By Rohn Engh
There are several answers to this question, depending on whether you live in the USA, China or Iraq. I choose to be facetious because many American photographers, in these times, seem to forget that they still have First Amendment Rights. There are enough discussions exhibiting confusion about model releases in the Kracker Barrel Archives to fill several volumes. All of it, like all legal matters, is open to interpretation.
My comments on the subject of model releases are always directed to the use of your photos in editorial situations.
The real test of this question about whether you should be trying to get a release for photos of children in public is the book, newspaper, or magazine publisher (the basic customers of editorial photographers) who would be the target of a legal case. A community art show or photo exhibit is not unlike your local newspaper publishing a feature photo in its Home Life section, or on its website. And in my forty years of observing editorial stock photography it's very rare that a parent (or the child) doesn't enjoy seeing their child's picture in an exhibit or published in a magazine or book. No attorney on a contingency basis would ever accept a case where real invasion of privacy is of concern.
Our USA First Amendment covers this issue.
Frivolous lawsuits of this nature used to happen, it seems, more often back in the 70's or 80's. You'd think it would happen more now-- what with all the sensitivity and fear that's prevalent in our society these days. It may be that there are fewer instances -- that many stock photographers have become gun-shy. They believe that they will get some "grief" from parents if they photograph in public and then exhibit the photos at a show, but failed to get a model release.
What's the result if you, as a stock photographer, photographing in the area of child development, domestic violence, social issues, child abuse, child safety, child welfare, etc. - if you don't capture poignant scenes of what's happening in your community?
What happens is, the other side wins. The pictures are not published and the corporate or governmental interests who would wish you didn't expose their blemishes are happy.
Eugene Smith, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Margaret Bourke-White, never walked around with a model release pad in their pocket.
I repeat again, it's the publisher not the photographer who gets in trouble if an irresponsible art director uses a picture in an insensitive way in the magazine's layout, in a way that distorts or misrepresents the original nature of the picture. In other word's, your neighbor's child's picture is used in a story about teenage gambling. Then a parent should rightfully take that publisher to court, and win - if the implication indeed is not true.
This would usually hold true also at a neighborhood art show or photography exhibit. When in doubt, apply the Golden Rule and ask yourself, "does this picture embarrass a friend or neighbor?" If it does, you might choose not to exhibit it.
True, there are always extenuating circumstances, and different interpretations of the law in different parts of the country. You'll often find burly security guards demanding that you not take pictures in their shopping mall. Well, it so happens that's where you're going to find excellent subject matter on the subject of community life. For a security guard to attempt to take your film or camera or even hassle you unnecessarily, calls for a phone call to the police on your cell phone; the guard would be arrested for attempted theft of your camera.
By the way, be sure to carry around a "Bust Card" in your camera bag. It's available in PDF form at http://joshdale.com/bustcard.html> It's a card you can carry with you and refer to on any encounter with the police.
But to be timid about photographing a child in public because "you've heard stories that you could get in trouble, is to deprive the viewing public of your talents and the way you see the world. You have to ask yourself the question, "Is this picture worth it? There's a 1% chance that it'll result in great hassle for me, and a 99% chance that it'll belong in a retrospect of my work."
Editorial stock photography is not easy. If it were, everybody would be doing it. Here's a challenge for you (I give this challenge about every five years because a new crop of photographers emerges who have heard (usually by uninformed photography instructors and photo columnists) that they shouldn't be photographing children (or adults) in public because the photographer needs a model release for that picture to be published.
So here's the challenge.
If you can document a case for me where a photographer was taken to court (whether they won or lost), for publishing a picture (regular editorial usage) without getting a model release, I'll reward you with a year's subscription to any of our services here at PhotoSource International.
Take note that I've said, "documented," and regular editorial usage (not sensitive misrepresentation). Photographers, Internet gossips, and my fellow photo columnists continually perpetuate the myth about model releases and all the trouble you can get into when taking pictures in public. But when asked for follow-up documentation, it's never forthcoming.
So there. Photograph in public freely. Exhibit your work and sell your images in the spirit of "informing the public." No judge in a court of law is going to fault you for that if you are sincerely interested in editorial photography. It's your right. Even more so, it's your duty to protect that right, by challenging those who would jeopardize it.
