Model Release...Yes or No?

[jasonphoto01]

If I take photographs of people with intent to display my work in shops or galleries do I need a model release? What about if im selling the images as fine art photographs?

[Bruce Schultz]

Yes and Yes

[Jac@stafford.net]

If I take photographs of people with intent to display my work in shops or galleries do I need a model release? What about if im selling the images as fine art photographs?

If you are taking candid photos of strangers (or public figures) in a public place, then no model release is necessary.
.

[Steve Smith]

No and no.


Steve.

[Corran]

Yes and Yes


No and no.

Generally, art requires none - a release is needed only if a person in the photo is supporting an idea, product or service. So Steve is correct.

This is why you would need a release for photos used in advertising.

[fishbulb]

Generally, art requires none - a release is needed only if a person in the photo is supporting an idea, product or service. So Steve is correct.

This is why you would need a release for photos used in advertising.

Yep. You can find out more here: https://asmp.org/tutorials/frequently-asked-questions-about-releases.html

[Greg Miller]

I will tell you what my stock agency (GalleryStock) does. No release is necessary to license for editorial use. A release is require for commercial (advertising) use. Displaying in shops and galleries would fall under editorial use.

[Luis-F-S]

Id get one if possible

[jasonphoto01]

I dont think I need one but this seems to be a gray area. I normally wouldnt mind but these are random people i meet on the road. Asking to take a picture is one thing, its a whole other thing to whip out legal forms and ask for a signature.

[Wayne]

I dont think I need one but this seems to be a gray area. I normally wouldnt mind but these are random people i meet on the road. Asking to take a picture is one thing, its a whole other thing to whip out legal forms and ask for a signature.

That's why I photograph rocks.

[Steve Smith]

That's why I photograph rocks.

How do you get them to sign the release?!!!


Steve.

[Louie Powell]

That's why I photograph rocks.

It's always better to get a release. And there are a few instances where I would consider a release to be mandatory even through the purpose is purely art. One is photography of underage children; the other is photography of nude models. In both cases, asking for and getting a signed release provides additional protection against potential allegations of inappropriate behavior.

And Wayne's humorous comment is sadly quite true - photographing roots and rocks avoids those problems

Although you may still need to get a property release from the owner of the land where you find those roots and rocks.

[DrTang]

I made up my own release I have my models sign

I'm sure it would never hold up in court if challenged

hell..I tell them it probably wouldn't... it's more of an agreement on what I plan to do with the pix..what they can do with them and that I will not
show any pix publically that they do not agree to

it puts me to a big disadvantage...but makes them feel better about posing for me.... and I'm not in it for money anyways

[appletree]

Generally, art requires none - a release is needed only if a person in the photo is supporting an idea, product or service. So Steve is correct.

This is why you would need a release for photos used in advertising.

This is what I was told/read. Only in the event a photograph of a person is used to support an idea, campaign, product, services, belief, etc. then you need to have a release form. I think some people get releases up front "just to be safe", but for the most part I don't think one needs to get them. And if you plan on using a portrait in an advertisement supporting your work (for example), it only makes sense to be respectful and get not only verbal approval from the person, but it in writing as well.

[dsphotog]

You never know if a model could become famous...
She just might be the next Marilyn Monroe.