a model release, you cannot sell the images if you agreed to the photography rules as a condition of entry. In such a case, you'd need both: permission from the venue and/or event organizer, AND a model release (for commercial use).
In the Ichiro example, I might also have to worry about Trademark issues. I cannot commercially exploit the Trademark of the team, even if I have permission from the venue and a model release signed by Ichiro. I would also need permission from the team if the team logo was visible in my photo. You won't normally have to worry about this for a dog show or most common event photography, though.
"Fair Use" is also a legal term, and many people misuse it in casual conversation. Fair Use sets specific rules about when someone can ignore or violate copyright law. I can quote text from a copyrighted work for a school assignment, for example, and the copyright holder can't sue me. But I can't quote that same text in an advertisement. Fair Use is a defense against a claim of copyright violation in certain circumstances. Press passes have nothing whatsoever to do with Fair Use. Press passes grant specific permissions of use by the venue/organizer/team/whatever, and usually grants access to areas where the general audience/fans can't go.
I have extensive experience in event photography. I did it for years as the primary source of my photography income. 99% of the time, you don't need a model release for event photos (for people or dogs). The only time you would need a model/property release is if you want to use the image to promote a product or service. In other words, for an ad of some sort, generally. As a practical matter, you don't need a model release to sell photos of guests (or their dogs) to the guests at an event, and you'd never get them to sign model releases in the first place. Don't bother wasting the energy trying.
Edit: I see Bob just posted much the same thing as regards to private property restrictions.
Scott has a good point though. We were sort of lumping the two together.
A model release is NOT the same thing as getting permission to photograph on Private Property. If you have permission to take photos from the property owner, you still don't have the rights to use the photo in a commercial manner. Don't confuse the two, as you may need both, (or neither) depending on location and usage.
A model release is NOT the same thing as getting permission to photograph on Private Property. If you have permission to take photos from the property owner, you still don't have the rights to use the photo in a commercial manner. Don't confuse the two, as you may need both, (or neither) depending on location and usage.
The two did sort of blend a bit there, or least it would seem if you weren't following things closely. Since Jake has a press pass for the venue, he has permission to shoot on the property. That's the first half. The "fair use" comes into play when he gave the photo(s) to his editor for use in the Seattle Times, that's the second half. Jake didn't have a model release from the player, but since it's editorial use, it's still legal for the paper to print the photo.
So what about selling the photo as art? Let's say I go to an event where Ichiro's signing baseballs. I get a great shot of him signing a ball for some kid who's got a jersey on, and bat and glove, and it's just cute as can be...
I can use it in the Times for editorial use, that's pretty clear. From what you're saying, I can sell copies to folks at the event. What about selling prints in general? Does that make a difference, or is it "commercial" only when it endorses a product or service. (i.e. I can't sell it to Louisville Slugger for an ad without a release...)
Snuffy2
Member
Casino's
[Bob] Another example is a Casino. Many of them prohibit photos in the gaming areas, to protect customers privacy. Since it's private property, they can enforce those rules.
This covers my issue next week, I wanted to carry my camera on the streets in Vegas, and stroll through the hotels and casinos, I think it will be in my best interest to leave the camera in the room while touring the hotels in doors.
[Bob] Another example is a Casino. Many of them prohibit photos in the gaming areas, to protect customers privacy. Since it's private property, they can enforce those rules.
This covers my issue next week, I wanted to carry my camera on the streets in Vegas, and stroll through the hotels and casinos, I think it will be in my best interest to leave the camera in the room while touring the hotels in doors.
Yes, you can sell those images from an event. For example, I once did a shoot for Nordstroms, where Sarah Jessica Parker was signing perfume bottles for a new perfume being introduced. I was there at the invitation of Nordstroms (so no permission issues). We sold hundreds of photos of her signing bottles and shaking hands of fans. It went on for hours. Nobody, including Sarah Jessica Parker, signed any model release. Nordstroms restricted all other photography, going so far as to require people in line to hand over their cell phones before they stepped up to get their bottle and handshake so they couldn't take cell phone snaps.
This is more relevant to the original question about the dog show. In my example, just as the dog show, no release was signed and none was necessary for simply selling photos to the event guests. It is not commercial use. I had permission from the organizer. Had another photographer showed up and tried to take pictures, security would have ejected them from the property, just like they might at a dog show if you don't follow the rules. But they could still sell the photos they took prior to being booted out, so long at it isn't for commercial use, and there were no other restrictions as a condition of entry.
Could I sell those photos as art? [Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney either.]
Probably. Strictly speaking, art is generally not considered commercial use. If you framed and printed your cute Ichiro photo, and displayed it in a legit art gallery, then you probably don't need a release. The subjects (Ichiro and the boy) have no expectation of privacy at a public signing in which they allowed the photo to be taken. You are not exploiting either of them to promote a product or service.
I do art photography as well as commercial, and often use models. I've had numerous exhibitions and gallery shows. I've never had a gallery owner ask me for model releases. I've known other photographers who have produced art coffee-table books with no model releases, and the publishers didn't ask. The only thing I've ever been asked is to provide proof of age for nude models, but never a model release.
One exception would be promoting the show. I probably don't need a release to hang a photo on the gallery wall. But if the gallery wants to use that same image on postcards and ads promoting the exhibition, then that changes the purpose to commercial use, and I would then need a model release. Again, it is the end use that determines the need for a model release. There may be other exceptions I don't know about. For this reason, I normally have my models sign a release when I'm doing an art shoot.
Snuffy, I'd take it with you... There's a million tourists in Vegas, and most of them are carrying cameras. It depends on the Casino, but I'm guessing that most of them would be OK with you carrying your camera, especially if it's in a case, on your way through the casino.
If you pull it out and start shooting in the gaming area, you will probably get to meet some security guards very quickly. But just having it on your person? Shouldn't be an issue. Many casinos are designed so that you practically have to walk through them to get to other areas. You can't expect a hotel guest to go back to his room and drop off his camera if he wants go from the street to the buffet.
I'd take it with you, not take photos in the gaming areas, and if they do confront you for simply having it, it would most likely be in the tone of "I'm sorry sir, you can't have a camera in this area." rather than dragging you into the back office and calling the cops. If you do get told that, you simply leave the area and it's all good. They don't want to hassle their customers...