Q:

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No ... with any photo, with recognizable people, you need a signed model
release. Without it, you can't display them.

Craig Flory

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:27:48 GMT, "Craig Flory"
<floryphotog@mindspring.com> wrote:

>No ... with any photo, with recognizable people, you need a signed model
>release. Without it, you can't display them.
>
>Craig Flory
>

Is that in Canada?
It certainly is not the case in the US.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It certainly is the same in the US !!! I've been a professional
photographer since 1966 ... and you cannot display photos of people without
a release. Even with my clients photos ... if I want to make samples to
display I must get the signature.

Craig Flory

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:46:01 GMT, "Craig Flory"
<floryphotog@mindspring.com> wrote:

>It certainly is the same in the US !!! I've been a professional
>photographer since 1966 ... and you cannot display photos of people without
>a release. Even with my clients photos ... if I want to make samples to
>display I must get the signature.
>
>Craig Flory
>
Hogwash.
I don't know who told you this, but they are just plain wrong.
There are *many* reasons for which you can post pics without
permission, even over protests.
For example, news, satire, or most non-commercial uses.
I can, for example, take a random photo of a person on a city street,
and post it on my own site, because there's no commercial aspect to it
at all.

In *your* caase, it may be that you always post on a commercial
site;you seem to say that all you do is commercial photos. In that
case, for *your* situation, a release is needed, because it's
*commercial*.
My pics are not commercial at all, and I can post them without
releases.


--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"