FREE to use Model releases etc

[Longshots]

Actually thats not entirely true Rick. Regardless of the commercial use, most competition terms and conditions, as a standard, include some provision for a statement or a requirement that states that the entrant has the permissions required to cover their entry.

Most competitions actually insist on a model release - regardless of the issue of "commercial use" etc. If organisers dont have a model release, while they may not in the technical sense need one, they may still be putting themselves at risk of at the very least a takedown notice.

So even the very best competitions (and I check a great number of them) put a standard rule in about model release or permission - for instance

"# You confirm that each person depicted in the Entry has granted permission to be portrayed as shown."

And

"Each entry must not infringe upon the copyrights, trademarks, contract rights, or any other intellectual property rights of any third person or entity, or violate any person's rights of privacy or publicity."

And this is from a good competition.

Its worth noting that competitions produce their own terms and conditions a bit like the way any other business chooses the terms they choose to do their business. So, while terms and conditions cannot ignore state and federal law in Australia - they can certainly be more careful then the actual law or laws offer individuals. Why ? Because as I continue to say, there is no Black and White in Law - its interprative. And its also worth noting that most competitions produce Terms and Conditions that are produced by legal specialists, that are very experienced in the associating areas of law.

The most important clause in a Competition Terms and Conditions, is the "organiser get out clause", which puts the legal and possible resulting financial costs back to the entrant, in the case of the competition organiser being sued for someone's image being used, when they had not signed any waiver/release or provided permission - and this is again a typical one direct from (again a good) competition:

"You agree to fully indemnify ________________ in respect of all royalties, fees and any other monies owing to any person by reason of Your breaching any of the foregoing."

So I wouldnt be too quick to feel safe by assuming that somewhere as unassuming as AP would be safe because there is no money being made out of the use of the photo. I dont mean to sound alarmist, but the clause stipulating that you have permission to upload images - even to Flikr, Facebook etc, you are agreeing that you have permission to upload that image. If you dont, then you are breaching that site's rules and you will be held responsible.

My advice for competitions is read the rules - read them well. And if you think its easier at the time t get someone's permission, or acquire a signed release, please trust me that its much easier to do it then, as opposed to a month, a year, or years down the track, when you want to enter an image into a competition, or post it on your own website, or someone elses.

[ricktas]

But isn't that what I said in my first line? "read the T&C"?

[Longshots]

But isn't that what I said in my first line? "read the T&C"?

? Yes you did. And clearly we both agree on that


But you also said this part -

But unless you are making money out of the photo by using it in a commercial sense (advertising something) then generally you do not need a model release. .

which why I said that part wasnt entirely true.

And while you continued with an explanation of why you said that, I was pointing out that the commercial use defence isnt necessarily an issue, and I was also highlighting that even Flikr and Facebook ask you to obey their terms and conditions which includes permission/releases.

Its also worth highlighting to AP, that if you dont have something similar in your terms and conditions of photo competition entries - for AP's sake - you would be wise to.

[Xenedis]

"Each entry must not infringe upon the copyrights, trademarks, contract rights, or any other intellectual property rights of any third person or entity, or violate any person's rights of privacy or publicity."

If we're talking about images of people which are not taken in locations and/or circumstances in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, most of that doesn't apply. Copyright will be the most relevant if the subject is the copyright holder. In the case of a candid image or non-commissioned shoot, it's irrelevant.

And its also worth noting that most competitions produce Terms and Conditions that are produced by legal specialists, that are very experienced in the associating areas of law.

It's worth noting further that competition T&Cs are almost always far more favourable to the competition promoter than the individuals entering, and often give the promoters far more rights than those to which they are entitled.

Sure, if you happen to win a $10,000 cash prize or something else of substantial value, you may not be concerned, but most of us aren't in that position.

So, based on what you've said, and what I've said in reply, I'd agree with your advice below:

My advice for competitions is read the rules - read them well.

[Longshots]

Can I just ask you to have a look at what I said, and continue to say ?

Thanks as PhotoWatchDog I am very aware of how competition organisers want to cover themselves in excess of Australian and International Laws.

So whether you think something is irrelevant or not - it is, I'm afraid very relevant. And I'm afraid that you're missing my (IMHO an important point). If competition want to use a term ( of which I was quoting one, its not an opinion of mine or a fact; but what it is, is a term of condition of entry, and by entering you agree to abide by them), then that is their perogative.

So going back to the original question, its one thing to be arguing about the relevancy of Australian Law, and I suspect, you (Xenedis) are both well informed and well experienced (which I certainly respect and acknowledge), but if we want to agree, that if the competition organiser want a permission agreement or model release, then the entrant, will have to supply one.

Please note that I was responding to this on topic question:

What about Street Photography and then entering these images in competitions etc.
How do we fare with these?

"then entering these images in competitions" .....

So I'm afraid that following the topic and relating the responses back, it is all very relevant. And very important. Perhaps you could note that I was quoting and referring to a typical competition term and conditions.

Also please note that I completely agree with your explanation of what the law is in relation to photography in public. But if a competition want you to comply with their (at times overly excessive - of which I lobby and fight against), then by entering, you AGREE to how they want to do business.

It is far easier to get permission if you think you may need it in the future, at the time of the shoot. If you dont have it, and you do want to enter a competition, of which a release or permission is standard and normal request, then you have little chance of being able to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the competition.

[Xenedis]

Longshots,

We're both pointing out the way it is.

It's just that we're pointing out different aspects of the way it is.

Yes, entering a competition means you agree to the rules the competition organiser specifies.

I'm simply pointing out that the rules are often in favour of the competition organiser.

People should read the terms and conditions and decide whether or not said T&Cs are acceptable.

To me, they're not. I've made my decision and I don't enter those competitions.

[Longshots]

We agree on most parts then Xenedis And I have understood that.

And certainly we're both stressing the same point about reading the terms and conditions before entering competitions.

But where we clearly have a point of difference is that not all competitions are bad. Which includes many excellent ones that are around, including Moran/APPA. Both of those examples require model releases/permission from subjects.

So while we're both point out the way it is, we're disagreeing on what is relevant. It is relevant to ensure that if a competition asks for you to agree to their terms and conditions, and that includes agreeing that you have people's permission, that you have indeed done that. To say yes you have, when you have not, puts the entrant in a difficult situation.


For the benefit of the question about street photography and its relationship to entering competitions in the future; while we clearly both agree, my advice/opinion is that if you can get permission or release at the time, then it simply is much easier to do it then (as most, even the very best ones - including the Moran/APPA - which I'd be quite happy to enter and win either), as opposed to risking breaching the terms and conditions of a competition which is reputable.

So where we differ is that I personally think that some competitions are acceptable, and in that case, regardless of the law, gaining a release or permission (and even verbal - albeit hard to prove - but better than nothing) simply makes sense.

[Perfectoarts]

Well thank you for such an interesting interlude of answers, point of views etc.
Just caught up with it all. OK...I will just have a small pocket model release form in my camera bag. Have these signed where I think fit. May never have to use them, but at least I am sort of covered.
And yes, always read competition rules. Especially the tiny wording
Thanks again. Cheers Ingrid.