Chris Macan wrote:
Depends on what you are shooting and what the end use of the work is.

Photojournalism.... Not so nessesary
Art photography.... Ditto
Commercial advertising work... Yes get releases for every one and everything

Well, photojournalists can *sometimes* get away with shooting in some places (usually public land) by claiming "freedom of the press".

However, even art photographers should get a location release if they are selling the photos in a gallery, online, to publishers or anywere else.

Photoman754 wrote:
Necessary for public parks?

You would likely want to get the proper use permits from the municipal body responsable for the park.

Photoman754 wrote:
Necessary for public parks?

Maybe. It depends on the park.

City Parks, State Parks and Federal Parks all have different policies when it comes to photography.

EDIT: Chris (above this post) is correct. There are some parks near me that require special permits.

Eric Tragedy wrote:

Well, photojournalists can *sometimes* get away with shooting in some places (usually public land) by claiming "freedom of the press".

I think the Paparazzi have really pushed the law on this one,
I can't think of any case where they have been prevented from publishing photos that could only have been shot from privet property. Even in cases where they have been arrested for trespassing. (I've seen cases where they lost invasion of privacy cases but never a case where they could not publish their oh so newsworthy pictures) So if it is a "newsworthy" event the practical restrictions are few.

It never hurts to have a property release but in most spontaneous news photos it is not be practical and in many cases would infringe upon the freedom of the press to require.

Chris Macan wrote:
So if it is a "newsworthy" event the practical restrictions are few.

Yeah, photojournalists shooting "newsworthy" events are the exception.

But, most of the photographers on MM are not photojournalists, they are shooting models, and it is in response to what I saw in other threads about shooting on private property (like inside a mall) that prompted me to post this.

-Eric

Doug Mackay    DMP wrote:
i love freedom of the press, an editors name can get you into and out of a lot of tight spaces these post 911 days.

Doug, is it as bad down there as it is in the U.S.? Here, there has been a definite change post 9/11. Particularly with regard to shooting places like subways, public squares, etc.

Eric Tragedy wrote:

Yeah, photojournalists shooting "newsworthy" events are the exception.

But, most of the photographers on MM are not photojournalists, they are shooting models, and it is in response to what I saw in other threads about shooting on private property (like inside a mall) that prompted me to post this.

-Eric

Correct you are,
Not many news chasers here.
and for the "others" you are correct in that they may not grasp how the lack of a property release could cause them trouble should they attempt to publish their work.

But once again it's the fashion & commercial photographers that have the most to lose.
Releases are a much bigger deal when selling a person or property’s likeness for commercial use (print ads, billboards, collateral, brochures.....)

the Artists will for the most part not have any problems printing and showing their work in galleries and should not have any issues publishing an art book regardless of not having releases (model or property). Some magazines and book publishers however may require the artist to produce the releases to cover the publisher and that is where they could have issues.

So yeah I agree with you, get them if you can because there are some sales you will never make with out them.

Eric Tragedy wrote:
Basically, if you are not shooting in your own studio, or a place owned by the model you need a *location release* from the property owner.

Maybe where you live... but not where the rest of us live.

Studio36

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Eric, exactly where did you get your law degree?

I was thinking the exact same thing.  I am wondering where this advice comes from?   

There are really only a limited set of cirumstances where you need a property release, although there are times when one is necessary. 

This website has some discussion of the topic:

http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic … 2Fp14.html

I am not here to give legal advice, but I think you need to do some research on when a release is or is not required.  It is not as broad as you are suggesting.

Eric Tragedy wrote:
Everyone seems to know they need model and photographer releases,

What is a Photographer's Release?

Don't you really mean a license agreement or usage rights agreement? I am presuming that you are referring to the document a photographer signs giving permission to a model or client to make use of photos to which he/she holds the copyright.

I am not here to rain on your parade, but I get concerned when photographers, rather than lawyers, start lecturing people about legal matters.  That is what attorneys are for.

