# Question about model releases



## Heretotherephoto (Jan 28, 2010)

I was at a zoo the other day and saw a child mesmerized by the hippo tank.  I asked the mother if she minded my taking a few pictures which she said yes to.  Out of the few I took, one turned out really well.  I would like to look into submitting this photo to the zoo for consideration in one of their brochures.  Of course, I know it would be a long shot for them to accept it but why not try?

So the zoo has a policy that no photos taken on their property can be used for commercial purposes without their permission.  I would have their permission if they agreed to license it so that shouldn't be a problem, right?  Also what is involved with obtaining a model release?  Is their any kind of standard template?  And, if the picture is of a minor what else would I need to consider?

I would love to post the photo but don't think I can do that without the mother's permission.  Thanks for any input.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 28, 2010)

Unless you got contact information from the kid's mom, it's too late for a model release...
In the future, you may want to just keep a few of them in your camera bag - just in case.

There are a few templates that you could probably pull up on google fairly easily...  If it's a minor, you would probably need the parent/guardian's signature too.

You can post it here without her permission - you just can't sell it.  You would need her permission, and the zoo's permission to sell it.

Download Model Release Template(PDF) - Digital Camera Reviews & Photography Tips
That was the first result for "model release template"  ... looks pretty standard.


----------



## Heretotherephoto (Jan 28, 2010)

I should have specified.  I got her email so that I could email the photo to her.  She had a little point and shoot and wasn't getting good results so I offered to send her the file.  I also included in the email that she was free to use it for personal reasons.  Not sure if that was necessary but what the heck.  Honestly I never shoot people so I don't know anything about this.

Thanks for the info.  Also, I know I can post it here legally but I figure that without the mother's permssion I don;t want to put pictures of her child on the internet.  If I were a parent I might not like it.  Maybe a little old fashioned but....


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 28, 2010)

Heretotherephoto said:


> I also included in the email that she was free to use it for personal reasons.  Not sure if that was necessary but what the heck.


If she tries to get it printed somewhere, she may need a release from you (the photographer & copyright owner) saying that she's allowed to make prints of it.


Heretotherephoto said:


> Also, I know I can post it here legally but I figure that without the mother's permssion I don;t want to put pictures of her child on the internet.  If I were a parent I might not like it.  Maybe a little old fashioned but....



Understandable.


----------



## skieur (Jan 29, 2010)

By the way, it is understandable that the zoo wants to control the use of photos taken there, but that does not make their edict legal or enforceable.

According to the law, once the photo has been taken, you are the copyright holder.  You need a release from the mother, but not from the zoo.

skieur


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 29, 2010)

skieur said:


> By the way, it is understandable that the zoo wants to control the use of photos taken there, but that does not make their edict legal or enforceable.
> 
> According to the law, once the photo has been taken, you are the copyright holder.  You need a release from the mother, but not from the zoo.
> 
> skieur



^^^This all sounds right to me.

-Pete


----------



## Heretotherephoto (Jan 29, 2010)

Thanks for the info folks.  I am waiting to here from the mother.  It is probably a long shot anyway.

So are you guys saying that even though the zoo states that no photography for commercial use is allowed on their property without their permission, I still have the legal right to sell any photo I take of their exhibits on their property?

Shooting landscapes is way less complicated than people and private property.


----------



## Phranquey (Jan 29, 2010)

Heretotherephoto said:


> So are you guys saying that even though the zoo states that no photography for commercial use is allowed on their property without their permission, I still have the legal right to sell any photo I take of their exhibits on their property?


 
This is where things can get a little hairy. In your current situation with the child, there is really nothing the zoo can do. BUT, if you try to sell photos of a _recognizable_ zoo exhibit without a property release, they can possibly come after you. While you, the photographer, own the copywrite to that particular photo, they can claim income loss if the subject of the photo is unique to their facility.

