25 replies to this topic

[yahsemtough]

What if someone wants to buy your photo to put up on their wall. How does the model release factor into this?

Are we back to the fine art aspect mentioned above?

[DeanB]

Hi all,

Just to put a small variation on this. What is the legal thing for video footage.

I go to shoot some fish in a private lake, having got the owners approval. This at the moment is only in words. I now get the feeling I should get it in writing.?? Especially if I'm going to use the footage for financial gain in the future. Either selling the footage as a whole film or stock footage.

There is a possibility of saying that the footage (in-water) has been shot elsewhere as all lakes have the same features at close quarters. But its the topside that is the obvious problem.

Any comments or Idea's or advice ???

Dive safe

DeanB

[Kasey]

You don't need a model release for fish! But it does introduce an ethical conflict that brings every image/video you ever produce/sell into question. If you say an image was shot "there," I like to believe it was shot "there." I realize that ad agencies are willing to do this all the time, but think twice before selling an image to be used in a misrepresentation of where it was shot.

[DeanB]

Good thought..

But I expect the use of good narration and how you word the story can cover that a bit..!! It could be about the subject matter and not the actual surroundings. Those matters being a side line.?. I will look into it.

I was more worried about greedy humans than corporate fish..!!

Dive safe

DeanB

[John Bantin]

You don't need a model release for fish!  But it does introduce an ethical conflict that brings every image/video you ever produce/sell into question.  If you say an image was shot "there," I like to believe it was shot "there."  I realize that ad agencies are willing to do this all the time, but think twice before selling an image to be used in a misrepresentation of where it was shot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This happens all the time. Art editors simply do not care where a shot was taken if they can use it to illustrate an article. Even pictures I supplied to a well-known world-dive-guide by what one would assume was a knowledgeable author were swapped around to suit expediency of the books's designer. Even species were renamed to suit!
Another classic case in point was an aricle about the Mussendam written by Frederick Forsythe in the Sunday Times Magazine. It was illustrated with pictures by Jeff Rottman of Bob Johnson in the Red Sea off Eilat!
When I wrote an aricle about Florida shark attacks for the Mail on Sunday, I supplied some dramatic pictures of culprit bull sharks but the Art Editor preferred to use a classic shot of a South African Great White with its head out of the water and jaws agape!
I'm sorry to say that ethics and commerce seem to be strangers to one another.
A friend with a business in the Maldives rented boat facilities and local expertise to the BBC Natural History Unit to shoot manta ray footage. He was dismayed to find it was used in a programme about the Nicobar Islands.

[Kelpfish]

"Recognizeable" is the key as was pointed out. If they are not recognizeable, not really an issue. However, some publications don't give a hoot and ask for releases to appease their legal department. Now, if you shoot some topside boat deck shots of passengers, that could change things. The question is whether the dive boat or dive area is considered public accessible. You ARE allowed to shoot pictures of people in public venues and use them in some areas. For example, if I am at the pier, I can shoot pics of people fishing and then publish those images in Western Outdoor News. I think the rules change if I ask people to pose for me.

Joe