"Fine Art" and Model Releases
- Bob Hubbard
The idea of model releases is a confusing one. Read enough threads on forums, or talk to any photographer and you'll get a huge range of opinions on when you need one. I've seen a number of photographers make the claim "I shoot fine art so I don't need one." or some similar nonsense. The problem is, when a legal matter crops up, you really can't just stamp the image "fine art" and get a free pass. 95% of those who think they do risk serious unhappiness should they find themselves in front of a judge in a court of law.
Ed Greenberg, a member of the New York Bar for over 30 years put it this way: "don't assume you can call your image a work of “fine art” and thus avoid the need to have a model release. In the event your subject objects to such use, a court may closely—and we mean closely—scrutinize your fine art credentials. You may need to demonstrate you’ve been shown regularly in art galleries and museums, if you’re work has been “collected,” and if the subject work has been produced in limited numbers. You can’t suddenly deem your own work “fine art” for the sole purpose of avoiding a lawsuit." (1)
The ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) puts it this way: "A model release says the person being photographed has given consent to be photographed and to the use of the images you capture. It doesnÂ’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." (2)
Remember, Editorial is not Fine Art.
Now why would you bother? What's the risk? In November 1999, photographer Peter Beard was threatened with a $50,000 lawsuit for a photo heÂ’d taken a years earlier and failed to get a release. His defense? "Releases ruin the atmosphere of photography."(3). That case was settled out of court, but as some cost to all involved.
5 minutes, a signed piece of paper, and piece of mind. Makes sense to me.
Bob Hubbard is a professional photographer specializing in martial arts event, nature and portrait photography. Bob's photography can be found at http://bobhubbardphotography.com/ and his martial arts photography at http://martialphotos.com/. He may be reached through these sites.
Copyright © 2010 - Bob Hubbard - All Rights Reserved
- Bob Hubbard
The idea of model releases is a confusing one. Read enough threads on forums, or talk to any photographer and you'll get a huge range of opinions on when you need one. I've seen a number of photographers make the claim "I shoot fine art so I don't need one." or some similar nonsense. The problem is, when a legal matter crops up, you really can't just stamp the image "fine art" and get a free pass. 95% of those who think they do risk serious unhappiness should they find themselves in front of a judge in a court of law.
Ed Greenberg, a member of the New York Bar for over 30 years put it this way: "don't assume you can call your image a work of “fine art” and thus avoid the need to have a model release. In the event your subject objects to such use, a court may closely—and we mean closely—scrutinize your fine art credentials. You may need to demonstrate you’ve been shown regularly in art galleries and museums, if you’re work has been “collected,” and if the subject work has been produced in limited numbers. You can’t suddenly deem your own work “fine art” for the sole purpose of avoiding a lawsuit." (1)
The ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) puts it this way: "A model release says the person being photographed has given consent to be photographed and to the use of the images you capture. It doesnÂ’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." (2)
Remember, Editorial is not Fine Art.
Now why would you bother? What's the risk? In November 1999, photographer Peter Beard was threatened with a $50,000 lawsuit for a photo heÂ’d taken a years earlier and failed to get a release. His defense? "Releases ruin the atmosphere of photography."(3). That case was settled out of court, but as some cost to all involved.
5 minutes, a signed piece of paper, and piece of mind. Makes sense to me.
Sources:
===- Model Release Fine Print - Plan Ahead for All Image Uses - The Copyright Zone
- Property and Model Releases - American Society of Media Photographers
- Beard and the Breasts Â… Love, Via Philip Roth - NY Observer
Bob Hubbard is a professional photographer specializing in martial arts event, nature and portrait photography. Bob's photography can be found at http://bobhubbardphotography.com/ and his martial arts photography at http://martialphotos.com/. He may be reached through these sites.
Copyright © 2010 - Bob Hubbard - All Rights Reserved
