Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

model release?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    clicknimagine

    i have found no. 6 clause of the rules on the gallery is a little confusing, which are as follows:-

    You acknowledge that you have sufficient written permission of any recognisable models or other persons appearing in the photograph to be able to grant ePHOTOzine the right to publish your photographic submission online and hereby grant us such right. If we are contacted by a subject of one of your photos asking for it to be removed we will do so.


    in case of street photography, how can i get model release from the unknown recognizable persons? or is it an exception to this rule?...

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    8 May 2010 - 8:39 AM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    franken
    franken e2 Member 123173 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
    8 May 2010 - 10:05 AM

    Bookmarking.

    Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
    clicknimagine
    8 May 2010 - 10:37 AM

    I really have doubt about this rule, some stock agencies sell these kinds of street photography which are submitted to them by a tag called "Editorial" (without model release), i also doubt whether this can be applied here, because i have not found any thing written about this problem, i am really concerned about this rule because many of my images are street photography in my hand, which yet to publish in this site...

    User_Removed
    8 May 2010 - 10:38 AM

    You have taken the photo in a public place so the people within the photos generally accept it as their public image, and so no lease is required per-say.

    And if a subject would want it removed I would say "fair enough" and not argue the bat. - You could however argue to keep it and would probably win.

    Obviously there are slight variations for artistic, promotional and commercial use in this case - but I would say EPZ swings far more to the display and art side: A release is not needed (much like the editorial stock case - where news items treat the release laws slightly differently).

    Last Modified By User_Removed at 8 May 2010 - 10:39 AM Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
    User_Removed
    8 May 2010 - 10:51 AM

    Specifically, if you take a photo of a person in a public place where they expect a level of privacy can become a problem if you intend for the photo to be published.

    A recent decision by the ECHR suggest that simply taking the photograph may in certain circumstance infringe that right.

    - but this ruling is relaxed when the photo is for non-publishing. - if EPZ is counted as a publishment is down to some speculation. Smile

    To give you an idea of the relative issues surrounding this subject, its actually been easier for the EU to use the human rights act to provide protection from "invasion of privacy" than the actual privacy laws. Its very hard to determine if a photograph you take will be an infringement of this "right" and the law in this area is developing and changing alot recently.

    Last Modified By User_Removed at 8 May 2010 - 10:51 AM Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
    clicknimagine
    8 May 2010 - 10:58 AM

    thanks a lot friends...

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.