DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Rights on pictures in your portfolio....
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 32, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/31/2007 11:15:49 AM · #1
Do you have the right to put anything in your portfolio that you shoot? (your client portfolio, not your DPC portfolio)

Do you ever need releases for that? Do online portfolios follow the same rules?

Some of the parents of the ballet dancers I shoot have expressed concern that they don't want their kid's pictures posted on the internet because they are afraid people will photoshop their kids heads onto naked bodies. I'd like to be able to advertise my work a bit though.
 01/31/2007 11:18:22 AM · #2
In the case of using a photo for advertising purposes, you would legally need a release.
 01/31/2007 11:18:40 AM · #3
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Some of the parents of the ballet dancers I shoot have expressed concern that they don't want their kid's pictures posted on the internet because they are afraid people will photoshop their kids heads onto naked bodies. I'd like to be able to advertise my work a bit though.


there's your answer. nope. parents have to give permission to you, to be able to put their kids on the internet.

I work at a school, at the start of the schooyear, we let them sign a simple form, to know what we can or can't do with the photos of their kids.
 01/31/2007 11:28:05 AM · #4
ok, thanks.

I just wasn't sure if a portfolio counted as "commercial use" or not.
 01/31/2007 11:30:38 AM · #5
Originally posted by Megatherian:
ok, thanks.

I just wasn't sure if a portfolio counted as "commercial use" or not.


It doesnt' always count as commercial use. When you do a shoot for someone, you should include that in your contract that they sign. You need to include a statement that indicates any images from the shoot may be used by YOU for advertising purposes.
 01/31/2007 11:35:05 AM · #6
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
ok, thanks.

I just wasn't sure if a portfolio counted as "commercial use" or not.


It doesnt' always count as commercial use. When you do a shoot for someone, you should include that in your contract that they sign. You need to include a statement that indicates any images from the shoot may be used by YOU for advertising purposes.


I sort of have that (I think). The Dance studio has all the parents sign a release and I'm sort of hired by the Studio (I trade studio space for my time shooting). I don't have any contracts with them though. Thus far it's been pretty informal between me and the studio / parents. I have free reign to shoot whenever / whatever I want and then sell them the pics.
 01/31/2007 11:57:53 AM · #7
generally speaking, a photographer can display their work in their portfolio without having a release, they same way they can hang a print on a studio wall or display it in a studio window. it's common courtesy to get permission, especially when children are involved, but in most US states and localities, it's not required.

however, if you want to use an image as part of your marketing collateral, whether it's printed, published, or sent via email, you must have a signed model releases for any images with 4 or 5 (depends on the state you live in) or fewer identifiable individuals.
 01/31/2007 12:10:40 PM · #8
Originally posted by skiprow:
... you must have a signed model releases for any images with 4 or 5 (depends on the state you live in) or fewer identifiable individuals.

Does that mean that shots of larger groups -- crowd, parade, playground -- are relatively fair game, even if some of the individuals can be recognized?
 01/31/2007 12:13:30 PM · #9
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by skiprow:
... you must have a signed model releases for any images with 4 or 5 (depends on the state you live in) or fewer identifiable individuals.

Does that mean that shots of larger groups -- crowd, parade, playground -- are relatively fair game, even if some of the individuals can be recognized?

yes, those images are 'fair game,' as long as the image is not composed or edited to single out specific, identifiable individuals. this is commonly referred to as the 'faces in a crowd' rule.
 01/31/2007 08:09:06 PM · #10
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Do you have the right to put anything in your portfolio that you shoot? (your client portfolio, not your DPC portfolio)

Do you ever need releases for that? Do online portfolios follow the same rules?

Some of the parents of the ballet dancers I shoot have expressed concern that they don't want their kid's pictures posted on the internet because they are afraid people will photoshop their kids heads onto naked bodies. I'd like to be able to advertise my work a bit though.


you're joking right?
has it come to this already?? paranoia all around :(

I think they're overreacting a bit about that, but if they don't give you permission than you can't show their pictures. simple as that.
 01/31/2007 08:21:30 PM · #11
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by skiprow:
... you must have a signed model releases for any images with 4 or 5 (depends on the state you live in) or fewer identifiable individuals.

Does that mean that shots of larger groups -- crowd, parade, playground -- are relatively fair game, even if some of the individuals can be recognized?


This all depends on where you take the photograph. If you are in a 'public' place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then it holds true.
 01/31/2007 08:39:43 PM · #12
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Some of the parents of the ballet dancers I shoot have expressed concern that they don't want their kid's pictures posted on the internet because they are afraid people will photoshop their kids heads onto naked bodies. I'd like to be able to advertise my work a bit though.


you're joking right?
has it come to this already?? paranoia all around :(

I think they're overreacting a bit about that, but if they don't give you permission than you can't show their pictures. simple as that.


