Permission from subjects to post portraits here?

[Mark Sawyer]

We did some nice 4x5 portraits with a simple lens in my high school photo class, and I thought I'd post a few here in the "On Photography" section. But a quick search of the forum didn't answer a question:

For posting portraits (which a lot of us do) here, what is considered proper permission, verbal or a written release? (The latter seems a bit much, but I suppose for some of the more risque images others post, it might be necessary...)

In this case, though, I'm just talking about very G-rated portraits of high school kids, age 16-18, just on this forum...

[Preston]

Personally, I would not post pictures of minors without their parent's permission. To be safe, I would get a model release from each person you photographed.

-PB

[Louie Powell]

Personally, I would not post pictures of minors without their parent's permission. To be safe, I would get a model release from each person you photographed.-PB

Sadly, this is probably sage advice. We do live in a strange world.

Also remember that minors are not legally competent to sign a release in the US - only their parents or guardians can sign a model release. May be different in other places.

[Ralph Barker]

Mark, from the Forum perspective, the "rules" state that the photographer is responsible for having the appropriate authority to post images. If we get a complaint, we'd pull the image.

Personally, I wouldn't rely on verbal permission from anyone to "publish" an image, especially not a minor. I'd want a duly signed model release. (For kids, that means signed by the parent, of course.)

[Mark Sawyer]

Yes, I suppose written permission is necessary, if only for self-protection, even on a small photo forum like this... Funny thing is, the kids will post each others pictures all over myspace, facebook, etc. without a second thought from them or their parents.

I'll make up a little form and send it home with the students involved. Thanks all!

[seawolf66]

You Might consider a 8x10 it you hit a snag :

[Darryl Baird]

because this is a public forum, the posting of minor's images should be model released at least... there was a recent lawsuit involving a photo of a teenage girl at a car-wash that was used (after being spotted on FLICKR) by an ad agency poking fun at dorky teenager types... the fifteen year old was not amused , neither were her parents. The car wash photographer was a church youth minister (or something like that).

[Darryl Baird]

here's a link to the story

because this is a public forum, the posting of minor's images should be model released at least... there was a recent lawsuit involving a photo of a teenage girl at a car-wash that was used (after being spotted on FLICKR) by an ad agency poking fun at dorky teenager types... the fifteen year old was not amused , neither were her parents. The car wash photographer was a church youth minister (or something like that).

[Ralph Barker]

Interesting story, Darryl. Thanks for posting the link.

[Roger Krueger]

You're all kidding, right?

Absent defamation, commercial usage, or maybe a presumption of privacy at the moment of taking, you do NOT need model releases in the U.S. Minors in no way change that equation, other than the idea that they can't sign their own releases, and generally make more sympathetic plaintifs.

The Virgin Mobile car-wash-girl case was about COMMERCIAL USAGE. That absolutely requires a release. But that's not what's being proposed here.

However... the school district probably has policies on this subject. If you're the teacher you could cease being a teacher very quickly if you fall afoul of them. Plus any hint of impropriety regarding photos of children tends to bring out the torch-and-pitchfork set.