Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sam, I agree, shooting without a release in public in the US is fine depending on the final use, ie: fine art prints, but not advertising. I wouldn't think books or mags would publish without a release if the model (subject) is identifiable. Someone else can advise better, I'm sure. I have always been told to err on the side of safety and get the release as you never know how you may want to use an image in the future. As an aside, I took a shot of Scrabble (copyright, trademark, etc., etc. etc...) tiles that spelled out "I Love You". The image was a huge sucess and was slated for all sorts of licensing. However, I'd not secured a release from Matel to use the tiles and negotiations by my agent to gain one were so outrageous they were abandonded. However, I can use the image as a photographic (fine art) print. A modified version where I erased the the little numbers at the bottom of the tiles is available for use in licensing but it loses quite a lot, in my opinion. The modified one can be seen here: http://www.whinydogpress.com/valen.html It's a funny, fuzzy line sometimes. "Carleton, Sam" wrote: > The need for a model release, those that are saying that it is > required to publish any image, are you all in Europe? I am here in the > states and it is my understanding that I only need a model release IF I am > going to be using the image for advertising. As far as fine art goes and > putting the images in books, news papers, and galleries, a model release is > not necessary in the United States of America. Am I missing something? > > Sam - -- Lea Murphy Whiny Dog Press 816-333-9111 Home: http://www.whinydogpress.com Newest: http://www.whinydogpress.com/new.html