Originally Posted by nubbinator
Are you just arguing for the sake of argument or do you really not understand the legal distinction?
Originally Posted by tsm106
Root word, commerce, meaning to what? Buy and sell maybe? Why would you sell a photo, oh that's right to MAKE MONEY. Refer to underlined part.
Creating an image and selling it does not
constitute commercial use. It has to be sold for use in a commercial fashion to be commercial photography. As I have said several times, it is images used in advertising and branding, manuals, and in other ways by commercial enterprises. An individual selling their art or photographs does not fall under commercial category.
For example, commissioning a piece of artwork for display or buying a piece of art from an artist does not constitute commerce. Commissioning a piece for use in an ad campaign or for branding a company would fall under the category of commercial.
I'm done with trying to get you to understand this though. If you can't accept that there is a legal
distinction between the two even if someone sells the work, there is no convincing you otherwise.
I don't think you actually read what you posted. One of the first things you learn in film school once you pick up a camera is the release form and how to get it filled out, rofl. Anyone whose taken a camera class knows this.
Originally Posted by nubbinator
I quoted them in my post, but here you go again: CP laws
. There's also a good write up on photography laws that you can find here.
As long as an image is being used in an editorial fashion (which would include being posted to a website like Reddit), isn't being sold for commercial purposes, and was taken in a public location, you don't need a model release and the images don't break any laws.
Link in bold/underlined:
Model (and Property) Releases
A lot of folks get confused when it comes to model releases (e.g., why they’re needed, whether you can register your copyright, etc.). Model releases are a different animal of their own. Specifically, a model release is needed with regard to the subject of the photo’s rights to privacy and commercial use of their image.
ASMP’s Model Release Tutorial: As above, this is a handy reference for learning the ropes about why a model release is important. If you’re a member of the ASMP, they’ve got sample forms for you to use.
Why you need releases
A release is a written agreement between you and the person you are photographing, or the person who owns the property you are photographing. The purpose of the release is to protect you from any future lawsuits the person might file for claims such as defamation and invasion of privacy.
A model release says the person being photographed has given consent to be photographed and to the use of the images you capture. It doesn’t just apply to professional models or situations where people know they are posing for photos. You should seek to get a signed model release any time that your photos contain recognizable images of people, unless you are certain that you will never want to use them for anything other than editorial purposes.
Does selling photos qualify as editorial?
This second part should directly apply to your friend or the cowboy photog w/o release forms, lol.
Why we take this seriously
Most of the time, you take your pictures, everybody gets paid and that’s the end of it. Once in a while, though, things can go very wrong.
Edited by tsm106 - 10/17/12 at 7:03pm
An article in the Los Angeles Times for Feb. 1, 2005 (no longer available online) described how Nestlé got slapped with a $15 million jury award because it used a model’s picture without taking care of the paperwork. In this case, there was no blame on the photographer; rather, the client (Nestlé) was accused of failing to pay all the fees that were specified in the model’s contract. But the size of the verdict shows that juries do take model’s rights very seriously.
The passage of time doesn’t necessarily reduce your risk. In the Nov. 22, 1999, edition of the New York Observer, an article relates that Peter Beard was threatened with a lawsuit for a photo he’d taken a dozen years earlier. In 1987, Beard had photographed a 17-year-old girl near Lake Rudolph in Kenya. But by 1997, that girl had moved to Los Angeles, where she was waiting tables and looking for work as a model. A New York friend called to tell her that a SoHo gallery was selling her picture for thousands of dollars. She reacted by hiring a lawyer and demanding $50,000 plus 15 percent of Beard’s sales. (It appears that the matter was settled out of court, so we don’t know what really happened.)