I just got done doing portrait pictures at a local dance studio. We handed out a card after each shoot and gave it to the parents telling them to go on the internet to order pictures. I did not receive any objections. Also I have been shooting there dance events for over 2 years at our local theater. I have had no complaints until now. There is one mother that would like to have these galleries password protected.

My question is: Would it be too critical to say that I would take pictures down of that particular child or to move them into another gallery that is password protected?

Garrett

I'd counter her request by asking if merely removing the images of her child would suffice.

Ask yourself this: would password protecting every gallery just because 1 person asked you to do so negatively effect any (or all) of your other customers? You can't (shouldn't) change your approach just because 1 person asked you to. I'd recommend you appease her another way.

Next time you should counter by asking why she feels they need to password protected?

Also volunteer to take her picture down if she wants.

Password protect? You better believe it...but to protect myself!

I shoot a lot of gymnastics at a local club; 99% of the images are of young girls (4 to 16 years of age). In order to protect myself I post all images on password protected SmugMug folders (which are also copy protected and hidden from search engines). If the parents want prints they order them directly through SmugMug.

I couldn't care less about a parent complaining about having to enter a password...I am more concerned with a parent coming after me because I've made an image of their child "available" to someone else. When a parent comes to me asking that I release an image for the local paper, I get them to sign a standard release for both myself and the publisher.

A while back a child protection officer showed us how pedophiles and other "model citizens" collect photographs (gymnastics, swim, cheerleading, etc) and post and trade them in newsgroups amongst other places. In another not-so-seedy example we saw a local publisher "lift" an image from a non-protected fellow photographer's website (young gymnast) and used it in an advertisement!

The last thing I need is to divert my lens money towards legal counsel to fight a suit or accusation!

Chris Tylko wrote:
Password protect? You better believe it...but to protect myself!

I shoot a lot of gymnastics at a local club; 99% of the images are of young girls (4 to 16 years of age). In order to protect myself I post all images on password protected SmugMug folders (which are also copy protected and hidden from search engines). If the parents want prints they order them directly through SmugMug.

I couldn't care less about a parent complaining about having to enter a password...I am more concerned with a parent coming after me because I've made an image of their child "available" to someone else. When a parent comes to me asking that I release an image for the local paper, I get them to sign a standard release for both myself and the publisher.

A while back a child protection officer showed us how pedophiles and other "model citizens" collect photographs (gymnastics, swim, cheerleading, etc) and post and trade them in newsgroups amongst other places. In another not-so-seedy example we saw a local publisher "lift" an image from a non-protected fellow photographer's website (young gymnast) and used it in an advertisement!

The last thing I need is to divert my lens money towards legal counsel to fight a suit or accusation!


I am guessing you do not get signed releases. When shooting for a finite group (such as a club or a competition) I get a release that grants me the right to use the image for any legal purpose. The family no longer has any right to complain.

if they refuse to grant the release, they can so indicate on the form and I will not post thier images at all...password protected or otherwise. If they refuse to sign anything, I don't worry about it. Legally, you may still post the images to your website.

nathanlake wrote:


I am guessing you do not get signed releases. When shooting for a finite group (such as a club or a competition) I get a release that grants me the right to use the image for any legal purpose. The family no longer has any right to complain.

if they refuse to grant the release, they can so indicate on the form and I will not post thier images at all...password protected or otherwise. If they refuse to sign anything, I don't worry about it. Legally, you may still post the images to your website.

The Club has over 500 members and there can be upwards of 50 kids at a meet (from our club alone...not counting other clubs) ...so individual releases and figuring out whose image can be posted or not would be far too time consuming. The club's membership contract does have a clause stating members can be photographed for club purposes...but I'm not the "Club".

Its far simpler to simply keep the images "private" to club members in a protected space that doesn't make it too easy for the images to be freely copied...and if parents want copies they can order all they want direclty on line.

Under most laws in most locales, it is illegal to post images on a commercial site (any site that makes money), of anyone on the internet without written permission. Regardless of age of the subject. While your client's request may have not been the norm for your experience, it is not unreasonable.

