Having just viewed many of the wonderful April genre challenge entries, I am wondering if there was a stipulation in the rules that required "model releases" for these uploads?

Or, is a "model release" a standard requirement upon upload of an identifiable person here at Renderosity?

If not, out of curiousity...how many of the 71 contest uploads actually HAD a model release?

EDIT NOTE:
After having just read the Renderosity TOS...it states that model releases are only required for posting of nudes.  So, does that mean that Renderosity will accept uploads of any identifiable people without model releases...as long as they aren't naked?

I don't know the answer to that question..

I thought about this and I had to ask myself this question...

Why would you bring this issue up now?

how was the last challenge any different than the images in the gallery every day??

We have images of people uploaded everyday...so, are you saying that is in question now?

Having been a member for 5 years your raise this issue now?

**"Why would you bring this issue up now?"

**Today, I had the opportunity to look at the images in the forum contest for last month...that's what renewed my interest in this subject.

**"how was the last challenge any different than the images in the gallery every day??"

**Don't know...I didn't ask that...but, it is an excellent question.

**"We have images of people uploaded everyday...so, are you saying that is in question now?"

**Again, I didn't ask about that...I suppose that's something Renderosity needs to decide..

**"Having been a member for 5 years your raise this issue now?"

**Actually, I've raised it both here and in the copyright forum over a year ago ( I can provide links to the threads if you wish).....I'm still waiting for a clear answer from Renderosity.

The answer would seem to be very simple....Is a model release required?...yes...or no...

You will note that I have NOT uploaded any images of identifiable persons here because this issue remains unclear. Clarification of this matter would help me.... and perhaps others...with respect to future gallery uploads.

Regarding my question on how many of the entrants had a release....it was more of a poll to the entrants...and to have them chime in here....to see if folks think getting a release is necessary to protect them against potential litigation.

I've been puzzled by this issue for a long time...
My brother used to ask me why there were no people in my images, and I told him that posting pictures of identifiable persons could mean trouble if I didn't have permission or a signature.
Only the last couple of months I posted a few images with identifiable persons... but I'm still not sure if that's okay, legally speaking...

From what I've heard, any identifiable person that could be seen as the main subject, or as one of the main subjects of an image, can legally demand that the image should not be published or used in any situation or circumstance, for whatever reason that person may have. If the image is already posted or published, that person can legally demand or impose the withdrawal of that image in any possible way or published form...
But I know there have been some issues (at least one of them on the Flickr site) where such an image was used for commercial reasons without permission of the depicted person and/or the photographer, due to some dubious usage policies on certain photo sites...

EDIT: the term 'any identifiable person' is not totally correct, because I think people 'in the public domain' (celebrities, politicians in function, etc) are in a different category... ;o)

".I'm still waiting for a clear answer from Renderosity."

Have your written directly to Jen C regarding this?

From what I understand, it is not so much an identifiable person, but someone who is secluded in privacy (I.E. at an ATM machine). For people who are in public, I believe they are open game. So, if there are no restrictions to you being there, then there seems to be no need for you to have permission to shoot.

Maybe the rules vary in different countries and certainly there is enough confusion about the whole matter.. And I had always thought that the rules were that if taken in a public place it was legitimate to post an image permission given or not, regardless if it was an identifiable person or Joe Public..

Taking shots of a model is another matter, and in particular when there may appear to be any suggestion of underage, And nude images are far more liable to need them,  and Stock image libraries are not very keen to accept work from anything other than professionals, to limit the amount of work that they would have to do in chasing up properly completed model release forms..  Certainly the staff would question this with any image, and many have had to be withdrawn if a proper model release was not forthcoming..  This is also true I am sure here on Rendo as well.

The onus for taking responsibility for model releases is more the responsibility of the photographer and the organisers if an event of some sort that is not  open to the public at large.   

It is apparent from the responses to this thread, that there is considerable confusion, amongst not only members, but also moderators and ex-moderators on this matter.

The replies so far have ranged from;  I don't know...to...yes, they are required...to...NO, they aren't...to yes and no...
There is a such a  lack of clarity that it has resulted in some members taking the approach that they will NOT upload such images.

It is also apparent that some guidance from Renderosity on this matter would not only be helpful to members and staff...but also necessary.
Certainly such clarification wil help us all going forward.

So. I'll ask one more time....Is a model release required to upload an image of an indentifiable person here at Renderosity?

I do post images of folks whom I know and are identifiable and who know their image may be posted on the net...not too often with shots of folk I do not know but I certainly have a few.  My understanding is that the subject of the image essentially has rights to the shot...unless released and unless a public shot of more than that one subject.  Still, I am also confused.   Not much to add to this.   Best wishes in sorting it out.

