Upload & Sell: On
| p.2 #3 · sports photo usage question |
Monkey Falls wrote:
To answer the OP's question, as I understand it, the entity that displays the images is ultimately responsible for the model release. As a courtesy, the photographer can obtain it, but it is not his/her legal duty.
I am not a professional photographer, but doesn't the photographer need to have a model release (legally) to sell the photograph in the first place (for a non-news purpose)? After all, it is a commercial transaction and the photographer is benefiting from the commercial image of another.
I used to work (many years ago) for a printer and we had multiple publications. Our advertising contracts required that model releases must be on file (at the advertisers) for any and all images of people and "protected" shots. There was additional legal wording that the advertiser would be responsible for any and all claims, including the costs of defending us and any legal claims for use of "illegal" use of images in their respective advertisements in our publications or printed matter.
A photograph of a person in a restaurant or public place is certainly considered marketing, unless it is part of a news publication (such as newspapers posted in rest rooms). In this case, I don't think there is any doubt or argument that could successfully be made that this is NOT a commercial or marketing "event". The picture, in and of itself, does not need to be a revenue generator for the business for this to be the case.
The statement that the person selling the photograph, print, poster, etc. . . is not responsible for the model release surprises me. That means that anytime a person purchases a poster, print or photograph (let's say at a store) that the purchaser is then responsible for finding the "model" and securing the release if they want to display the print in public? That doesn't make sense to me, but I am not a lawyer.