I offer all the groups I shoot, the option for either public or password protected galleries. If the group prefers a public gallery, I offer the option to the participants to remove their child's image(s) upon request. It is a total pain in the a$$ to edit out such images, but in case they have a lawyer in their back pocket .... you may as well protect yourself.

I really hate paying legal fees or attending court proceedings. It is much easier to treat clients with the respect they deserve, even though, upon first glance may their request may seam unreasonable. It is by far less expensive to comply with their wishes than to ignore them. While they may be a VERY small minority, they are within their rights. All it takes is one law suit to convince you to do the right thing. IF you can afford to survive after the expenses of that suit are paid.

butchM wrote:
Under most laws in most locales, it is illegal to post images on a commercial site (any site that makes money), of anyone on the internet without written permission. Regardless of age of the subject.

Would you direct me to that law?

Consult your attorney. For most of the civilized world, at any point you try to profit from the likeness of anyone, you need a model release in writing in order to legally publish those images. Model releases are not just for the young attractive ladies that grace the cover of Vogue or Vanity Fair, but anyone you photograph and hope to profit from. If the subjects are minors, you need their parents permission as well. Unless it is for editorial use. Sales of images is most likely not considered editorial use.

Posting images in a public gallery is considered "publishing." Just as you would not be able to legally sell an image to an ad agency to promote a product of an individual for which you do not have a written model release. You may own the copyright upon capture of the image, but you also need the permission of the individual(s) of any recognizable face(s) in order to profit from those images, unless it is for editorial use. A photography website will often not qualify as editorial use.

A good primer on the legal issues of model releases:

http://www.simslaw.com/model/model_releases.htm#Who

butchM wrote:
...For most of the civilized world, at any point you try to profit from the likeness of anyone,


You should also be aware that image rights protection extends beyond that of images of human beings. Most works of art, including architecture (i.e. buildings, etc) and an innumerable array of other things (i.e. trademarked goods) have restrictions placed upon them by their owners.

While no one will stop you from taking a picture for personal purposes of say, the Chysler Building, the Mona Lisa, a Rubic's Cube, a Hershey's Kiss, or the nighttime illuminations of the Eiffel Tower, be careful what you do with the image. Some owners go beyond simple "commercial use" restrictions and will demand compensation for "publication", the latter of which, in some jurisdictions can include posting on a personal web site or sites like Facebook.

The following link has an interesting example of COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

Obviously not everyone gets sued, however when taking images of things you should not necessarily assume that because you "took" the picture, that you have the full right to do whatever you want with it. Most professional photographers and filmmakers, go out of their way to get releases from not only the people in their images, but also from the owners of any trademark, business, artwork. If they can't get a release they'll remove the "protected item" and replace it with something safe.

Chris Tylko wrote:

You should also be aware that image rights protection extends beyond that of images of human beings. Most works of art, including architecture (i.e. buildings, etc) and an innumerable array of other things (i.e. trademarked goods) have restrictions placed upon them by their owners.


Exactly, many objects, works, buildings etc. fall in to this category. Another important item to note, is that even if you only post the image as an example of your talent, (unless of course you site is a bona fide media outlet) and not trying to directly sell the image privately or to the general public, you are still in essence trying to profit from the image. Such use, without written permission to do so, may make you vulnerable to litigation to stop such use and possibly be sued for damages as well.

Chris,

Who gets a password?

How do you validate 500 'members'?

- Anybody who shows up at the meet?
- Anybody who calls?
- Do they have to pass an NCIC background check?

I to do ALOT of gymnastics and kids in general - I NEVER advertise my site to anybody but parents and have NEVER needed a password. In 7 years, severla hundred thousand kids and 5 million photos later, I think I have had ONE parent ask for her childs photos not to be displayed (which I took off).

Just curious as to the rational of making sales a pain for all the honest people?

Hammy.

I would never post a remotely commercial image of a child on a public web site without a written model release from the parents. It not only illegal, and creates a liability, but is just wrong.

kevinsullivan wrote:
I would never post a remotely commercial image of a child on a public web site without a written model release from the parents. It not only illegal, and creates a liability, but is just wrong.

I think this topic is about images of athletes/participants in events and selling prints to parents. This does not fall under commercial or advertising, and no model release is needed.

Hammy wrote:
Chris,

Who gets a password? ...



