# Photo Release Question



## jhenshaw (Apr 1, 2010)

I have been asked by a restaurant/bar manager to shoot photos while the bar holds a "spy party" (promotions to get customers through the door). I will be payed for my photos. I am wondering if I need to have photo releases for shots taken while I am there. The manager will be using them in a photo gallery on the restaurant internet site. I do not plan to use any of these photos for any reason. I will burn the photos to a CD and hand them over to the restaurant. I have never done this before. If you think I need to have a release how would you approach someone when asking for permission.

Thanks so much!
Jhenshaw


----------



## bennielou (Apr 1, 2010)

The only release you will need is from the owner.  It's like a wedding in that effect.


----------



## KmH (Apr 1, 2010)

You, and/or the restaurant owner need to consult with a local attorney familiar with this area of law in your state, county, and city.

What documentation you/the restaurant owner will need will be determined by the laws of your state (VA?). 

Generally, the restaurant owner cannot use images with people in them for promotional purposes (restaurant web site) without those peoples written consent (model release). If the restaurant owner wants to use the images on a *personal* web site, no model releases are needed.

It is generally recognised as the photographers responsibility to provide signed model releases right along with the photographs of people having the potential to be used for advertising. It is not often advertising images are made on the advertisers property, which is the case in your situation.

However, it is ultimately the *publishers* responsibility to have the proper releases on record. In this instance the restaurant owner would be publishing the images online (restaurant web site) and would be the publisher not you the photographer. 

At the least, I would add/have a clause in my contract specifically putting responsibilty for obtaining properly executed model releases squarely on the shoulders of the restaurant owner.

Disclaimer:
All the above is for entertainment purposes only and is not to be construed as authoritative legal advice.
An online forum is not the place to seek legal advice.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 1, 2010)

Sorry but wrong.  These people are in a public place, ie, further owned by the bar/restaurant owner.

Can you imagine if every wedding, every event, every tabloid photo needed a release for each individual?  Um no.  The advice above is wrong.

If a person is in public, or a venue, or a place ascribed to the contractee, with the contractee's permission, it's all fair game.  As an ex wire service photojournalist, I know this for a fact.  Can you imagine if I had to run around with releases in a giant street scene?  Um no.

If the person is in a public area of any kind, it is all fair game.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 1, 2010)

I believe both of you guys are wrong... but I could be wrong too. :lmao:

I do believe KmH is much closer to the truth. Much much...

From what I remember, because it is work-for-hire, the owner of the place needs to worry about it, not the photographer.

As the photographer, you shoot, you hand over the shots and you let the owner of the place get sued if some of the patrons have a problem with the deal.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 1, 2010)

Nope Cloud you are wrong.
Photographer's Rights Overview

Again, I was a wire service PJ.  So let's look at it like this:

Brad and Angelina are walking down the street with umpteen million kiddos. 
Do you think they signed a release to be on Extra?  Of couse not.  Did they get a notice that they would be in the National Enquirer?  Nope again.  Why?  Because they were in a public place or a place owned by the contractor.  This I know as I made a living doing this for a few years.

As far as the Location deal, again it is a public place, moreover it is owned by the contractee.  All shots are fair game.  As long as they enter the site, it's all open. 

Just like a wedding, just like a business venue, just like PJ shoot.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 1, 2010)

Well, I'm arguing mostly for the sake of the OP and anyone else looking at this thread who stands to learn something important. So, yes, I could be wrong.

But I don't believe Bradlina, or Bradgila, whatever their name is (lol) are a good example here. They are celebrities with no expectation of privacy when in public. Anonymous patrons in a bar do have that as, NO, a bar is not a public place.

The MAIN point of this exchange is that the OP should really get his/her info from a lawyer. Not from us.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 1, 2010)

As an ex wire service, who knows the laws that should be good enough.  But hire a lawyer (photographic lawyer) by all means.

My wire agent, SIPA, laid that all out for me.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 1, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Well, I'm arguing mostly for the sake of the OP and anyone else looking at this thread who stands to learn something important. So, yes, I could be wrong.
> 
> But I don't believe Bradlina, or Bradgila, whatever their name is (lol) are a good example here. They are celebrities with no expectation of privacy when in public. Anonymous patrons in a bar do have that as, NO, a bar is not a public place.
> 
> The MAIN point of this exchange is that the OP should really get his/her info from a lawyer. Not from us.


 

Why would the expectation of Joe Blow be different? Celebrity or not they are all out walking aroung town, or dancing in a club. Same diff.
IF THEY ARE IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR ONE OWN BY THE CONTRACTEE IT IS FAIR GAME.
I can't make it any forthright than this. I spent two years doing PJ work. Never in my life did I run around trying to get releases from crowds much less the primaries.

Let me put it this way to you: Say you were shooting the Afganistan War. You get this killer shot of a battle.

Do you for one second think that the Photographer went around getting releases? Of course not. Why? Because it was taken in a public venue.

Not because these weren't Americans. But because that is the way it is. Straight out.

And again, I know this from dealing with wire service.


----------



## KmH (Apr 1, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Sorry but wrong. These people are in a public place, ie, further owned by the bar/restaurant owner.
> 
> Can you imagine if every wedding, every event, every tabloid photo needed a release for each individual? Um no. The advice above is wrong.
> 
> ...






> *Disclaimer:*
> *All the above is for entertainment purposes only and is not to be construed as authoritative legal advice.*
> *An online forum is not the place to seek legal advice.* ;-)


----------



## bennielou (Apr 1, 2010)

Good to go.  I just wanted to set it straight.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 1, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Why would the expectation of Joe Blow be different? Celebrity or not they are all out walking aroung town, or dancing in a club. Same diff.



I believe KmH is saying Big Diff.

The street is a public space but a club is a private place.


----------



## KmH (Apr 1, 2010)

Yes, Big Diff. And what works in TX cannot be expected to also work in VA. Contact a qualified attorney.

Model Release Not Needed for GGW Video | Photo Attorney


----------



## bennielou (Apr 2, 2010)

Well, here is the law folks (and by an attorney no less, so put your wallet up. 

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page

As you can see, anyone in a public place or a venue owned by the contractee has NO expectation of privacy.

I hope this clears things up.

It's pretty forthright and very cut and dry.  Hopefully this will end this misinformation.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 2, 2010)

And hopefully KMH, you know that I am not attacking you or your opinion.  It's nothing personal.

Photography rules and rights are a tricky subject and there is much confusing misinformation.  You are right to err on the side of caution, but I am wanting to put the REAL info up there to save photogs from lots of headaches and added legal fees.  Believe me, if this wasn't something I knew for sure, I would not have been so adament about it.

This has been the law of the land for a long time now.  I just want everyone to be educated on what rights they have.


----------



## bennielou (Apr 2, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Well, I'm arguing mostly for the sake of the OP and anyone else looking at this thread who stands to learn something important. So, yes, I could be wrong.
> 
> But I don't believe Bradlina, or Bradgila, whatever their name is (lol) are a good example here. They are celebrities with no expectation of privacy when in public. Anonymous patrons in a bar do have that as, NO, a bar is not a public place.
> 
> The MAIN point of this exchange is that the OP should really get his/her info from a lawyer. Not from us.


 

And that is where you are wrong.  Any person, in public, is fair game.  It doesn't matter if it's Brad and Angie.  It doesn't matter if it's Mr. and Mrs. Jones.  When you are in a public area, as stated by the attorney, WHICH IS LAW,  anyone in a public area, or a contractee area is fair game.

I take no joy in you and KM being wrong, but you are wrong.


----------