, I ask permission for any close shots before taking the shot. I have done this most always.  Most say "yes" and what bearing that may have on the issue is something I simply do not know.

I have tried to get hold of folks in shots to let them know and ask if ok after the fact but mostly ask first if ok.(finding folks after the shot for permission is a rabbit trail and the rabbit wins) but once in a while when I can contact them,they are happy enough with a nice print of the image and let it go at that. Still, what legal ground I find at my feet is unclear.  I would not expect to be sued but may be asked to delete the image.  ???   Honestly, with permission from the subject, I have not lost a minutes sleep.

And, with an international forum, sorting could be difficult, indeed.

Gradient,

I do know know the answer to your question..I have sent messages to appropriate members of the Administration team, for an official response.

Thanks Bruce. Glad to see David in there.

Quote -

And, with an international forum, sorting could be difficult, indeed.

As far as i am aware the site operates under US law so whatever goes there should (in theory) be applied to the site.

Personally I think it is the responsibility of the photographer to get a model release, and even then it is a matter of work ethic.  It only becomes a matter of law if the person in the photo then decides to claim - and how many people have you seen press charges against an amateur or small-time professional? I mean that with all due respect, none of us here have contracts to large companies worth $$'s which would require model releases to save their own skin and profits should someone ask for payment as a model in retrospect. I'd love to see an example of a person used in a photo who didnt sign a model release claim against a photographer purely based on principle. (and celebrity vs the pap doesnt count in that btw as we arent the pap).

And any sort of studio modelling work, well the model should be asked to sign a model release before the shoot anyway - it is just good practice which protects both parties. I know there are laws and principles at work here i dont need to be told about right to privacy and freedoms... But the identifiable random on the street for personal use and review among peers? Who cares as long as it is in good taste? (ie not a pap-style photo which shows the person in a bad light - in which case that is just mean)

@Inshaala;

** "I'd love to see an example of a person used in a photo who didnt sign a model release claim against a photographer purely based on principle."

**Here is just one of many links to this case;

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

And here is the judgement from Supreme Court of Canada;

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs1-591/1998rcs1-591.html

In summary, the ruling stated that the subjects right to privacy outweighed the photographer's right of artistic expression.  The photographer was fined $2000.

BTW, the photographer made NO money from the original image...he donated it to a literary magazine.  It was the magazine who used the image.
Also note that the term "publishing"....includes web posting....and emailing of images.

Details - published in a local magazine which led to public ridicule of the person involved.  And dont tell me she wasnt after money... she saw her photo in a profit driven publication (court statement reads that "722 copies [...] were sold") without permission and saw $$.  Please find something which actually shows that someone sued someone else for using a photo of them in an email or posting on a website such as renderosity - that is what we are dealing with here and that is what i asked to see... a person being sued on principle on an image used which has no connection with a profit/sales driven publication.

Taken from that article:

"Nowadays, he says, people whose image appears in a paper without their permission - even when it's an image of a crowd shot or news report - are calling up media outlets to complain, asking for a payoff. "It has become a cottage industry," says Bantey."

You know - i cant see that happening here (referring to rendo)... and cant see the basis behind the paranoia.

In my county(county, not country), most are working class folks and with a certail level of pride. When on jury duty here the judge told us that lawyers generally move "frivolous" and high dollar lawsuits to another county..the local juries simply will not award freebies and high winnings to those who seem to be milking the system at the expense of another.  

Sure, this is digression but law here is based somewhat on what is reasonable and the ridiculous is often dismissed.

de minimis non curat lex... and forever let it be so...

The part of the TOS about posting ONLY your work (unless given permission) applies to all postings.  Nowhere does the TOS state that images can be posted without permission.

Anyone posting an image of someone other than themselves is supposed to ALWAYS get permission first. Renderosity generally assumes that members have gotten the proper permissions first--since that's explained in the copyright section of our TOS; however, we often require members send us a signed copy of the model permissions if nudity is involved.

We will also require the model permissions if we have any reason to believe that the post was made without the models' permission (nude or not).

Thanks for clarifying this JeniferC.

**"Anyone posting an image of someone other than themselves is supposed to ALWAYS get permission first. Renderosity generally assumes that members have gotten the proper permissions first"

**So, it would follow then that by posting an image of another person WITHOUT their consent would breach Renderosity's Terms of Service....

@Inshaala...would you like links to French law passed in 2001 on this subject?...

"Presumption of Innocence and Rights of Victims". 
This law prohibits the publication of any persons image without their consent.  Fines of up to 45,000 Euros may be levied.