Apparently you haven't seen the Photoshop threads that pop up here every now and then.
 01/31/2007 09:25:49 PM · #13
Originally posted by skylercall:
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Some of the parents of the ballet dancers I shoot have expressed concern that they don't want their kid's pictures posted on the internet because they are afraid people will photoshop their kids heads onto naked bodies. I'd like to be able to advertise my work a bit though.


you're joking right?
has it come to this already?? paranoia all around :(

I think they're overreacting a bit about that, but if they don't give you permission than you can't show their pictures. simple as that.


Apparently you haven't seen the Photoshop threads that pop up here every now and then.


Guess I haven't, but I don't think they mean just fun photoshop pictures..
 01/31/2007 09:43:49 PM · #14
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
Originally posted by skylercall:
Originally posted by Puckzzz:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Some of the parents of the ballet dancers I shoot have expressed concern that they don't want their kid's pictures posted on the internet because they are afraid people will photoshop their kids heads onto naked bodies. I'd like to be able to advertise my work a bit though.


you're joking right?
has it come to this already?? paranoia all around :(

I think they're overreacting a bit about that, but if they don't give you permission than you can't show their pictures. simple as that.


Apparently you haven't seen the Photoshop threads that pop up here every now and then.


Guess I haven't, but I don't think they mean just fun photoshop pictures..


While I understand it's certainly possible to do I think the odds of it actually happening to one of the kids in the photos I shoot is incredibly slim - as in they have a better chance of winning the lottery or being hit by a meteor.
 01/31/2007 09:49:07 PM · #15
Originally posted by skiprow:
generally speaking, a photographer can display their work in their portfolio without having a release, they same way they can hang a print on a studio wall or display it in a studio window. it's common courtesy to get permission, especially when children are involved, but in most US states and localities, it's not required.

however, if you want to use an image as part of your marketing collateral, whether it's printed, published, or sent via email, you must have a signed model releases for any images with 4 or 5 (depends on the state you live in) or fewer identifiable individuals.


I always thought that a web based portfolio was a form of advertising. Many flash-based portfolios tend to look like tv commercials nowadays.
01/31/2007 10:07:31 PM · #16
Originally posted by Megatherian:

While I understand it's certainly possible to do I think the odds of it actually happening to one of the kids in the photos I shoot is incredibly slim - as in they have a better chance of winning the lottery or being hit by a meteor.


you're putting it better into words than I did, but that's what I was trying to say :-)

Message edited by author 2007-02-01 03:08:35.
 01/31/2007 10:12:26 PM · #17
My recommendation would be to get permission from as many kids' parents as you can and then photoshop their heads onto the bodies of all the other great images you capture. Nobody will be the wiser. ...unless you mix genders or something - don't do that. ;-)

I'm kidding of course. I don't know what the legalities are, but I would probably try and work it out with the Dance Studio that it is implied that the pictures will be in your portfolio and have them give parents an opt-out option.

I shot a local parade and made them available on my website linked from the city's site. I subsequently got an email from a mother of a small girl who was in the parade asking me to remove the image from the website because the girl happened to be picking her nose when I took the shot and the mother was afraid the girl's classmates would see it and would make fun of her. I took it down right away and kicked myself for being a little insensitive about it when I posted it in the first place.

As far as pervs pasting children's heads on naked bodies or whatever - my opinion is this - I have heard the cut/pasting happens, but the more common scenario is simply your kids pic shows up on some perv site (like NAMBLA or something). Would I want my kids pic used for this kind of thing? Hell no! Would I let the fact that there is a possibility of it happening prevent me from sharing photos with friends and family? Double hell no! People let the fear of such things rule their lives to the point that the results of their fear far overshadow the results of the situation they're afraid of. If I found out my child's pic on one of those sites, I would take immediate action. If the pic is there and I don't know about it, I obviously don't care because I don't know about it. Can't control what the sickos in this world do, but can refuse to let their actions control my life. Other opinions may vary, this is just mine.
 02/01/2007 12:40:54 AM · #18
in the weddings i shoot i always have a personal release in the contract so there is never a question about whether i can use the images for promotion or not. just my 2 cents.

ian
//www.itravelstockphoto.com
 02/01/2007 12:51:47 AM · #19
Find a parent or two that doesn't mind and have them sign a release. As for the others, whether or not the dance studio has a release, don't push your luck or the advertising may be bad PR. Word of mouth advertising is the best kind but remember bad news can travel much faster than good news.

