p.1 #1 · Canada - do I need model release for tradeshow shots?
Hello,
Our company hired a couple of people to give out samples etc at a trade show (Canadian company, show in Canada).
I'm wondering if I need to get specific model releases from these people in order to use the photos in the company advertising materials? - Typical shot that I'm talking about would show the hired person with some of company's products shot against the show booth.
I'd appreciate if somebody with experience in these matters could help me out.
p.1 #2 · Canada - do I need model release for tradeshow shots?
Your company ought to spend the money to get competent local legal advice. Do you/they really want to depend on forum advice which could sound right and be wrong?
In the US, if used in advertising, they would need to give their permission.
p.1 #5 · Canada - do I need model release for tradeshow shots?
I'm an IP lawyer by profession. Although the use of someone's image in advertising may not in all cases create legal liability, the smart thing to do is to get a release. The models were hired to give out samples, not to allow their images to be used in advertising. I would imagine that in many cases the models wouldn't complain, but why take a chance?
p.1 #6 · Canada - do I need model release for tradeshow shots?
I'm not sure but in Canada doesn't the privacy issue come into play as well? You can't publish a photo of someone who can be identified in an image without their expressed permission - not sure if this only applies indoors. I don't know if there's any difference when it involves commercial purposes or not, but I imagine it would carry stiffer fees/penalties.
As stated in the post above, the models were hired to give out samples and not to be photographed. I would suggest they should not only sign releases but be paid for this service. If a professional photographer was setting up this shoot... (s)he would be paying them as photography models for sure.
p.1 #7 · Canada - do I need model release for tradeshow shots?
The issue is whether consent can be implied. Sometimes it can from the nature of the relationship, e.g. if you hire a model to pose for a shot s/he knows is going to be used in a certain ad. In other cases it could be a grey area. In some cases the amount of money the subject could recover from misappropriation of their image might not cover the legal expenses, so the subject might not complain even if they have been wronged. My own view is that the issue involves not only law but commercial morality. It is not morally acceptable in my view to use someone's image for a commercial purpose without their consent and in general that is the law. Considering that photographers have a very large vested interest at stake in making sure that their own work is not misappropriated, I would have thought that no photographer should ever think of using someone's image for a commercial purpose without their consent. Ideally the consent should be in writing to eliminate future disputes or misunderstandings.
p.1 #8 · Canada - do I need model release for tradeshow shots?
Which law would that be?
Strangely enough, with the various English speaking countries having some shared roots in "common law," the US has by far the more evolved privacy and "publicity" laws. So in the US, most states would support having permission before using an image "commercially" (promotionally). But to suggest that "news" is the only use not requiring permission is incorrect under US state laws.
I've seen nothing that suggests that Australian or New Zealand laws mirror the US even remotely in this way and haven't seen Canadian laws on this recently. It's my understanding that Quebec may be stricter than the US, but not sure.
(something went "away" so this and my next post are somewhat in answer to something that no longer appears)
p.1 #9 · Canada - do I need model release for tradeshow shots?
The question that started this thread is whether you need model releases from models who were hired to hand out samples at a trade show, and whose images appear in photographs intended to be used in corporate advertising. In my view model releases should be obtained when using photographs of people for advertising or other commercial purposes and their faces are readily identifiable. All provinces in Canada except Quebec follow the common law, (Quebec uses Civil law). The common law is not static, but evolves over time to meet changing conditions. At common law, it is not yet clear that taking someone's image without their consent is an offence, but in my view the cases are tending in that direction. Conversely it should go without saying that you don't need model releases when you're reporting news, when the subject can't be identified, and many other situations. Some provinces especially Quebec have tough privacy laws that forbid the use of images of people for commercial purposes without their consent. Ontario doesn't have a specific statutory law but there's a good chance in my opinion that such conduct would be considered a tort leading to an injunction and damages. The law has been well developed for decades that you can't commercialize the likeness of a personality without their consent, but the law in some jurisdictions is less clear when the individual does not have a recognizable personna. That said, I think it is morally wrong to use someone's identifiable face in an ad without their consent. It's a small step for a Court to decide that immoral conduct is also illegal. Photographers of all people should be the last to question using someone's image for a commercial purpose without their consent.
p.1 #10 · Canada - do I need model release for tradeshow shots?
I'd like to thank everybody for the responses. I will get the release to be on the safe side. Just to clarify, the intended usage is to illustrate a write-up on company's web page about the trade show.
p.1 #11 · Canada - do I need model release for tradeshow shots?
In the US, the edge between a "news" article by a business or service provider and a promotional use can be very hard to define. My daughters were used in the company newspaper. It was a company newsletter generally intended for use by and for the employees, it was a news report on "open house." But some organizations use "newsletters" as promotional material. The closer the use is to promotional. the more sense it makes to be clear what kind of "publicity" type laws are codified or contained in local laws. Getting releases is probably the safe thing to do - again, that's thinking that Canadian law is similar to US law under the circumstances. The point here is that there may be a hazy edge.
That's entirely different from "editorial" uses. But one can't say "the law" requires releases for anything except news without defining what country and what law one is speaking of. US law isn't universal and what flies in New York, may not fly in California, and can't come close to being considered relevant in Australia. The laws are not the same.
