Consent for the monthly portrait threads

[cdholden]

I enjoy these monthly portrait threads and find myself going back to them, looking for updates, several times a week. One question that keeps bouncing in my head is about consent. I know this is a non-commercial site, so there is no direct profit to be gained by posting. Photography i only a hobby for me, so I'm not familiar with all the required consent forms for publication. Do you get signed consent, advise your models of your intent to post here, or just do it knowing there is no money changing hands, so there is no threat of the model coming back later upset about images used without consent?
I have only done a handful of portraits, mostly family, but intend to do more in the future. I'm pretty sure that most of those would not want their photo posted online.
I'm curious as to how the frequent posters think about this.
Thanks in advance.
Chris

[monkeymon]

I don't even ask... i don't shoot people how believes in papers and contracts anyways.

[David de Gruyl]

It also depends on whether the photograph is going to be used for art, news or for commercial purposes.

Neither art nor news require consent. At least in the US. (Even selling the artwork does not make it commercial, just somewhat profitable). Using someone's likeness for advertising (commercial), however, is a no-no without permission.

[cjbroadbent]

I keep my portrait portfolio 'hidden' and post here only pictures that have already been published in magazines.

[Frank Petronio]

It doesn't matter and they can't do anything to you in this context.

I have a few disgruntled former models who wish they didn't pose the way they did and for the most part I oblige them and remove their photos. But in the case of people who were adversarial, who used or ripped me off, or were pure assholes to me.... I take great pleasure in exposing their vanities.

Portraiture doesn't always have to be warm and cuddly. Sometimes you photograph freaks and monsters and you don't have to like them to get a good picture. Think of Arnold Newman's portrait of Alfried Krupp.

[tbeaman]

It also depends on whether the photograph is going to be used for art, news or for commercial purposes.

Neither art nor news require consent. At least in the US. (Even selling the artwork does not make it commercial, just somewhat profitable). Using someone's likeness for advertising (commercial), however, is a no-no without permission.

That's pretty much the meat of it. Expression trumps privacy. Quebec is one of the few exceptions to this, as a teenage girl once successfully sued a photographer for damaging her image. So here, people are guaranteed the right to control their image, which means permission is necessary for anything (except if it's crowds, legitimate news, or of public interest). That said, if it goes to court, they have to prove a prejudice occurred. So practically speaking, do what you want, just don't piss anybody off.

Now that's all lawfully speaking.

Courtesy and respect is up to you, as Frank effectively points out.


Edit: Oh yeah, there's a couple of important exceptions to the U.S. law. First, you can't take photos if the person has the reasonable expectancy of privacy (eg. 12,000mm lens through someone's window). Second, anyone can ask you not to take photos if you're on their property. Failure to comply means you're trespassing. Which is funny, because it means you can still take photos and publish them, you'll just get fined/jailed for trespassing.

[Scott Davis]

I've got model releases for just about everyone I've ever posted online, so I'm covered on that front.

[Frank Petronio]

For clarification's sake, I actually do get releases myself, but sometimes you can't get everyone. I scan and keep the releases organized so if I had a stock sale I can produce one, since the savvy clients usually want one.

What not to do: http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2010/09/...ling-polaroid/

[JamesFromSydney]

There are a couple more exceptions which I believe apply in my jurisdiction, at least:

- Images which may be considered defamatory, i.e. damage a reputation. Don't photograph people visiting brothels.

- Images where a person is attending to certain essential personal needs in public, which would normally be done in private, but for whatever reason, can't at the point.

[cdholden]

First, thanks for your honest and open thoughts. Feel free to post more and let this thread take on a life of its own.
Second, my question is one from the perspective of an amateur photographer, putting the landscape and wildlife on the back burner, and starting out in portrait work. I'm no paparazzi/pervert, so the 12000mm shots of someone in private are not really an issue for me. I'd just like to be able to pick up some constructive criticism occasionaly (once I get a scanner) and not have to worry about an associate from Cheatham, Burnham & Run trying to settle out of court.
Thanks again for your insight.
Chris