Its not rocket science. All club members easily obtain the password from the club's website which is also the access point to the various Smugmug directories. This effectively means the pictures I "post" of the members are for the exlcusive viewing by the members as opposed to the general public.

And Hammy, seriously, entering a simple password is no more difficult than entering a URL address to an unlisted website. No one has ever complained about having to enter a password...heck, even the non-English speaking parents manage to complete the Smugmug order forms.

Chris Tylko wrote:
Its not rocket science. All club members easily obtain the password from the club's website which is also the access point to the various Smugmug directories. This effectively means the pictures I "post" of the members are for the exlcusive viewing by the members as opposed to the general public.

And Hammy, seriously, entering a simple password is no more difficult than entering a URL address to an unlisted website. No one has ever complained about having to enter a password...heck, even the non-English speaking parents manage to complete the Smugmug order forms.


I agree its not rocket science. But it comes down to effective marketing. When you've only got 50 kids from the same club, to access your site through their own portal, its all done for you.

When you step up to doing events with 4,000 gymnasts or 10,000 cheerleaders, from 40+ different states and dozens of international countries - it gets a bit more complicated to be able to market not only a website to find pictures, but also a password.

Again, when things scale up, there is no 'common, private' website people can go to and achieve a password and link to pix. It becomes a matter of marketing to get your name out to get them to come to the website. I can't feasibly think of a way to insure that everybody who knows my website is also a legitimate parent.

Bottom line is that at a 'public' event, where somebody from off the street can pay admission and have access to the venue to either get the website name, I don't see any 'security' there.

Any way, the worse threat than us as the 'authorized' photographer is that same somebody who came off the street and is taking pix of kids he doesn't know. And worse yet, making them public in an inappropriate manner.

Interesting discussion. I do photography as a side gig and did T&I shots for a cheerleading program. I did not think twice about password protecting the galleries and really did not give it much thought.

All the pictures also had a watermark as added protection. I used a very easy password. The odds of a pedophile happening upon the galleries was remote... but I always worry about search engines that can index unprotected sites.

Who puts T&I shoots on the web? Parents fill out an envelope/form, insert check, bring to shoot, and pick up photos 2-3 weeks later. Photo packs have reorder form inserted (although I know parents will scan the photos they buy....).

Sure, Grandma in Albuquerque may want to look at little Janey, but odds are Janey's mom bought a 3.5x5 or 5x7 for Grandma anyway....

John

John Patrick wrote:
Who puts T&I shoots on the web? Parents fill out an envelope/form, insert check, bring to shoot, and pick up photos 2-3 weeks later. Photo packs have reorder form inserted (although I know parents will scan the photos they buy....).

Sure, Grandma in Albuquerque may want to look at little Janey, but odds are Janey's mom bought a 3.5x5 or 5x7 for Grandma anyway....

John

Photogod... what does that have to do with the topic? But if you want to get off topic... I was approached on a Wednesday to take pics on a Thursday and never having done it I had no forms or credit card processing system set up. So I set up an online gallery that was able to take credit cards... with password protection and all. Worked out great and got a lot of positive comments. It wasn't a big operation with only about 10 squads so it worked.

Another compromise that I didn't see discussed is having a gallery so that anyone can access it, but don't put a link to it from your main website so that only people who specifically have been given the URL can access it. Of course, then you have the problem of having people remembering some unfriendly long url to access the pictures.

dan727 wrote:
John Patrick wrote:
Who puts T&I shoots on the web? Parents fill out an envelope/form, insert check, bring to shoot, and pick up photos 2-3 weeks later. Photo packs have reorder form inserted (although I know parents will scan the photos they buy....).

Sure, Grandma in Albuquerque may want to look at little Janey, but odds are Janey's mom bought a 3.5x5 or 5x7 for Grandma anyway....

John

Photogod... what does that have to do with the topic?


I take it you didn't read the original post? Here it is again:



I just got done doing portrait pictures at a local dance studio. We handed out a card after each shoot and gave it to the parents telling them to go on the internet to order pictures. (SNIP)



Um, portrait pictures of kids for a dance studio, AKA T&I. Exactly what I was commenting about.

(Oh, and I don't get your "Photogod" preface, either....)

John