Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:34:23 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Carl Weese wrote:
> jewelia,
>
> 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. That is the
> artist's/journalist's freedom of expression takes precedence over the
> subject's right to privacy, even though the print is sold for
> money---*providing* the picture stays clear of the same rules
> journalists must follow. IE, subject is in a public, not private place,
> and subject is not "being held up to ridicule" by the photograph. If
> someone is having an epileptic fit you'd better not call the picture
> "inebriate in doorway". A title can be more trouble than the image
> itself.
>
> As magazines have found, that means the answer is a definite maybe. If
> you can possibly get a release do so. But unreleased does not mean
> un-useable. Just doesn't mean positively safe either.
So when do you ask for the release? Before you take the picture? Ha.
After you take the picture? Ha Ha. And what about a crowd scene? Depends
of course where you are and what you're shooting. Go to the East Village
to shoot a bunch of spiky hairdos for postcards and folks will fall all
over you to give a release, though they'll expect free prints. Go to Times
Square & ask the guys exchanging money for a release and, let's say you
might spoil the atmosphere.
If you want to do for instance character studies of people looking at the
camera, obviously having their "portrait" made, I'd say the model release
wouldn't spoil the picture *necessarily,* though in most other
circumstances it would. If for no other reason than you raise all kinds of
suspicions -- who the hell is going to give their signature to a stranger
on a city street? Unless you're doing a feature on morons, that is.
That of course was one of the (many) charms of Times Square, BTW --
EVERYBODY has a camera. They even have people with backdrops pinned up
taking your polaroid picture for $5 a pop -- or did. I also had people ask
my rates, figuring maybe that a woman would be cheaper.
I imagine though that the camera format is another factor -- I was
shooting 35 mm. A view camera is an entirely different matter. Maybe
easier in some ways, tougher in others.
> As a last matter, the current problem with street shooting has to do
> with the culture-wide paranoia about child-safety. If you are carrying a
> camera in an uncrowded, public place, expect to have conversations with
> the constabulary if there are children within blocks of your location.
> You will have been reported for having taken pictures of children, even
> though that is not a crime and you may well have not in fact done so.
> But that's the general and paranoid impression I've encountered as a
> growing trend over the past decade.
Actually I know of a case where a photographer invited children to a park
supposedly as a fashion shoot, zoomed in on their underwear & made a
semi-kiddie porn film out of it -- but the law for whatever reason
couldn't touch him. Jailed the poor schnook who bought the pictures by
mailorder for 5 years & branded him a sex offender.
But that's a digression on our digression. In sum, for exhibition of art,
or news, or educational purposes you don't need a model release. In my
experience anything of the sort (even asking someone "would you point to
the sunset again?") makes them instantly freeze up, get so stiff &
selfconscious any picture you took would be worthless.
In sum, my sense of the situation & my own practice is that the
photographs can be shown and sold as art, also published as art book
without a model release. If you wanted to sell them as posters or
postcards you would need a model release.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37