In message , Les Invalides
writes
>Jonathan Bryce posted
>>Cynic wrote:
>>
>>>>What is the situation regarding "model releases"? I understand that they
>>>>are required for commercial photography, but aren't newspaper photos
>>>>considered as such? I'm sure Fred West (and other infamous individuals)
>>>>didn't have to sign permission before the Sun could publish his "perp.
>>>>walk".
>>>
>>> AFAIAA the concept of model releases does not exist in the UK, BICBW.
>>
>>As far as I understand, you are not allowed to use a celebrity in
>>advertising material without their permission. The model release gives
>>that permission.
>
>
>Where the photos are taken in an arranged session, obviously that is
>true. The advertiser has made a contract with the celebrity - she
>agrees to take part in the session and in return he undertakes only to
>use photos that she approves.
>
>Where the photography is done without the celeb's permission in public
>places there is no such contract. Although in that case the celebrity
>may sue to prevent the photographs being used to imply that she is
>endorsing the product.
AFAIK "News" reporting, in as much as a celebrity's movements are news,
is not the same as "commercial use"
If you used a street scene with people in for an advert you would need
model releases. The same photo for a newspaper illustrating a news
item would not.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|