Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Using Images for Advertising


MadTrace 10 268 United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 3:39PM
Can anyone help. I want to use some images from a recent photo shot on my website and in leaflets. Can anyone suggest a standard disclaimer or something along those lines, I don't think I need a model release as I don't intend to sell the images. Any links or PMs gratefully received

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

4 Dec 2007 3:46PM
I am not sure on the subject but as the photographer you own the copyright of your images and therefore do not need a disclaimer or model release. Anyone else agree
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
4 Dec 2007 4:09PM

Quote:I don't think I need a model release as I don't intend to sell the images.


You don't (legally) need a model release even if you do intend to sell the photos. It is just that if photos of people are used in a way that the person concerned thinks is inappropriate, you could be open to libel action.

An example would be if a photo for a very thin person was used in an ad for an AIDS charity or in an article on anorexia or drug-abuse. It is not relevant whether money is passing or not. You could libel someone even by just putting up their photo on a website, if it accompanied by what they regard as inappropriate text.

The model release covers your back, so to speak.
kokobrown e2
10 1.9k Scotland
4 Dec 2007 4:24PM
I think if youve used the shot using a model from an agency, just for tests, then I think you can use it for self promotion but nothing else, ie you couldnt sell it to a library.

If thats the case, check with the agency who will no doubt advise you.

Laura x
Krakman 8 3.6k Scotland
4 Dec 2007 5:31PM
Assuming the model didn't actually commission/pay you to take the pics, then go ahead and use them for self promotion/portfolio without a model release, there's no problem. If she commissioned you, then potentially other rules apply.


Quote:You don't (legally) need a model release even if you do intend to sell the photos.

That's not quite right if for example the model was told that the pics would be for your mutual portfolios eg. on a time-for-prints basis. If you then went ahead and used them commercially without her consent then, while in theory you'd be OK from the copyright point of view, she could sue you for breach of contract. So you would need her permission to sell the images commercially.

Doesn't stop you using them in self-promotion/on website etc though as that is effectively using the pics in your portfolio. Different matter if you try to sell the pics to others.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
4 Dec 2007 5:55PM

Quote:That's not quite right if for example the model was told that the pics would be for your mutual portfolios eg. on a time-for-prints basis.


This is assuming it was a model (i.e.hired for the purpose of the shoot or who hired the tog) and, more importantly, that the model was told anything at all! Wink

Tracy has not indicated who or in what circumstances she took these photos. But looking at her folio, a shot in the (semi) dark suggests they may be children?
Krakman 8 3.6k Scotland
4 Dec 2007 6:04PM

Quote:This is assuming it was a model (i.e.hired for the purpose of the shoot or who hired the tog) and, more importantly, that the model was told anything at all!

Actually applies to anyone whether or not they're a professional model. Assuming nothing's in writing, there's an oral contract and it's a question of what was implied. If it was implied that the session was on a TFP basis or similar, then the normal assumption would be that they are for your mutual portfolios.

OTOH if you paid the model, that might imply that you had the right to use the images how you wanted, but you'd have to look at all the circs, and in that case you would normally expect a model release.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
4 Dec 2007 6:07PM
Oral contracts are one person's word against another's! Not always a good basis for litigation! Wink

If the "model" was a child - as may be the case here- they do not have capacity to contract anyway, orally or otherwise.

No doubt Tracy will clarify, in due course.
MadTrace 10 268 United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 6:11PM
My situation is I have a pregnant lady who has asked me to take some images of her pregnancy, she is paying me to do this. I would like to then use some of the images (if any good of course) on my website and on EPZ. Understandably she will be in a state of somewhat undress, but nothing other than the belly will be on show, some may not even have a face in. Think that maybe I should have something to cover my back? Really appreciate your thoughts
Krakman 8 3.6k Scotland
4 Dec 2007 6:38PM
In that case, unfortunately, you have to get her permission to publish them even on your website and promotional materials Sad

Nothing to stop you showing them privately as part of your portfolio though.

Her consent doesn't have to be in any particular form, just make sure you identify the pics clearly, that the release clearly states the use that she agrees to, and that she signs and dates it. If it's easier, an e-mail from her saying she doesn't mind, while not ideal, should be enough.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
4 Dec 2007 7:45PM

Quote:a pregnant lady who has asked me to take some images of her pregnancy, she is paying me to do this.


If she has commissioned you for this, I'm afraid Section 85 of the Copyright Act 1988 gives her certain rights to privacy. This includes:

"the right not to have......... the work exhibited or shown in public"

That would include your website, Tracy. So, as Simon indicates, you do need to cover your back if you are going to put the the photos up on a website and include them in leaflets.

It does not make any difference whether her face is shown or not. It is a commissioned photo: that what determines what you have to do here.
Krakman 8 3.6k Scotland
4 Dec 2007 8:03PM
Just to expand on that a little, that Section 85 only applies to works commissioned for private and domestic purposes. Which sadly sounds like it's the case here.

But it wouldn't apply if the pics were commissioned for non-domestic/private purposes eg. by a company or if they were commissioned for a hairdressing business run by the lady etc...

Just thought it worth mentioning, though it doesn't help madtrace.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
4 Dec 2007 8:09PM
Indeed. In practical terms it may be (for example) that the lady may not want to allow pics showing her face, but might not mind allowing the anonymous ones.

That could be a stipulation on any model release and Tracy would have to abide by it.
MadTrace 10 268 United Kingdom
4 Dec 2007 8:46PM
Ok thanks for that really helps me out, do you know of any links to suggested model releses etc.
Boyd e2
11 11.2k 11 Wales
4 Dec 2007 8:48PM

Quote:do you know of any links to suggested model releases


TA DAH !

I knew we'd find a use for that new download section
Wink

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.