Edit:

Found this under the release requirements for a stock photography site:

"*A property release* 
says that the owner of a certain property, such as a pet or a building, has given you consent to take and use images of the property. You don&#8217;t need one for public property, such as government buildings (although you may run into problems just from photographing them, for security reasons). But for images of private property &#8212; and particularly of objects that are closely identified with specific people or locations &#8212; you are safer if you get a release. "


----------



## KmH (Jan 29, 2010)

Heretotherephoto said:


> So are you guys saying that even though the zoo states that no photography for commercial use is allowed on their property without their permission, I still have the legal right to sell any photo I take of their exhibits on their property?


 As long as the sales are to individuals. If you started doing wide spread distribution the zoo could decide to persue the issue.

Do you have the $$'s to spare to contest a law suit.

As far as an actual model release. I would strongly suggest the one available online from Getty Images. Model release law varies by state and since they deal in all 50 states........ and it looks nicely professional too:

http://contributors.gettyimages.com...SAMPLE_Model_Release_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf


----------



## Heretotherephoto (Jan 29, 2010)

Yeah not sure I am financially ready to go against somebody with deep pockets.  I'm not even sure the photo would sell.  It is a picture of a girl next to a hippo tank.  The girl has a great big smile and appears to be face to face with the hippo.  Might be good on a brochure for the exhibit but not for much else really.  Chances are they already have many of these shots anyway.

I would tend to the side of safety as this is really just a fun hobby for me that makes a few bucks.  Not something I would stress over or take an action that may cause me stress.  That would ruin all the fun.  If I hear back from the mother i will get a release and submit it to the zoo through whatever avenue they might have and see what happens.  Either way I am just happy to get a neat shot and the experience of working with a person as the subject.  Most of my subjects are a little less animated.

Onb the off chance they did want to use the photo, is there any idea what kind of price to look for?  Should I insist on credit for it?  Would it be industry standard to compensate the model?

Thanks for all the info.


----------



## jackieclayton (Jan 29, 2010)

not to hijack your thread, but i was wondering this too.  a pp mentioned keep a form handy in your bag... how do you do that?  Do you keep a copy for yourself and give one to them? The OP got the woman's email address, but i was just wondering if you fill out two forms so the subject has a copy for their records or what?  How do you go about doing that?

to the OP... no legal advice, but I'd say if mom gives you the thumbs up... go over to the zoo managment (or the number for marketing or something) and say you're a customer and took a great shot of one of the kids and wonder if they would like to use it in a brochure?  they'll either say yes or no or we'll think about it, thanks.  i don't think you have to worry about lawsuits and stuff... if they were THAT concerned they wouldn't allow cameras in the zoo, period.  No photography was allowed at a broadway show I was at once and someone in front of us took a shot anyway and manangement confiscated the camera (dunno the outcome of it) but for copyright reasons, you can't take picutres of a Disney show because they own the rights to all of it so I can't go and sell stock photos of the Lion King on the internet, KWIM?  The zoo probably just doesn't want you to sell a stock image of one of the zookeeper with logo on and everything feeding birds in fear that what if that photo were to end up in some animal rights magazine or something and then now the zoo looks bad... blah blah blah, that sort of thing.... If its not recognizable that its THEIR zoo... they can't prove that you actually took it there.

Hey, if you get the green light from mom, lets see the picture, it sounds cute!


----------



## jackieclayton (Jan 29, 2010)

Heretotherephoto said:


> Yeah not sure I am financially ready to go against somebody with deep pockets.  I'm not even sure the photo would sell.  It is a picture of a girl next to a hippo tank.  The girl has a great big smile and appears to be face to face with the hippo.  Might be good on a brochure for the exhibit but not for much else really.  Chances are they already have many of these shots anyway.
> 
> I would tend to the side of safety as this is really just a fun hobby for me that makes a few bucks.  Not something I would stress over or take an action that may cause me stress.  That would ruin all the fun.  If I hear back from the mother i will get a release and submit it to the zoo through whatever avenue they might have and see what happens.  Either way I am just happy to get a neat shot and the experience of working with a person as the subject.  Most of my subjects are a little less animated.
> 
> ...



nah, since its just a hobby for you and you said you really just had fun with it and weren't looking to make money off it, i'd just ask for the credit (name under the photo) sort of thing.  If it were me I wouldn't ask for payment.  I'm not sure about the modeling compensation part... i think most people out there would think its cool that their kid was in a brochure and wouldnt expect payment... but then again, thats just me.


