Photo release for a how-to book

In most cases, the photos you take with your camera belong to you, not the subject(s). I can't see any reason why you'd need a contract to spell that out.

For the photographer, you need a contract either assigning you the copyright (perhaps as work-for-hire) or licensing the images from them. Be sure that the person operating your camera knows how to use it! A publisher's photographic standards are likely to be high.

For the people in the photographs, you will need a model release. It would be a good idea to get one from the owner of the dog/s, too.

Unfortunately, I don't have either on hand, but googling should bring up plenty of sample contracts and release forms that you can tailor to your specific needs. (And your specific location. Be sure you get one that is appropriate to your country.) There are also books with sample legal forms for photographers. Caroline Wright (of Photoattorney.com) has written one, and there's another by Tad Crawford. If you look at Crawford's, which has been around for a while, be sure it's a recent edition.

Meanwhile, though, someone else here at AW might be able to offer something.

Good luck with your book!

NDoyle said:

For the photographer, you need a contract either assigning you the copyright (perhaps as work-for-hire) or licensing the images from them...

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? As the photographer, unless there's a modeling agreement in place before the shoot, he owns the images the instant they are taken and can use them however he pleases, up to and including in a book about puppies or whatever.

puppies do not need to sign a modeling agreement.

As to people in the images, all the author or photographer has to do is get them to sign a release form allowing them to use their images in a specified manner.

thothguard51 said:

As to people in the images, all the author or photographer has to do is get them to sign a release form allowing them to use their images in a specified manner.

Click to expand...

They don't even need that, Nick, for such a gig.

On a somewhat related note, I discovered a photo I'd taken some years ago had been published in a fairly well known magazine without my knowledge or consent. Someone I'd sent the picture to was in the scene and thought nothing of stealing and selling the image.

He found out the hard way, through legal measures, that the picture did not belong to him, even though he was prominently displayed in the scene. It was my picture and wholly owned by me, not him.

Anyway, the windfall was nice at the time, considering I'd never intended to sell the picture in the first place.

Silver King said:

As the photographer, unless there's a modeling agreement in place before the shoot, he owns the images the instant they are taken and can use them however he pleases ...

Click to expand...

It's the bolded bit that isn't quite right.

Yes - you are the owner under copyright law .. but there are other laws.

For example - if I take a photo of a celebrity and then use the photo however I please (including on a billboard to advertise my cutprice car-rental company) then I'll be sued. Not because of copyright law, but because of 'right of publicity' laws - the subject has a right to choose which products they are seen to be endorsing.

If the subject isn't a celebrity then you end up at the other end .. the right to privacy.

That's why getting the subject of the photo (or the subject's legal guardian) to sign a written agreement is common practice.

Example 1
Here's an example where companies have ended up with legal problems because they believed the fallacy that 'The copyright holder owns the image and can do with it whatever he or she pleases':

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-3_11-cv-30176/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-3_11-cv-30176-0.pdf

The short version: An online newspaper had a 'Click here to purchase a mug with any photo from the newspaper printed on it' link. They had obtained permissions from the photographer (as per copyright law) ... but had not obtained permission from the people in the photographs.

It caused them problems.

Example 2
An ad agency also decided that they could simply use free photos from people's flicker accounts for their billboards - because the photographers had marked them as being CC licensed. It backfired: http://www.racialicious.com/2007/10/02/virgin-mobile-sued-for-using-flickr-photo/

In that case, the girl's family sued - but from memory they decided to sue the US company 'Virgin' who had absolutely nothing to do with the advertisement ... so was tossed out.

Example 3
Using a photo of a guy drinking coffee on a jar of coffee:
http://www.theiplawblog.com/archive...-likeness-and-the-statute-of-limitations.html

To quote:
.

.. the jury found in Cristoff’s favor and ruled that Nestle knowingly used his likeness without his consent and that, prior to 2002, Cristoff did not know nor should he have known that his photograph was being used for commercial purposes. The jury awarded Cristoff damages of more than $15 million

Click to expand...

That is why you can't use the rule that "I took the photo and can use it however I please!"

Mac

Many, even most, publishers will not publish photographs that are not editorial or fine art in nature without accompanying releases for the (identifiable) individuals who appear in the photos. Regardless of whether one is legally required or not, a publisher may also want a "property release," i.e., for a dog. I do not believe that a how-to book qualifies as "editorial" or "fine art," and even if it did (which it might!), a publisher will still almost certainly want signed releases anyway. Such releases are also wise if one is self-publishing. (N.B. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played on on TV.)

Regarding copyright: the OP indicated that someone else would be taking the photographs, hence the need for a contract giving them permission to use them.

OP, this link will help you and provides sample forms:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

I'm going to point out something specific that Dan Heller says:

That photographers get model releases is not because they need them, but they do so as a convenience to the people they sell pictures to. They're* the ones who need them.

Click to expand...

*"They" in this case being a publisher, which could be the OP, in the event of self-publishing.

This is also the reason behind a property release, although one is, legally, almost never required: it is to make things easier for whomever is going to be buying/licensing the photos from the photographer. Whether one is legally required or not, you'll need to supply whatever your potential publisher asks for or else risk foregoing a sale. And getting a model release signed should not, in these circumstances, be an onerous task.

(Again, not a lawyer, etc., etc., etc.)

I always use a model release form, even for animals (signed by the owner). I use the ASMP releases for models, and property if it's not a public place.

My background is in photography and photojournalism, so I just got in the practice.

Jeff

Mac H. said:

...That is why you can't use the rule that "I took the photo and can use it however I please!"

Mac

Click to expand...

I didn't mean it to those extremes but that's what I inferred, so I stand corrected. Thank you.

NDoyle said:

Many, even most, publishers will not publish photographs that are not editorial or fine art in nature without accompanying releases for the (identifiable) individuals who appear in the photos. Regardless of whether one is legally required or not, a publisher may also want a "property release," i.e., for a dog. I do not believe that a how-to book qualifies as "editorial" or "fine art," and even if it did (which it might!), a publisher will still almost certainly want signed releases anyway. Such releases are also wise if one is self-publishing. (N.B. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played on on TV.)

Click to expand...

NDoyle said:

What am I missing? Perpetually, there are less than flattering photos on the cover of rag magazines showing Hollywood bimbos in bikinis with more cellulite than blubber on a blue whale. No one can convince me those bimbos sign releases for the photographer or the publisher. Is that considered "editorial" purposes? Am I wrong, that releases are needed for promotion, or advertising purposes, but not if the photo is part of a book, magazine, or newspaper, and not part of promotion or advertising?

If a photo is included in a book, and the same photo is used on the cover of the book, does the use on the cover require a release, but the same photo in the book does not? If the answer to that question is "Yes", why are the rag magazine cover photos published without a release?

Help me understand. Please!

Click to expand...

Recognizable people will need to sign a release. Most stock photo agencies have a template for this that you could use as a basis for a more generic release. e.g. http://www.shutterpoint.com/Forms/mra_en.pdf