In message <4825512b$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, PDM
writes
>
>>> 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".
>>
>> You can photograph anyone in a public place as long as their photo is not
>> used for commercial purposes. If you wish to use that persons image for
>> commercial purposes (i.e. to promote or advertise) then a model release
>> form is required.
>>
>> MC
>To clarify this: If you sell a picture of a general scene which contains
>people, to say a calendar company, you don't need release forms. It you
>specifically sell an image of a person or persons for advertising or
>promotion you do. It's a tricky one really and depends on the use and common
>sense.
The problem is you cited "common sense" which is not defined in law
:-)
As you say it gets tricky. However in a public place you can not be
stopped for taking photos for private, non commercial use.
The other problem definition is "public place" Most if not all places
other than the street are owned. Churches, town halls, "public" parks
etc.
As has been said it is usually better to ask forgiveness than
permission. However often those who challenge you on taking photos don't
know the law and think that it is illegal to photograph children, people
and places.
Caution should be advised along with polite non-confrontational
discourse. Telling people to "sod off" will only get you in more trouble
and things like breach of the peace.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|