BTW, regarding the case I posted...the claimant "felt" there was public ridicule....whether there was or not, we don't know...but the photo was put in a literary arts magazine....not a "pap" magazine.

Your comment  **" It only becomes a matter of law if the person in the photo then decides to claim" ** seems to condone impropriety.  Using your logic, if someone  ripped one of your images....it would be OK until you made a claim against them...

Ignorance is bliss...

Anyway - i draw a distinction between creative input and passive input - the former being the photographer's creative vision and production of the photo which i think should be protected, the latter being a random person who just happens to be recognisable in, and possibly the subject of, a street photo - which is absurd to think that a level of enforcement is a good idea because you are protecting nothing but the person's distinct face which they did not create - which is why i stated originally that I think it is up to the photographer to gain a model release and that it should be down to the photographer's work ethic... not some lawyer wanting to gain some "damages" for their client.

Furthermore -it doesnt matter what type of mag it was in, i was reffering to the fact that it was sold for profit and the claimant saw money involved by pressing for "damages" - rightly you said that the person "felt" that there was public ridicule and that she had a case - so you by inference suggest that you agree with me that she wasnt doing it because she was upholding her principles but just so she could get the money. The pap reference was to the ethics of taking a photo of someone in public and that person suing for damages - i am thinking specifically of celebrities and court cases which gave the pap a hiding for taking photos of them which invaded their privacy or their children's privacy in some way - in which case (although money is involved) i see that a case could be made that they werent concerned with the money but with getting the pap of their back and out of their private life.

Also - if i were to ask every recognisable person in a crowd that i just took a photo of for their signature on a piece of paper it would, by your thoughts, only take one person and i would not be allowed to keep that image let alone "publish" it (and that is in brackets because although technically "publish" means online like here - i think that the whole de minimis thing comes into play as putting a photo on a website with no intention of profit of a photo of someone taken in a public space is nothing in comparison to using that photo in a magazine which is sold).  Impractical in the extreme and where posting for review by peers in a non-commercial way, where is the harm if the image is tasteful (again - onus on the photographer to uphold social conventions and behaviour with regards to this)?

As to ripping one of my images - it is obvious that my images are mine.  If they were to then sell them i would be annoyed and most probably seek a course of action to stop it.  If not and there was no reference to my name i would be annoyed, but dont think it would be worth the effort to educate the person further than one email telling them about the fact that it is my photo and to reference it.  If my name was quoted then i'd be fine with it.  Same situation as above but in reverse i think...

If i were selling an image for big money then obviously the stakes would change with the situation. But how many random people in the street have a $12 million dollar face like Nicole Kidman? (her salary for the recent Chanel #5 ad)

In a nutshell - do you own any likeness of your face? Probably not. Do you own a photo you took? I would damn well hope so...

@Inshaala;

Although I agree with some of the points in your last post...the fact is...posting of an image without a persons consent is AGAINST the law.  Doing so can land you in a heap of trouble.

And, as JeniferC has pointed out....doing so also breaches Renderosity's TOS.

Quote - Thanks for clarifying this JeniferC.

**"Anyone posting an image of someone other than themselves is supposed to ALWAYS get permission first. Renderosity generally assumes that members have gotten the proper permissions first"

**So, it would follow then that by posting an image of another person WITHOUT their consent would breach Renderosity's Terms of Service....

Yeap, you are correct.  StaceyG, our Community Manager, has updated the TOS to help avoid future confusion about it.

Thanks Jenifer...

Sounds clear enough..meaning idendifible shots of people, likely the image of person or group which is easily identified?   I reckon a crowd shot does not fit this rule.

With regard to children/babies, I take it for granted that the approval can be given by the parents? Or do I have to get an approving goo, gaa, gurgle or blowing a raspberry? In respect of older children is parental consent, alone, sufficient?

Ok,  I just read the TOS and it states.....

*"*A signed model release with Photo-ID is required for all photograph images. Renderosity frequently requires proof be faxed or emailed into our office."

Is this the NEW updated wording?   If so, this is going to cause A LOT of confusion!

Another thing...the date at the top of the TOS page doesn't reflect the revision date,  *"Last updated: Monday, August 20, 2007"   

• So now what?   Is this retro-active, like the  Child Image Guildelines from a few years back?

How the heck are you going to police this?

JE

@L8RDAZE;
Yes, that is the new wording....

Here is a thread explaining the "change" and revision date;

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2740125

Apparently this policy has ALWAYS been in place....so, all such images ever posted here should have conformed to this.

Soon we shall have to pay a fine just for looking at one another on the street! :)

Attached Link: http://www.brendadada.net/2008/05/do-i-need-to-obtain-a-model-release/

Tried to edit my previous post to add this:

Does the copyright and image permissions policies apply to avatars used by members if they are not of themselves?