I have much less of a problem when people try to answer questions on forums, doing their best.  But I am more concerned when someone proffers advice without looking at the facts of the particular situation.

Your post is well intentioned and the information is something that needs to be considered, but it is a little bit too absolute for what really is at issue.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
Eric, exactly where did you get your law degree?

Who said I had a law degree?

(I do however cohabitate with an attourney)

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

I was thinking the exact same thing.  I am wondering where this advice comes from?   

There are really only a limited set of cirumstances where you need a property release, although there are times when one is necessary. 

This website has some discussion of the topic:

http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic … 2Fp14.html

I am not here to give legal advice, but I think you need to do some research on when a release is or is not required.  It is not as broad as you are suggesting.

Well, I am not giving legal advice. However, I have been advised by my attourney that I should get location releases for everything I would have to get one for if I was shooting film/video (the motion kind) and I have done a lot of ADing for film/video - and we *always* need location releases.

So yes, I am not a lawyer, and never said I was. But, I have had to deal with the requirements for a location release on many occasions.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

I was thinking the exact same thing.  I am wondering where this advice comes from?   

There are really only a limited set of cirumstances where you need a property release, although there are times when one is necessary. 

This website has some discussion of the topic:

http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic … 2Fp14.html

I am not here to give legal advice, but I think you need to do some research on when a release is or is not required.  It is not as broad as you are suggesting.

The link you provide is great information, but it's about shooting buildings from the outside (or public buildings from the inside). I was posting in response to people who were shooting inside private property like shopping malls.

Eric Tragedy wrote:
The link you provide is great information, but it's about shooting buildings from the outside (or public buildings from the inside). I was posting in response to people who were shooting inside private property like shopping malls.

That is all well and good, but even at that you need to do some research.  It really depends on what you shoot in the mall as to whether a release is required.  Beyond that, it depends on whether you are in a publicly accessible area as well.  Likewise, while it may be true that in some cases they may either ask you to stop shooting or ask you to leave a publicly accessible area, it isn't necessarily tru that you will need a release for the photos you have already shot.

I am not here to berate you, but these are complex issues which do not lend themselves well to your simplistic advice.

There are many, many more links on the web about a photographer's rights, on where he can and cannot shoot and when he does or does not need a release.  There have been volumes written.  Perhaps we would all be better served by relying upon the advice of experts rather than what you presume to be the case.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

That is all well and good, but even at that you need to do some research.  It really depends on what you shoot in the mall as to whether a release is required.  Beyond that, it depends on whether you are in a publicly accessible area as well.  Likewise, while it may be true that in some cases they may either ask you to stop shooting or ask you to leave a publicly accessible area, it isn't necessarily tru that you will need a release for the photos you have already shot.

I am not here to berate you, but these are complex issues which do not lend themselves well to your simplistic advice.

There are many, many more links on the web about a photographer's rights, on where he can and cannot shoot and when he does or does not need a release.  There have been volumes written.  Perhaps we would all be better served by relying upon the advice of experts rather than what you presume to be the case.

Whoa! O.K., I am not forcing anything on anyone. I know I have been advised to get a location release whenever possible, and that's what I do. Usually the actual release part is just one part of the general contract called a "location agreement".

Perhaps my view is somewhat skewed by the fact that I do more work for TV & film, and even for reality shows we need releases when we shoot in stores and it covers still photos as well. For feature films, many distributors won't even look at your film if you can't show releases for all the shooting locations.

Perhaps things are more lax for still photography? I don't know. And I don't pretend to know. I was just saying what I have been advised. If you know more than I do, I stand corrected, and heartily suggest that everyone listen to your advice, not mine. I am not licensed to practice anywhere in the world. Just trying to be helpful.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I was thinking the exact same thing.  I am wondering where this advice comes from?   

There are really only a limited set of cirumstances where you need a property release, although there are times when one is necessary. 