If you're trying to build a business, nothing replaces ahppy clients and putting in time. And I don't really mean the time you actually spend on the tasks but it takes time to build up a successful business by slowly adding quality clients.

Hope that helps some.

02/01/2007 12:54:51 AM · #20
I am sure I could find some elsewhere but this might be a good place to post some example contracts. Any volunteers?
 02/01/2007 01:03:22 AM · #21
I guess things might be different from country to country. In Germany there is a "Recht am eigenen Bild" (could loosely be translated to rights regarding pictures of yourself) which states that no one may publish a picture of someone without his consent. This of course includes publication on web pages. Whether the use is commercial or not is irrelevant. (There are a few exceptions, for instance for persons of public interest, like Ms. Merkel.)
 02/01/2007 01:59:06 AM · #22
Originally posted by bjoern:
I guess things might be different from country to country. In Germany there is a "Recht am eigenen Bild" (could loosely be translated to rights regarding pictures of yourself) which states that no one may publish a picture of someone without his consent. This of course includes publication on web pages. Whether the use is commercial or not is irrelevant. (There are a few exceptions, for instance for persons of public interest, like Ms. Merkel.)


here in Holland you can publish a photo (taken in public places or events) only if it doesn't bring the portraied person any negative effects or harm. So if you do street photography and you see a lovely couple hand in hand and post that on the internet to find out later that the other person is NOT the portraied's wife or husband but in fact a mistress, and now they're divorcing...you're in trouble.

just an example ofcourse :-P
 02/01/2007 06:27:44 AM · #23
Originally posted by yanko:
I always thought that a web based portfolio was a form of advertising. Many flash-based portfolios tend to look like tv commercials nowadays.

at the moment, a web-based portfolio is considered more as an extension of the studio, in that someone may visit it on their own accord. if you were push emailing a page of the site, then that would be advertising. again, it's common courtesy (and maybe common sense) not to display stuff in your portfolio that your subjects would object to (and, if somebody doesn't want it up there, it only makes sense to take it down).

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by skiprow:
... you must have a signed model releases for any images with 4 or 5 (depends on the state you live in) or fewer identifiable individuals.

Does that mean that shots of larger groups -- crowd, parade, playground -- are relatively fair game, even if some of the individuals can be recognized?


This all depends on where you take the photograph. If you are in a 'public' place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then it holds true.

regardless of where the photograph is taken, you cannot use an image commercially without model releases unless it meets the applicable 'faces in the crowd' criteria. if you are on private property, you are first subject to whatever limitations the property owner imposed upon your entrance to the property (ie, the fine print on the back of a ticket stub), then you are subject to the conditions concerning use of an image.

image usage (generalised US version...)

artwork. just about anything can be sold as art, without a subject's permission.

editorial. just about anything can be sold for editorial use without a subject's permission. the primary liabilities come in the forms of tresspassing to get a photo, or using a photo in a way that defames or slanders someone (ie, a picture of two kids exchanging money and using it to illustrate crack dealing when the subjects are provably not involved in crack).

commercial. this is primarily considered advertising, where an image is used as part to help promote something, whether as an endorsement or simply an illustration.

Message edited by author 2007-02-01 12:12:44.
 02/01/2007 06:47:18 AM · #24
Originally posted by skiprow:
...regardless of where the photograph is taken, you cannot use an image commercially without model releases unless it meets the applicable 'faces in the crowd' criteria. if you are on private property, you are first subject to whatever limitations the property owner imposed upon your entrance to the property (ie, the fine print on the back of a ticket stub), then you are subject to the conditions concerning use of an image.

image usage

artwork. just about anything can be sold as art, without a subject's permission.

editorial. just about anything can be sold for editorial use without a subject's permission. the primary liabilities come in the forms of tresspassing to get a photo, or using a photo in a way that defames or slanders someone (ie, a picture of two kids exchanging money and using it to illustrate crack dealing when the subjects are provably not involved in crack).

commercial. this is primarily considered advertising, where an image is used as part to help promote something, whether as an endorsement or simply an illustration.


An aside: different countries, of course, have different laws. Our images, however, may be viewed just about anywhere. Canada, for instance, has stronger privacy laws than the US. A photographer, here, has to guard against a range of interpretations and views not specifically defined, which, apparently, extends (as per precedents) to fine art photography and journalistic works...
02/01/2007 07:29:02 AM · #25
Photography is one of my hobbies, I have done a small amount, that may be business, so have not really thought about copy right. Does it apply to challenges, my motion pan shot, of a car going by, you can see the driver, there were a few similar shots, should I need his permition?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 11:17:23 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 11:17:23 AM EDT.