Model release forms - grey area?
Discussion
I've found myself doing an increasingly larger amount of photography and film work for a couple of local authorities over the past couple of years.
Standard approach for taking photos or videos of members of the public is to ask permission and get them to sign a release form. The problem is that this is becoming increasingly burdensome for both me and the client. Plus, there's many examples where it's not practical (such as taking a photo of a busy high-street).
The law states that there is "no requirement to get someone to sign a release form providing the image was taken in and from a public place and that the person(s) were also in a public place - except for 'commercial photography such as advertising'." And here's the grey area.
Whilst the the photography is commercial in that I am being paid to do it, its purpose is not advertising per-se; more public information, supporting evidence, instructional content, etc... Very little of what I do is ever seen by the wider public, tending to be used for very audience specific endeavours.
My feeling is that release forms are necessary - or at the least wise..... but I've been asked by one of my clients to look into this a bit more and would appreciate your views or knowledge regarding this grey area.
TIA.
Standard approach for taking photos or videos of members of the public is to ask permission and get them to sign a release form. The problem is that this is becoming increasingly burdensome for both me and the client. Plus, there's many examples where it's not practical (such as taking a photo of a busy high-street).
The law states that there is "no requirement to get someone to sign a release form providing the image was taken in and from a public place and that the person(s) were also in a public place - except for 'commercial photography such as advertising'." And here's the grey area.
Whilst the the photography is commercial in that I am being paid to do it, its purpose is not advertising per-se; more public information, supporting evidence, instructional content, etc... Very little of what I do is ever seen by the wider public, tending to be used for very audience specific endeavours.
My feeling is that release forms are necessary - or at the least wise..... but I've been asked by one of my clients to look into this a bit more and would appreciate your views or knowledge regarding this grey area.
TIA.
I've done a little street photography for commercial purposes - Regent Street for example - and it wasn't an issue. Nobody came up and asked me what I was taking photos for, and had they done so I'd have told them. Had anyone been 'upset' at being in a photo I'd just have taken another without them.
I think if you go up to strangers in the street and ask them to sign forms you'll just be creating problems. Model release forms IMHO are for when you hire models for shoots.
So I would just smile and crack on with it. It's more likely you'll be approached by a security guard/warden - so it might be wise to have a piece of paper with the law about taking photos in a public place on it.
NB: The most splendid case of security guards is the Golden Wonder video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjTBYdJwQ4I&ab...
I think if you go up to strangers in the street and ask them to sign forms you'll just be creating problems. Model release forms IMHO are for when you hire models for shoots.
So I would just smile and crack on with it. It's more likely you'll be approached by a security guard/warden - so it might be wise to have a piece of paper with the law about taking photos in a public place on it.
NB: The most splendid case of security guards is the Golden Wonder video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjTBYdJwQ4I&ab...
Model releases aren’t just for models in studios. If, for example, you’re snapping away at a popular tourist attraction and a photogenic person sits in front of it with great light on them…. And you take a good photo, you have a choice:
Firstly don’t bother with a release. This will limit the use that the photo can be put to. Educational material, and company literature would be fine, for example.
Or, grab a release and, hey presto the image can be used for the above and, advertising.
Also, with street photography especially, property releases might be required. London Transport are very protective of their logo, the National Trust might get angry to see one of their buildings used to advertise lawn mowers without permission.
It sounds like a minefield, but it’s common sense really.
In public, I never hold my camera up when there are kids in the scene. I just can’t be done with the potential aggro.
Firstly don’t bother with a release. This will limit the use that the photo can be put to. Educational material, and company literature would be fine, for example.
Or, grab a release and, hey presto the image can be used for the above and, advertising.
Also, with street photography especially, property releases might be required. London Transport are very protective of their logo, the National Trust might get angry to see one of their buildings used to advertise lawn mowers without permission.
It sounds like a minefield, but it’s common sense really.
In public, I never hold my camera up when there are kids in the scene. I just can’t be done with the potential aggro.
Tony1963 said:
In public, I never hold my camera up when there are kids in the scene. I just can’t be done with the potential aggro.
