Do you need a model release to sell fine-art prints of identifiable people?
Asked 11/20/2010
4 views
2 answers
0
I understand that model releases are generally required when photos of recognizable people are licensed for advertising or commercial stock use. What about selling a photo as a fine-art print instead—for example, a street performer photographed in public, where the buyer would hang the print in a home or office and not use it to promote a product or service? Is a model release typically required in that case?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
8
If there are people in the image that are readily identifiable, yes. This is true for any image that will be used in promotion of something else. In your case things become a little muddy and ultimately comes down to the, "what-if?"
"What-if," the street performer walked into an office and saw a photo of him/herself and thought, "I never signed a model release for that. Dang, I'm ticked off!" and then proceeded to find a lawyer, hunt you down and drag you to court. Then the judge happened to be haunted by a terrible school photo from his early childhood and was like, "this court finds that you owe street-performer cash for mental anguish!" Probably will never happen.
As photographers we are allowed to photograph anyone and anything we can see with our naked eye on or from public property. This law stems from the protection of press freedoms and extends through freedom of speech. In this regard, to make a photograph of a public performance artist in a public place and then charge money for prints, you do not need a model release. However, you should always have a model release with you. You never know when you will find that amazing image that Coca-Cola wants to pay you 10k for.
*of special note...when photographing a piece of public art wherein the art is the central focus of the image, you do need permission from the artist to resale the image. However, if the artwork appears in the image as a part of your composition, you're alright.
Originally by user1451. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1451
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Usually, a model release is required when a recognizable person is used to promote or advertise something, such as commercial stock or marketing. Selling a fine-art print is generally a different use: the photo itself is the product, not an endorsement of another product or service.
So for a street photo or performer photographed in public, a release is typically not needed just to sell prints as art. The legal risk becomes higher if the image is later used in advertising, promotion, or commercial stock licensing.
That said, if the person is clearly identifiable, disputes are still possible, and laws can vary by location. Private property can raise similar issues for commercial stock use. If you want the broadest, safest commercial use rights, get a model release; if you’re only selling the image as fine art, a release is usually not required.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
When is a model release needed for photos of identifiable people?
When is a person in a public photo considered recognizable, and do I need a model release?
Can I sell artistic photos of recognizable toy cars like Matchbox models?
Do you need a property release to use photos of private property commercially in the U.S.?
Can I license and publish a photo of a recognizable person without a model release?