This is topic A question for GoodGuyNeighbor in forum Foot Fetish Talk at Foot Fetish Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.wusfeetlinks.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=013030

---

Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
 
I'm asking this for no reason other than curiosity - do you need to get written consent to make money off of the (non-model) girls' feet you photograph, or is the verbal consent okay? (Or is consent even needed if they pose for you? - implying consent)
 

---

Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
 
I know any photo taken in a public place is fair game to be taken. Working for a newspaper, I could take whatever I wanted as long as I was not in private property or crossing into a police/crime scene. I don't know how it works with the making money part on that as newspapers do make money too using those images in their product.

Patrick
 

---

Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
 
I'm not sure either the legality of it, but I'm sure there's got to be some clause saying you have to disclose what the pics are being used for at bare minimum I would think.
 

---

Posted by goodguyneighbor (Member # 2824) on :
 
Actual laws are very misunderstood by the public and photographers alike.

Under current US law, the only time you need a release for photos taken in public, is for commercial advertising. UK laws are even more permissive. Other countries are far more restrictive.

Here's a great read for anyone who's curious: http://www.danheller.com/model-release It's quite lengthy. I've copied&pasted and paraphrased some of the more relevant points to keep in mind:

There is a widely held misperception that releases are used to "protect" photographers. Releases are actually signed mainly for making images more marketable to commercial licensing purposes.

Artistic exhibitions and publications are considered editorial and are protected from the need to have consent from a subject in order to publish a photo of him or her. This means that you can exhibit your photos of recognizable people or things in galleries, public fairs, photo contests, magazines, newspapers, postcards, posters, coffee table books, WEBSITES... In fact, "art" in any of these forms can be printed without a release, regardless of the medium in which it is printed, because of the First Amendment.

It is simply false that "art" suddenly becomes "commercial" because it may be sold for money. Profit has nothing to do with whether an image is considered commercial.

The need for a release is only governed by how and whether the person in the photo might be regarded as subscribing to an idea, product or service.

A web page that sells photos of people is not the same as a catalog that sells other products.
Placing photos on websites for the purposes of selling them does not require a model release. It is what courts have called a vehicle of information (Brown vs. Corbis).
You can always sell photographic prints without a release, and therefore, you may place them on a website as being for sale without a release.
Selling the photos/videos themselves is not commercial. It is only when the images are directly associated with promoting a product or service.

For example, when a girl tried to sue Girls Gone Wild, it was ruled that the video is an expressive work created solely for entertainment purposes.
While the girl's image and likeness were used to sell copies of Girls Gone Wild, her image and likeness were never associated with a product or service unrelated to that work.
She was never shown endorsing or promoting a product, but rather, as part of an expressive work in which she voluntarily participated.

Such works are protected by the First Amendment, and the court found that no model release was needed.

Even in a non public setting, Judges would assume that anyone who willingly sits in front of a photographer without a written release has willingly waived their rights of privacy.
If it's a toss-up, courts (in the USA) generally give deference to First Amendment rights—the right to publish.

In another interesting court case, a top photographer surreptitiously took a picture of an Orthodox Jew at Times Square, then sold 10 prints at $20,000 to $30,000 each.
As commerce, the picture would be subject to a model release; as art, it would not. Supreme Court ruled it art.

Personally, I prefer to always ask permission before taking any photos as a common courtesy, even though I don't need anyone's permission to exercise my rights.

G.GuyNeighbor-
 

---

Posted by aka.footjoyboy (Member # 32751) on :
 
Interesting.
 

---

Posted by Tyler D. (Member # 11452) on :
 
Excellent question and excellent answers! Good Guy has done the research and some of these factoids are a relief to hear about on the part of photographers. Thank God for our 1st amendment rights and there are some great references in this thread for future questions or confusions
 

---

Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
 
Sorry - forgot my manners.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, GoodGuyNeighbor
 

---

Posted by canIsmellYourFeet (Member # 11183) on :
 
This also applies to, say, a model (or realy any regular woman who simply agrees to this) allowing you to film her smelling her own feet and then you selling it at a clips4sale store, right? She can't get "royalties" from it, can she?
 

---

Posted by RPM (Member # 2895) on :
 
i think GNG answered super well. THank you kind sir for the detailed answer. I've always made a point of asking or informing the person what I planned to do with the pix (even if it's only posting it here for free). and if they object.. the pic goes nowhere. better safe than sorry

RPM
 

---

Posted by baalfootish (Member # 33991) on :
 
if u pay a person non pro model for the shoot do u need a release? even in public?
 

---

Posted by Goddess Melanie (Member # 40802) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by canIsmellYourFeet:
This also applies to, say, a model (or realy any regular woman who simply agrees to this) allowing you to film her smelling her own feet and then you selling it at a clips4sale store, right? She can't get "royalties" from it, can she?

---