|
Re: Legalities of Pet Photography
[Re: chezzyr]
#5762
12/25/06 12:52 AM
12/25/06 12:52 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Illinois
Peggy Sue
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2006
Illinois
|
This question just seems to bring up more questions for me. I went to look up a book that I have had for years that has contracts in it for photographers. Unfortunately I could not put my hands on it but the majority of the contracts were written for mostly fashion models and wedding photographers. I have used them for people but not for animals. I understood you did not have to have releases for animals.
More questions- Why do AP photographers shoot people and not get releases for them - or do they get everyones name in a crowd?
Newspapers photographers, artists and others who create something using animals, people and things - where is the line as to what you need to get a release?
I have always given the person who owns the animals either images or a break on the prices if they are ordering and I want to use their pets for my artwork.
I guess I have some more research to find out for sure our legalities on this issue.
Great question.
Peggy Sue
|
|
|
Re: Legalities of Pet Photography
[Re: DavidRamey]
#5764
12/25/06 11:07 PM
12/25/06 11:07 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Illinois
Peggy Sue
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2006
Illinois
|
Thank you David for your response. I appreciate you input on what is legal and what is not.
Another question, is not the sale of newpapers, magazines, etc, for profit?
I find the line very thin as to what is okay to photograph, what I can paint, what I can use as a photograph and where artistic freedom is when it comes to expressing ones creative ideas. If photography is truly an artform, where is that creative freedom?
Peggy Sue
|
|
|
Re: Legalities of Pet Photography
[Re: Peggy Sue]
#5765
12/26/06 12:33 AM
12/26/06 12:33 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Alaska
DavidRamey
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2006
Alaska
|
Quote:
Another question, is not the sale of newpapers, magazines, etc, for profit?
Yes newspapers, magazines, etc. are for profit enterprises, but what sets them apart from other profit companies is the first admendment (freedom of the press). One could effectively stop freedom of the press by not suppling a model or property release and in the interest of free speach and freedom of the press, they are exempt from the requirement of having releases.
Quote:
I find the line very thin as to what is okay to photograph, what I can paint, what I can use as a photograph and where artistic freedom is when it comes to expressing ones creative ideas. If photography is truly an artform, where is that creative freedom?
You have the freedom to photograph or paint anything you want until you start stepping on MY rights. For example, you can not come into my yard and photograph or paint with out my permission and that permission is granted by the model or property release. It really isn't that difficult to understand and sometimes understanding comes from seeing it from the other perspective.
Let's say that you take a portrait of a neighbors dog. Right now the value of that portrait isn't that much (whatever sales you make to the owner). BUT what if 2 years from now the dog becomes famous and you have the opportunity to sell to magazines, newspapers, fans, etc. If you have a release, then you are free to do so. But if you don't have the release and your nice neighbor gets greedy, then you risk a law suit. The neighbor might start selling YOUR photo to make money. The purpose of copyright protection is to protect you even for unforseen future. Just like any right, it is your choice to use it or not to use it. I hope you understand this and I didn't confuse you. But this is why I always recommend you get a release even if you don't see the need now. You may need it later. It is your future and your children's future since copyright protects you to 50 years AFTER YOUR death.
David Ramey Photography
|
|
|
Re: Legalities of Pet Photography
[Re: Dee Dee]
#5768
12/26/06 01:13 AM
12/26/06 01:13 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Alaska
DavidRamey
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2006
Alaska
|
Quote:
Does this also apply to books? Does each animal photo in a book (say a dog breed book) accompanied by a release then?
Yes and if the publisher is not requiring a release, it will be just a matter of time before they ARE sued.
Quote:
Are you also saying that we can take a photo of any dog, horse, etc in public (that is not a celebrity of some kind) and legally use that as a reference to paint it and sell the art (original, prints, etc)?
It depends on what you mean by public. If you mean a dog on a public street or sidewalk, yes. If you mean a dog in an arena that is open to the public, NO, because you are actually on private property not public property. Public property might not always be what you think it is. Take an arena that is owned by the government. Is it public property? Yes and no. If it is leased to an event organizer, then it is in effect private property for the duration of the lease. This would be the situation that you would be under when photographing.
The safest way to be is to get a release always, then you don't get into trouble and you never have to worry about if you can or can't use a photo.
David Ramey Photography
|
|
|
Re: Legalities of Pet Photography
[Re: chezzyr]
#5769
12/26/06 01:28 AM
12/26/06 01:28 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Alaska
DavidRamey
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2006
Alaska
|
Quote:
"If you are photographing animals out into the wild, you do not need a release"....
David could you elaborate on this please. I am curious about how things work for folks in the northern hemisphere eg wildlife in National Parks, Botanical Gardens etc. Do photographers not need permits/releases in those cases??
Generally no with a few exceptions. If you are in a National Park, Forest, Wildlife refuge, etc., you do not need a permit or release UNLESS you are going to do a commercial shoot with the use of props, big theatical lights, studio lights, models, etc., or if you are going to photograph in an area that is not open to the public, or you are going to photograph some activity that would need Park, Forest rangers there on site while you are photographing. The same applies for movies.
Botanical Gardens as far as I know are not owned by the State or Federal Government but by local governments and most of the ones I have been in generally do not allow tripods because of the danger to other visitors (tripping, etc.). I have also gotten permission to be in the Botanical Gardens BEFORE they were open to the public so that I could use reflectors, tripods, etc. Same with museums. I have found that a lot of Botanical Gardens and museums will fall over themselves to help you out if they think there is a slight chance that they will get better known because of your photography. When I get special permission, then I make a donation to their donation box WHILE they are watching me so they know that I DID make a donation, but I have never been asked to make a donation.
David Ramey Photography
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
2,692
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums6
Topics638
Posts1,021
Members3,319
| |
Most Online4,044
Nov 13th, 2025
|
|
|