This website has some discussion of the topic:

http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic … 2Fp14.html

I am not here to give legal advice, but I think you need to do some research on when a release is or is not required.  It is not as broad as you are suggesting.

Eric Tragedy wrote:
Well, I am not giving legal advice. However, I have been advised by my attourney that I should get location releases for everything I would have to get one for if I was shooting film/video (the motion kind) and I have done a lot of ADing for film/video - and we *always* need location releases.

So yes, I am not a lawyer, and never said I was. But, I have had to deal with the requirements for a location release on many occasions.

Maybe it would be easier, since you live with an attorney, if you explained to us your basis for making the claim.  Is it grounded in state law, federal law, copyright?   That might help us better understand the circumstances under which you specifically feel a release is necessary.  The word "Always" does not really fit reality.  I am also wondering if this is more about consent to shoot.  As an example, I would agree that you may need permission to film inside a mall.  Absent that, it is clear they could ask you to leave.  Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.  Obviously you wouldn't want to start a project knowing that they might kick you out.  On the other hand, even if they kick you out, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't use the images you shot.

I think what you are doing is confusing issues, making valid points in one respect, but perhaps confusing permission to shoot with a release for images you have already shot.

In any event, I am not here to shoot you down, but to better understand what you are trying to say.  There is probably validity in the point you are making if we can put it into context.

Lexi Evans wrote:
I know to shoot at the public park in my town i need to pay $350 for a permit

Is that a New York thing?

Here in Washington, our parks department requires a permit only if you are reserving a specific location, or will be displacing other members of the public. Single-photographer with single-model typically does not require a permit (at least in my county).

Lexi Evans wrote:
I know to shoot at the public park in my town i need to pay $350 for a permit

Permits are an entirely different issue than a property release.  There are many circumstances, even in some municipalities on private property, where a permit may be required.

So I am not surprised by the requirement.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Maybe it would be easier, since you live with an attorney, if you explained to us your basis for making the claim.  Is it grounded in state law, federal law, copyright?   That might help us better understand the circumstances under which you specifically feel a release is necessary....In any event, I am not here to shoot you down, but to better understand what you are trying to say.  There is probably validity in the point you are making if we can put it into context.

She (attorney that lives here) is not home at the moment, but is an IP lawyer. I actually have another lawyer who specializes in Entertainment Law, and both have advised me to get location releases. I do not know the exact reasoning behind it, but it is to protect the photographer and/or whoever he/she sells photographs to from lawsuits.

Here is some of the exact words from the release: Grantor releases and discharges Photographer,  his employees agents, licensees, successors and assigns from any and all claims, demands or causes of actions that Grantor may now have or may from now on have for libel, defamation, invasion of privacy or right of publicity, infringement of copyright or violation of any other right arising out of or relating to any utilization of the rights granted herin.

Hope that helps.

Again I am not a lawyer, I am not advising anyone how they should conduct their business, all I'm doing is sharing the information I have been given. Feel free to discuss it further, however, there is very little else I can say on the matter, because I have reached the limits of my knowledge on the subject.

Eric Tragedy wrote:
Again I am not a lawyer, I am not advising anyone how they should conduct their business, all I'm doing is sharing the information I have been given. Feel free to discuss it further, however, there is very little else I can say on the matter, because I have reached the limits of my knowledge on the subject.

Thank you for the information.  I know what a property release says, it is really more a question of when one is required.  I am also not an attorney so I will not advise anyone.  That is something they should discuss with their attorney based on the specific circumstances.  There are indeed times when a property release is needed, it just isn't "always."

Christopher Ambler wrote:

Is that a New York thing?

Here in Washington, our parks department requires a permit only if you are reserving a specific location, or will be displacing other members of the public. Single-photographer with single-model typically does not require a permit (at least in my county).

Speaking of parks - did any of you see this article from about a week ago that was picked up by the AP wire?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00182.html