larsrc
Jan 17 2008, 02:23 PM
I am somewhat confused as to the legal status of art photography. I understand that there are two major groups of photography: commercial (e.g. advertisements) and editorial (e.g. in newspapers). For commercial photography, a model release is generally needed for photos featuring recognizable people, whereas editorial photography generally can contain just about anything without need for model releases. But where does art photography fall? It's not trying to sell anything else, but I don't know if it can be called editorial either. I've tried to ask local people who might know, but to no avail. Has anyone here had experience with this issue, and/or can point to information on it?
Thanks,
-Lars
alainbriot
Jan 17 2008, 02:46 PM
The differences you point out to are real, but they are artistic and professional differences, not legal differences.
Legally, the same laws apply regardless of these artistic and professional differences. If you need a model or property release, because of the laws in your city, state or country, you will need this release regardless of whether the photograph is published in a magazine or exhibited in a gallery. You should consult with a lawyer to confirm this but I'm pretty sure such is the case.
bdkphoto
Jan 17 2008, 04:21 PM
Here's a good resource for information for US law on and model releases.
http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/
Chris_Brown
Jan 17 2008, 05:17 PM
QUOTE (larsrc @ Jan 17 2008, 01:23 PM)
But where does art photography fall?
Hopefully
this article and
this ruling will help you understand the legal guidelines. However, be aware that this legal precedent only applies to United State federal laws.
sergio
Jan 17 2008, 07:14 PM
It has more to do with what you intend do with your photographs, than with the type of photography you do. Even if you are making editorial use of a persons image you have to be aware of certain issues such as the context you are putting the photograph in.
pcunite
Oct 4 2008, 10:32 AM
QUOTE (Chris_Brown @ Jan 17 2008, 05:17 PM)

Hopefully
this article and
this ruling will help you understand the legal guidelines. However, be aware that this legal precedent only applies to United State federal laws.
It should also be noted that even though this particular ruling did favor the photographer, the idea of taking a grab shot of someone without their permission and making $ from a limited print sale is a good way to turn the public's opinion against you. It is not illegal to do things that cause people to hate you but it probably won't advance your career very far. Eventually over time the general public could have such a disdain for photographers that it would be difficult to do certain things even though we have "rights".
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.