There are several answers to this question, depending on whether you live in the USA, China or Iraq. I choose to be facetious because many American photographers, in these times, seem to forget that they still have First Amendment Rights. There are enough discussions exhibiting confusion about model releases in the Kracker Barrel Archives to fill several volumes. All of it, like all legal matters, is open to interpretation.
My comments on the subject of model releases are always directed to the use of your photos in editorial situations.
The real test of this question about whether you should be trying to get a release for photos of children in public is the book, newspaper, or magazine publisher (the basic customers of editorial photographers) who would be the target of a legal case. A community art show or photo exhibit is not unlike your local newspaper publishing a feature photo in its Home Life section, or on its website. And in my forty years of observing editorial stock photography it's very rare that a parent (or the child) doesn't enjoy seeing their child's picture in an exhibit or published in a magazine or book. No attorney on a contingency basis would ever accept a case where real invasion of privacy is of concern.
Our USA First Amendment covers this issue.
Frivolous lawsuits of this nature used to happen, it seems, more often back in the 70's or 80's. You'd think it would happen more now-- what with all the sensitivity and fear that's prevalent in our society these days. It may be that there are fewer instances -- that many stock photographers have become gun-shy. They believe that they will get some "grief" from parents if they photograph in public and then exhibit the photos at a show, but failed to get a model release.
What's the result if you, as a stock photographer, photographing in the area of child development, domestic violence, social issues, child abuse, child safety, child welfare, etc. - if you don't capture poignant scenes of what's happening in your community?
What happens is, the other side wins. The pictures are not published and the corporate or governmental interests who would wish you didn't expose their blemishes are happy.
Eugene Smith, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Margaret Bourke-White, never walked around with a model release pad in their pocket.
I repeat again, it's the publisher not the photographer who gets in trouble if an irresponsible art director uses a picture in an insensitive way in the magazine's layout, in a way that distorts or misrepresents the original nature of the picture. In other word's, your neighbor's child's picture is used in a story about teenage gambling. Then a parent should rightfully take that publisher to court, and win - if the implication indeed is not true.
This would usually hold true also at a neighborhood art show or photography exhibit. When in doubt, apply the Golden Rule and ask yourself, "does this picture embarrass a friend or neighbor?" If it does, you might choose not to exhibit it.
True, there are always extenuating circumstances, and different interpretations of the law in different parts of the country. You'll often find burly security guards demanding that you not take pictures in their shopping mall. Well, it so happens that's where you're going to find excellent subject matter on the subject of community life. For a security guard to attempt to take your film or camera or even hassle you unnecessarily, calls for a phone call to the police on your cell phone; the guard would be arrested for attempted theft of your camera.
By the way, be sure to carry around a "Bust Card" in your camera bag. It's available in PDF form at http://joshdale.com/bustcard.html> It's a card you can carry with you and refer to on any encounter with the police.
But to be timid about photographing a child in public because "you've heard stories that you could get in trouble, is to deprive the viewing public of your talents and the way you see the world. You have to ask yourself the question, "Is this picture worth it? There's a 1% chance that it'll result in great hassle for me, and a 99% chance that it'll belong in a retrospect of my work."
Editorial stock photography is not easy. If it were, everybody would be doing it. Here's a challenge for you (I give this challenge about every five years because a new crop of photographers emerges who have heard (usually by uninformed photography instructors and photo columnists) that they shouldn't be photographing children (or adults) in public because the photographer needs a model release for that picture to be published.
So here's the challenge.
If you can document a case for me where a photographer was taken to court (whether they won or lost), for publishing a picture (regular editorial usage) without getting a model release, I'll reward you with a year's subscription to any of our services here at PhotoSource International.
Take note that I've said, "documented," and regular editorial usage (not sensitive misrepresentation). Photographers, Internet gossips, and my fellow photo columnists continually perpetuate the myth about model releases and all the trouble you can get into when taking pictures in public. But when asked for follow-up documentation, it's never forthcoming.
So there. Photograph in public freely. Exhibit your work and sell your images in the spirit of "informing the public." No judge in a court of law is going to fault you for that if you are sincerely interested in editorial photography. It's your right. Even more so, it's your duty to protect that right, by challenging those who would jeopardize it.
Post a Comment