I know that we need to have model release forms for pictures of people that we publishe. Here's the real question. Do I need to get model releases for people pictures that I have in a portfolio? It is not published, distributed, or sold. I just want to show some of my work. Obviously I didn't know I would be going down this road when I took those shots, and I don't know how to contact these people.. or even their names! Thanks for your help. chuck k

-- chuck kleesattel (kleesattel@webtv.com), December 30, 1999

Answers

My understanding of the law is that you must have a release. A show is considered a form of publication. Most of your subjects would probably not mind, but a single litigious one could cause you problems.

-- (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), December 31, 1999.

Hi - I hope we will get somebody to post with a definite answer, BECAUSE my understanding is that you do not need a release for the cases mentioned above.

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), January 01, 2000.

Put the photos in a portfolio and show it to people? I don't think a UK court would call this 'publishing'. I don't think the subjects would succeed in a legal action in the UK. In fact, I suspect it would be laughed out of court.

Even if the pictures were published in the UK, in an 'editorial' context, I don't know what (if any) law could be used against the photographer/publisher. Provided the pictures weren't slanderous or defamatory, of course.

The situation is probably different in other countries, such as France.

Has anyone heard of such an action against a portfolio succeeding, even in the litigious USA?

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), January 01, 2000.

Nope, a portfolio is not published, nor is an exhibit. A website is published, a book or magazine is published. The prints in this box I'm holding in my hand are not published, even if I show them to you (!)...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), January 03, 2000.

No you do not in the case you describe.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), January 03, 2000.

"Publication" in legal terms (Anglo-Australian law) is any action disclosing information to another. I "publish" information by whispering into someone's ear that Mr X is a wife beater. I "publish" a photograph by showing a snapshot to another. In this jurisdiction, "publication" in the legal context is a very broad term.

The question of model releases has interested me of late. No one can answer the question posed here without knowing the law Chuck's jurisdiction. However, it depends a lot on whether your jurisdiction has a notion of "privacy". That is, privacy as a right against the world as opposed to privacy against intrusive government agencies. A general right of privacy would include the right to your image. Any showing of your image is likely to be actionable in a court of law. This of course, is just a legal generality - similar to the position that any unsolicited physical contact is strictly an assault. No one actually litigates (well, I don't know about the US :) ).

So in summary - check if there is a constitutional / statutory right to privacy. Check what is meant by publication (in defamation or libel law publication is VERY broad). These concepts are likely to vary greatly from place to place although I see no reason why the notion of publication should be restricted anywhere.

-- Tim (Timothy_Bolotnikoff@justice.qld.gov.au), January 03, 2000.

What does publishing have to do with model releases? Your local paper can publish any photograph made in a public place without the permission of those depicted. I know of books that have been published of photographs of people with very few model releases collected. A model release is for "commercial" use of the image. You can't take a picture of someone drinking a coke and sell it to coke for advertising without a model release. A picture on the cover of a book is used to sell the book, the photos inside a book are usually for some kind of editorial use. Now misrpresenting a person and putting it out for public display may get you into some trouble.

-- Jeff White (zonie@computer-concepts.com), January 04, 2000.

Re Jeff White's answer:

Your comments would not be applicable everywhere. The situation you describe is similar to Australia. However, in countries with a right to privacy the situation is very different. For example, a recent Canadian court of appeal decision (it was a superiour court) awarded damages (I think $2000) because an arts magazine published a photograph of a teenager sitting on the steps of a building. There was nothing defamatory, misleading or hurtful about the photograph. But there was a right to privacy, hence a right to your own image in Quebec. If the place where you live has a similar right, then be very careful.

I am not certain as to the situation in the US, whether the federal constitution would enshrine such rights (if at all) or whether you should look to state laws.

The postings on this issue should be read with care. You cannot make a general statement about when a model release is required without reference to local law.

Publishing is an issue because certain liabilities arise when a photograph is "published".

-- Tim (Timothy_Bolotnikoff@justice.qld.gov.au), January 04, 2000.

This issue hinges on the definition of the term "publishing" and on the limitation of one's right to one's own image.

In German law (and I am fairly sure that the same holds true for most other [western] systems) publishing does indeed begin when you show the images to one other person. So strictly applying the text of the law, you would need a release by the person portrayed even if you intended to hang the prints on your living-room wall where a visitor could see them.

As for the fotos in newspapers: Whenever a person is shown as part of a crowd, or part of the surroundings (basically when (s)he is not the central subject of the image, or when (s)he is part of public life (politicians, celebrities, etc.) (s)he cannot claim the right to her/his own image any more. So as far as I know if the reporter of your local newspaper portrays you, he must ask for your permission to publish the image, but if you happen to be in a shot of his, depicting daily street life as such, where you might be substituted by any other person, no permission is needed.

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), January 10, 2000.