Jeffrey D. Mathias (email@example.com)
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:57:58 -0400
Carl Weese wrote:
> In most jurisdictions photographs sold as fine art prints are not
> considered in the same category as advertising pictures, which need
> releases, but more parallel to journalism. ...
Thank you for the clarification.
I believe part of the dilemma (and probably more important than a
release) is compensation or a sitting fee. This becomes especially
important if it is known that the images are to be sold. I've made it a
practice to give a print to the "model" with the verbal understanding
that this is their compensation, fee, or payment in full. If they sign
a receipt/release at that time so much the better. But I feel that
compensation with a print could have some standing if it ever came to
that. At the least, they can wave their right of compensation by not
giving a mailing address or refusing the print (not sure how legal this
would be). My best protection currently is that I don't make enough to
make a suit worth their while.
I've also found "models" to be more serious when they are expecting a
print. My definition of a "model" is someone who is asked to be
On the other hand, I've also photographed (remember, always on a tripod)
people without their knowledge or concern. If they don't want
photographed they generally move out of the way if and when they see the
tripod and camera point their way. Sometimes they will come from
nowhere and move into the image just to be there.
Another important factor is knowing when to ask permission. With some
cultures or individuals it is important to ask permission and oblige
their wishes before photographing them or their property.
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37