 James McKinney |
Taking the next step Here is my situation; My wife is the head coach for a high school soccer team. I take the team and head shots for their media guides. She also has me take pictures of every game (action shots) that she plays a slideshow of at the awards banquet. I have done this for 5 years now and I always get comments from parents that I should put my shots on a website so that they could order them. I have seen other websites like this and I am very interested in it. My question is, with all the talk about model releases, am I ok taking pictures of a high school game and putting them on a website for sale without releases and if I'm not then how do other photographers do it? I've seen websites that have multiple different events such as baseball, soccer, and basketball games all on the same site. I doubt that they have releases for all those kids. Thank you for any info in advance. James
|
|
|
|
||
|
Todd Bennett |
James, I would say yes, from what I understand about the laws. This link will hopefully give you some good information. I think Mark F. posted this a while back in a similar thread. http://www.simslaw.com/model/model_releases.htm#when There is also a book available at this site that discusses this issue and other legal issues photogs face. http://www.photoattorney.com/products.html Even if it isn't required, with the litigious society we live in today, it would be a good idea to CYA.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mike Rubin |
Some parents may get angry and demand you remove the photo from the web. A solution is to have a site that a password is need to view the images, that way only the parents can see them (and anyone that they give the password to)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Walrath |
Since Mark's a little slowin getting around to this one, I'll answer like I think he would. Model releases probably depend on how much money you make from the pictures. If they only get published to the site then I would say no release is legally necessary. If the images would be used to place on products or in publications then a release would be needed. That being said, don't make things hard for yourself and your wife, the parents' blessings can go a long way. Hey, I think Mark's rubbin' off on me.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Todd Bennett |
Christopher, The amount of money you make off of a picture is irrelevant when it comes to model releases. A quote from the obove reference link I posted: III. Model Releases: When are they Necessary? "Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, photograph, or likeness ... without such person's prior consent, or in the case of a minor, the consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof . . . ."
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Sorry for the delay in replying guys. I picked up a headwind. Actually James under the privacy laws of most states, if you publish a photograph of a kid under the age of 18 years for non-news related stuff, you need a valid release signed by at least one parent or legal guardian. Publishing includes electronically or in print. Some schools bury the release clause in the letter authorizing the kid to play sports although I think that validity is somewhat questionable. Best thing to do is get a signed release at the beginning of the season before practice starts. As to the citation Todd mentioned, it's out of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas, and while it may be persuasive in jurisidctions other than that one, it may have also been cited in a case out of the U.S. appellete court for the Fifth Circuit, affirmed or perhaps reversed. I haven't looked yet, but also I think the law has evolved a bit more since 1985 when that cases was written up. Nonetheless, that's kind of the general rule for damages in the cases of kids, but the rule extends somewhat further in many jurisdictions to preclude publication altogether without releases and covers what's referred to as a presumption of damages in such cases. That in turn impacts the shifting of the burden of proof in defamation or libel cases back and forth between plaintiffs and defendants, but it makes it a bit easier for plaintiffs to recover something when the validity of a release is questioned or in cases where there wasn't one to begin with. Good research though Todd. ;>) For anyone interested, that's found in volume number 607 of the Federal Supplement (Official Reports of the U.S. District Courts) and starts on page number 1341. If you read it, skip the head notes, those aren't law, they're just a reference system West Publishing uses to help find additional cases on the same subject.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||