|
When Is
Permission Required
By Rohn Engh
Q. I just read a question answered by you
about model releases of people in public. I
have wondered about the same question. My
specialty is creating shots that evoke a
strong mood, and I need a human element to
make the photo successful. My question is, I
always thought that the rule was, "if the
person is recognizable in the photo" you
need a release. Alot of times I have shot
pictures of people afar off, or as a
silhouette, or with their back to me (so no
parent or other person could threaten to sue
me because they saw their son or daughter's
face in a book or magazine without their
permission). How do you avoid this from
happening? If I remember what you said, if
the picture is used for a book or magazine
or newspaper and isn't being used for
advertising, then a release is not required.
I know that it may not matter to the
photobuyer, yet again, if the parent sees
the picture, could this pose a problem for
the photobuyer as well as for me?
A. Ken, you said it best: "If the picture is
used for a book or magazine or newspaper and
isn't being used for advertising, then a
release is not required." This is thanks to
our Freedom of the Press.
As you know, in the past – many regimes only
let the public know what they (the ruling
regime) wanted the public to hear. (Stalin,
Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, and more recently,
Saddam). It's a convenient way to run a
totalitarian government. But it isn't
pleasant for those being ruled.
The wisdom of our forefathers was to
recognize that despite how much it might
hurt, we have to report (and display
photographically) what is happening around
us. And yes, it might hurt the mother of a
child who is photographed in public beating
up on a smaller kid, or a drunk strolling
down the street, or two lovers on a park
bench. Our Freedom of the Press protects us,
and sometimes embarrasses us. As you know,
that's the way it is in a democracy.
Most photographers who enter the field of
editorial photography from a commercial
background (fashion, corporate, aerial, real
estate, food, photography and so on) are
surprised that their new field, editorial
photography, knows no restrictions.
It's up to the PUBLISHER of a photograph to
decide whether the picture might not be
acceptable to his/her public, whether that
might be in New York, Alabama, or California
– where each location might have a different
cultural outlook on the same subject matter.
I've yet to hear of an editorial
photographer being sued and losing the case
on the kind of situations mentioned in the
second paragraph above. Anyone can sue
anyone. But smart lawyers know it's an
uphill battle to try to win a Freedom of the
Press case, let alone get any funds out of a
freelance photographer. An attorney would
always ask for a retainer first before
taking on such a case.
The editorial photographer "greats" of the
past, who have shown us what life was like
during the roarin' 20's, the Great
Depression, or the 60's, knew they had a
mission: to show the world how they (the
photographer) saw the world
(Weltanschauung), leaving that as their
legacy, and us to judge its merits.
As an editorial photographer, you have to
overcome your timidity to photograph some
things that might be reprehensible to you:
mental wards, homelessness, or unpleasant
political or military situations. As the man
said, "If it were easy, everyone would be
doing it."
Rohn Engh is director of PhotoSource
International and publisher of
PhotoStockNotes. Pine Lake Farm, 1910 35th
Road, Osceola, WI 54020 USA. Telephone: 1
800 624 0266 Fax: 1 715 248 7394.
Web site:
http://www.photosource.com.
Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Rohn_Engh
|
