To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Considering that few clients really understand the legal complexities of these types of uses I predict a field day for lawyers.
M:wp31227RE
Good to see iStock is establishing this division. What a breath of fresh air!
I don’t think there will be a flurry of attorney interest. Most lawyers avoid taking on intellectual property cases concerning model releases. Besides if there any suits, claimants don’t sue photographers, they sue publishers with deep pockets.
Uninformed photo columnists have been fanning the fires of the myth that model releases are required for most photographs, even editorial photographs. Editorial photos inform and educate the public. Your picture(s) will apear in books and magazines. Not in advertisements..
If your pictures are intended for a a commercial purpose such as advertising- yes, you might be required to have a model or property release.
The courts have always ruled in favor of free press with the homily: “Everyone in public, in public situations, has little or no ‘privacy’ when it comes to photography. We live in a free society. “
Don’t confuse commercial photographs with editorial photographs. You are free to photograph in public when your picture(s) is used for educatiing and informing the public. Perhaps in China or Cuba, you wouldn’t have this freedom, but in most states in the USA, you’ll have no problem taking and publishing such pictures. Any publisher you deal with will not ask for a model or property release in such situations. In our two marketlettesr, Photoletter and PhotoDaily, the editors NEVER ask for a model release. They know their First Amendment Rights. – Rohn
http://www.sellphotos.com