----------



## Phranquey (Jan 29, 2010)

jackieclayton said:


> Do you keep a copy for yourself and give one to them?


 
Typically the photographer keeps it for file, but you can fill out two in the field... one for each party.





jackieclayton said:


> but I'd say if mom gives you the thumbs up... go over to the zoo managment (or the number for marketing or something) and say you're a customer and took a great shot of one of the kids and wonder if they would like to use it in a brochure?


 
The issue here is that the zoo itself will refuse to use the image without a signed consent....  liability issues.


----------



## jackieclayton (Jan 29, 2010)

ya, thats why he would only take it over to the zoo if the mom gives her approval... have her fill out one of those forms so if they want signed consent he has it.


----------



## skieur (Jan 30, 2010)

Phranquey said:


> Heretotherephoto said:
> 
> 
> > So are you guys saying that even though the zoo states that no photography for commercial use is allowed on their property without their permission, I still have the legal right to sell any photo I take of their exhibits on their property?
> ...


 
The concerns of a stock photography site do not reflect the law either.  You can legally take photos of government buildings regardless of "security" in the US and Canada.  The only risk you take of using photos of private property is if you made an image of what everyone recognizes as the residence of a certain prominent socialite or politician and made it look like a dump for example.

Money also has nothing to do with it either from a legal point of view.  No one can copyright their property.

skieur


----------



## Phranquey (Jan 30, 2010)

skieur said:


> No one can copyright their property.
> 
> skieur


 
You are correct, a property cannot be copyrighted, but it can be trademarked. 

Anyone can go take a photo of any trademarked structure... it's what you do with that photo that you must be careful. It _can_ be printed and sold, as long as there is no commercial association with another entity. If an association is proved, there is a potential loss of licensing income from the trademark owner.


----------



## KmH (Jan 30, 2010)

Heretotherephoto said:


> Onb the off chance they did want to use the photo, is there any idea what kind of price to look for? Should I insist on credit for it? Would it be industry standard to compensate the model?
> 
> Thanks for all the info.


If the zoo wanted to use the photo, you would sell them a use license and in the license you would require they provide you with a tear sheet. It's not likely they would credit you.

To write the use license, you would need to know how the zoo planned to use the image.

No, it would not be industry standard to compensate the model beyond what is required by the applicable state law. Providing the model a single copy of the image, or some other token compensation would be sufficient in most states.


----------



## Heretotherephoto (Jan 30, 2010)

sorry total noob here what's a tear sheet?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 30, 2010)

Heretotherephoto said:


> sorry total noob here what's a tear sheet?



It's essentially a sheet torn from the publication that the photo was published in.  (Proof that it was published.)

(A sheet torn from a magazine.)


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 30, 2010)

Also the zoo's rule about no commercial photography is probably more to keep droves of photographers from overrunning the patrons who are there to see the exhibits.


----------



## skieur (Jan 30, 2010)

Phranquey said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > No one can copyright their property.
> ...


 
Yes, it can be trademarked. but as you pointed out printing or selling the photo does not violate the trademark and neither does most use.  Of course, the user/buyer becomes responsible for "associations" so it is not really a problem for the photographer.

Needless to say, any photographer should make every effort to avoid any "associations" within the image related to trademarked items. Beyond that, it is not it is the responsibility of the photo buyer and user.

skieur


----------

