Photo Exhibitions... Do I Need Model Releases?

There are several answers to this question,This would usually hold true also at a neighborhood
depending on whether you live in the USA, China orart show or photography exhibit. When in doubt,
Iraq. I choose to be facetious because manyapply the Golden Rule and ask yourself, "does this
American photographers, in these times, seem topicture embarrass a friend or neighbor?" If it does,
forget that they still have First Amendment Rights.you might choose not to exhibit it.
There are enough discussions exhibiting confusionTrue, there are always extenuating circumstances,
about model releases in the Kracker Barrel Archivesand different interpretations of the law in different
to fill several volumes. All of it, like all legal matters, isparts of the country. You'll often find burly security
open to interpretation.guards demanding that you not take pictures in their
My comments on the subject of model releases areshopping mall. Well, it so happens that's where you're
always directed to the use of your photos in editorialgoing to find excellent subject matter on the subject
situations.of community life. For a security guard to attempt to
The real test of this question about whether youtake your film or camera or even hassle you
should be trying to get a release for photos ofunnecessarily, calls for a phone call to the police on
children in public is the book, newspaper, or magazineyour cell phone; the guard would be arrested for
publisher (the basic customers of editorialattempted theft of your camera.
photographers) who would be the target of a legalBy the way, be sure to carry around a "Bust Card" in
case. A community art show or photo exhibit is notyour camera bag. It's available in PDF form at It's a
unlike your local newspaper publishing a feature photocard you can carry with you and refer to on any
in its Home Life section, or on its website. And in myencounter with the police.
forty years of observing editorial stock photographyBut to be timid about photographing a child in public
it's very rare that a parent (or the child) doesn'tbecause "you've heard stories that you could get in
enjoy seeing their child's picture in an exhibit ortrouble, is to deprive the viewing public of your
published in a magazine or book. No attorney on atalents and the way you see the world. You have to
contingency basis would ever accept a case whereask yourself the question, "Is this picture worth it?
real invasion of privacy is of concern.There's a 1% chance that it'll result in great hassle for
Our USA First Amendment covers this issue.me, and a 99% chance that it'll belong in a retrospect
Frivolous lawsuits of this nature used to happen, itof my work."
seems, more often back in the 70's or 80's. You'dEditorial stock photography is not easy. If it were,
think it would happen more now-- what with all theeverybody would be doing it. Here's a challenge for
sensitivity and fear that's prevalent in our societyyou (I give this challenge about every five years
these days. It may be that there are fewerbecause a new crop of photographers emerges who
instances -- that many stock photographers havehave heard (usually by uninformed photography
become gun-shy. They believe that they will getinstructors and photo columnists) that they shouldn't
some "grief" from parents if they photograph inbe photographing children (or adults) in public because
public and then exhibit the photos at a show, butthe photographer needs a model release for that
failed to get a model release.picture to be published.
What's the result if you, as a stock photographer,So here's the challenge.
photographing in the area of child development,If you can document a case for me where a
domestic violence, social issues, child abuse, childphotographer was taken to court (whether they
safety, child welfare, etc. - if you don't capturewon or lost), for publishing a picture (regular editorial
poignant scenes of what's happening in yourusage) without getting a model release, I'll reward
community?you with a year's subscription to any of our services
What happens is, the other side wins. The pictureshere at PhotoSource International.
are not published and the corporate or governmentalTake note that I've said, "documented," and regular
interests who would wish you didn't expose theireditorial usage (not sensitive misrepresentation).
blemishes are happy.Photographers, Internet gossips, and my fellow photo
Eugene Smith, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Margaretcolumnists continually perpetuate the myth about
Bourke-White, never walked around with a modelmodel releases and all the trouble you can get into
release pad in their pocket.when taking pictures in public. But when asked for
I repeat again, it's the publisher not the photographerfollow-up documentation, it's never forthcoming.
who gets in trouble if an irresponsible art directorSo there. Photograph in public freely. Exhibit your
uses a picture in an insensitive way in the magazine'swork and sell your images in the spirit of "informing
layout, in a way that distorts or misrepresents thethe public." No judge in a court of law is going to fault
original nature of the picture. In other word's, youryou for that if you are sincerely interested in editorial
neighbor's child's picture is used in a story aboutphotography. It's your right. Even more so, it's your
teenage gambling. Then a parent should rightfully takeduty to protect that right, by challenging those who
that publisher to court, and win - if the implicationwould jeopardize it.
indeed is not true.