release forms?

[false_Aesthetic]

Hi,

I'm working on a new project I'd classify as "art" and non-commercial. My hope is that I'd be able to get this published--fancy schmancy art book.

Do I still need to get a release signed? If so, what happens if I cannot get everyone in the shot to sign a release?

I know that DiCorcia was unsuccessfully sued for photographing a Rabbi in NYC--the suit failed because the intent was artistic and photographic... he wasn't exploiting the Rabbi.

Thoughts?

[David Louis]

If you're in the US, what you intend to use the photos for is not important. What you actually do use them for is. If you sell prints or use the images in a photo book then you do not need a release.

[Steven Barall]

Anyone can sue you so if you think that you are somehow immune to lawsuits you are wrong. This is just a chance you have to take though. If the photos are not going to be used for commercial purposes like advertising you have no problems... almost.

If the editorial use implies something about the person pictured that constitutes a libel, well then you got problems and the famous case about this is the New York Times Magazine case from about twenty years ago where The Times lost. They put a photo of a man on the cover of The Magazine and the caption implied something about that guy that he took exception to and the he won a settlement in court.

The DiCorcia case was about whether or not any given person walking down the street has an assumption of privacy and the answer is no they do not. This case had less to do with the intent of the photographer and was really about basic issues and laws relating to privacy.

If your book gets so much attention that someone thinks they have to sue you, consider yourself very very lucky. In the end the important thing is to take the photos and make the book so relax and have some fun and do your thing and make your art.

[tim atherton]

If the editorial use implies something about the person pictured that constitutes a libel, well then you got problems and the famous case about this is the New York Times Magazine case from about twenty years ago where The Times lost. They put a photo of a man on the cover of The Magazine and the caption implied something about that guy that he took exception to and the he won a settlement in court.
.


I seem to recall that was reversed on appeal (and i think it was also cited by - as reversed - in the DiCorcia case?)

[Steven Barall]

Thanks for the update Tim. I will try to look into it further. Have a nice weekend all.

I guess compared to Audrey Hepburn the demand for pictures of trees is actually pretty small. Can you imagine being on the set of that movie and being able to see Astair and Hepburn together in person. Just seeing them like that must have been thrilling.