Oh dear...

I think Pandora's box just got opened.  

It is a real can of worms inshaala :(  It opens up a host of issues:

If a photographer is required to supply a "model release" and "Photo-ID" to post an image of an identifiable/recognisable person(s) on Renderosity, why is the same not required on Renderosity of an artistic image representing an identifiable/recognisable person(s)? Why should there be any distinction between the works of a photographer and those of an "artist"? Surely, an artist can supply similar evidence for any identifiable/recognisable person(s).

If an  artistic image of a person(s) is to remain exempt from the rule requiring permission to post. If a photographer posts a manipulated image of person(s) at what point would it be deemed "artistic", rather than "photographic"? Which category of TOS rule applies to the image? If Renderosity decide that this will be a Renderosity decision, will they start applying a "Renderosity approved" statement or symbol to approved images, to avoid being inundated with queries/complaints.

I'm not sure from the TOS statement, to whom does the "Photo-ID" have to belong, the photographer or the model? Can Renderosity clarify the statement please? If the "Photo-ID" is required of the model, what forms of "Photo-ID" are deemed acceptable and how can this be obtained for posting of images of other peoples babies and children?

I don't see how this TOS policy is "workable" for either Renderosity or the member photographers. Will this lead ultimately to a blanket ban on Renderosity of any photographic image of identifiable/recognisable person(s) unless: it is a self-portrait; pictures of our own children; or images where the person(s) contained therein are so small that facial features cannot be determined?

**This is all getting a little ridiculous in my opinion!

Fact of the matter is, we can post photos of people. Action would only be taken IF the person being photographed came to the site and filed a complaint with RR admin.

You can't just suddenly state....no more photos of people....that's not going to happen.**

L8RDAZE is correct.  For whatever reason it seems a bigger deal is being made out of this than is warranted since the policy is not any different than it has been???

The policy has NOT changed. The wording was tweaked a bit to make it more clear BUT the actual policy is not any different than it has been. 

Please read JeniferC's first post again to hopefully clear your confusion.

*"Anyone posting an image of someone other than themselves is supposed to ALWAYS get permission first. Renderosity generally assumes that members have gotten the proper permissions first--since that's explained in the copyright section of our TOS; however, we often require members send us a signed copy of the model permissions if nudity is involved.

We will also require the model permissions if we have any reason to believe that the post was made without the models' permission (nude or not).* "

"I'm not sure from the TOS statement, to whom does the "Photo-ID" have to belong, the photographer or the model? Can Renderosity clarify the statement please? If the "Photo-ID" is required of the model, what forms of "Photo-ID" are deemed acceptable and how can this be obtained for posting of images of other peoples babies and children?"

**Sorry to labour a point I just want clarity of the TOS statement, again I'll ask:
**To whom does the "Photo-ID" have to belong, the photographer or the model?
What forms of "Photo-ID" are deemed acceptable?
How can "Photo-ID" be obtained for posting of images of other peoples babies and children, or will Photo-ID only be requested for certain images e.g. nudes, etc?

As a UK photographer, I'm not required by law to obtain a model release or permissions. Does this mean that I can't post my images in Renderosity, even though I have complied with the law of my own country, and if approached by Renderosity for such permissions or releases will a statement to that effect be sufficient, or do I have to chase retrospective permissions (if possible), or will my images have to be removed from the site?

Ok...now, I'm really confused.....

1. JeniferC's post confirms that posting an image of an identifiable person without their consent breaches Renderosity's terms of service.

2. L8RDAZE states that we can post photos of people here...no problem...it only becomes a problem IF the person complains.

3. StaceyG says L8RDAZE is correct

4. The TOS states that a release is required

Guess I'll  stick to macros....of bugs!....

HeHe @ gradient:  Unless the bug recognises itself and complains!!!

As Jenifer stated (and as its always been), *Renderosity generally assumes that members have gotten the proper permissions first--since that's explained in the copyright section of our TOS; however, we often require members send us a signed copy of the model permissions if nudity is involved.

We will also require the model permissions if we have any reason to believe that the post was made without the models' permission (nude or not).*

If we feel there is a need to ask for a specific reason for the model release we will, but it is assumed that you have gotten the required release so that it will be available if asked for, just as its always been. 

Thanks StaceyG;

To recap what both you and JeniferC have reiterated in this thread on several occasions...my understanding of this situation is the following;

**1) Renderosity's Terms of Service require a model release for an upload of an image of an identifiable person.

1. Anyone who uploads an image of an identifiable person without a model release is in violation of Renderosity's Terms of Service.**
    

I trust this is now clear for everyone...we can move on.....