A friend of mine stopped photographing weddings 'because there might be children present'. Sad that modern 'fear' brings this about.As for forms; if your nice scene has one person in it, then it's feasible to ask them to sign a form - mind you I damn well wouldn't if a stranger came up to me with the same request (unless money was involved). And if I refused to move, then by his own rules he wouldn't be able to take the photo... But where do you stop? 10 people? 50 people? By the time you've got 5 signatures on 5 bits of paper and the other 45 people have f
ked off there's little point, and don't be surprised if Plod comes to investigate reports of 'strange man with camera asking people to sign things'.Easier to apologise afterwards than seek permission beforehand, as the phrase goes.
Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 25th November 18:58
Tony1963 said:
Yes, it’s easier to apologise after, but, if you sell via an agency and answer their closed questions dishonestly, it might not go well. It’s actually easier to tick the No box when asked if releases have been obtained.
Fortunately I never encountered agencies or closed questions, my work was direct by commission. So I guess we're both right 
If it's for a local authority then even though it may be for internal use only, it's still publicly accessible if anyone asks for it (the document). And the subject matter of the document can also be relevant. Would you want your photo on a leaflet promoting a new domestic abuse support service, for example?!
Some time ago I remember a local authority ran into problems when they included exterior photos of private houses in one of their documents or leaflets. An owner of one of the properties saw it and kicked up a fuss saying he didn't give permission for it to be used as you could identify the location of the property. The council had to bin thousands of leaflets they'd got printed up.
Basically the council's fault, not the photographer. But I tend to agree with OP that a release is wise, particularly if the image can clearly identify someone i.e. a close up or they're the only one in the shot. A shot of a crowd, busy street etc is harder to identify people so maybe less of an issue. Legally though I have no clue.
Some time ago I remember a local authority ran into problems when they included exterior photos of private houses in one of their documents or leaflets. An owner of one of the properties saw it and kicked up a fuss saying he didn't give permission for it to be used as you could identify the location of the property. The council had to bin thousands of leaflets they'd got printed up.
Basically the council's fault, not the photographer. But I tend to agree with OP that a release is wise, particularly if the image can clearly identify someone i.e. a close up or they're the only one in the shot. A shot of a crowd, busy street etc is harder to identify people so maybe less of an issue. Legally though I have no clue.
Thanks for the inputs chaps.
Necessary evil it is!
As and aside, I'm in The Bourne Ultimatum. Not you'd know - was in the background at Waterloo Station - but I can spot me quite clearly. I thought they were filming Spooks at the time and was just hanging around for a train. Nobody sought my permission and not a penny in royalties. bds
Necessary evil it is!
As and aside, I'm in The Bourne Ultimatum. Not you'd know - was in the background at Waterloo Station - but I can spot me quite clearly. I thought they were filming Spooks at the time and was just hanging around for a train. Nobody sought my permission and not a penny in royalties. b
ds Edited by StevieBee on Wednesday 30th November 17:26
StevieBee said:
Thanks for the inputs chaps.
Necessary evil it is!
As and aside, I'm in The Bourne Ultimatum. Not you'd know - was in the background at Waterloo Station - but I can spot me quite clearly. I thought they were filming Spooks at the time and was just hanging around for a train. Nobody sought my permission and not a penny in royalties. bds
Therefore you need to complain and all copies of that film must be destroyed!!Necessary evil it is!
As and aside, I'm in The Bourne Ultimatum. Not you'd know - was in the background at Waterloo Station - but I can spot me quite clearly. I thought they were filming Spooks at the time and was just hanging around for a train. Nobody sought my permission and not a penny in royalties. b
ds Except they will ignore you.
You actually just proved it's not a necessary evil
Simpo Two said:
StevieBee said:
Thanks for the inputs chaps.
Necessary evil it is!
As and aside, I'm in The Bourne Ultimatum. Not you'd know - was in the background at Waterloo Station - but I can spot me quite clearly. I thought they were filming Spooks at the time and was just hanging around for a train. Nobody sought my permission and not a penny in royalties. bds
Therefore you need to complain and all copies of that film must be destroyed!!Necessary evil it is!
As and aside, I'm in The Bourne Ultimatum. Not you'd know - was in the background at Waterloo Station - but I can spot me quite clearly. I thought they were filming Spooks at the time and was just hanging around for a train. Nobody sought my permission and not a penny in royalties. b
ds Except they will ignore you.
You actually just proved it's not a necessary evil
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff