Model release for editorial?

goldenangel

« on: January 08, 2009, 18:38 »

#link

I just had one editorial picture rejected on CutCaster with the following reason:
"Model release required for children even if editorial"

I don't believe this can be true? It would not be reasonable to expect journalists that take pictures on the streets to run after parents of every kid in the picture for their MR.

Any thoughts on this?


	Ignore \| Logged

hali

« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2009, 19:23 »

#link

yes, it's quite common here in my city too, or for that, most of the cities i've worked in. editorials , by nature, do not require model releases. but news editors are now taking precaution when it comes to minors.
i never quite understood it at first, until last summer when i was covering a festival and was about to shoot a group of kids playing music. as i presented myself,
one of the parents gruffly told me to move along, and that "you better not print any of those photos without my permission".
when i related that to a local news editor, (an acquaintance of mine),
she said that's why many editors, depending on the nature of the image, at times will choose to refrain from printing "editorials" with kids, without a model release.

it's mostly a precaution, rather than a pre-requisite.

p.s.
i never did print those photos, even though the children were cool about seeing their photos in print. i decided not to , due to the parent's reaction.
better to err on the side of safety.


« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 19:28 by hali »	Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2009, 19:29 »

#link

Sounds ridiculous to me. If it's a real event or news story, and not just a grab you really should have gotten a release for, then it seems silly.


	Ignore \| Logged

Tuilay

« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2009, 19:47 »

#link

Being news worthy or being a public figure may be editorial stock (or stalk) ,
but that does not entitle a photographer or an editor to be immuned .
Take the cases of certain paparazzi recently Cool


	Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2009, 19:57 »

#link

I would also be very cautious in how images with children would be used. As I said once, I have images taken of kids in a refugee camp in Africa. These are images I would allow being used for articles about refugees or life in very poor villages, but not about infant AIDS or child abuse (situations to which, to my knowledge, those kids were not subject to), and in a RF license I would not have any control of it.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

Tuilay

« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2009, 20:00 »

#link

Quote from: madelaide on January 08, 2009, 19:57

Wise choice, Adelaide. In theory everything is in black and white, but in reality,
it's not. Experience is always a better teacher. You are a good example of that.
Cool


	Logged

goldenangel

« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2009, 20:17 »

#link

Thank you for all the answers! I will be more cautious next time when it comes to this issue. It IS better to err on a safe side.


	Ignore \| Logged

m@m

« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2009, 23:37 »

#link

A very wise advise from some of your fellow photographers, I've been a publishing art director for a very long time, and have worked with several magazines and news papers, when it comes to editorial photos is a free for all kind of situation, but when it comes to minors you have to be very careful, it is a very delicate subject, specially now days...just an oldtimers two cents.
Great advise you guys, and a great call by the Cutcaster's staff.


« Last Edit: January 08, 2009, 23:39 by m@m »	Ignore \| Logged

goldenangel

« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2009, 00:39 »

#link

I agree with m@m. I removed my file from other sites as well now. Thank you!


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2009, 03:22 »

#link

But again, Why those agencies think that some adult can't say to the photographer who is taking pictures of themselves: "you better not print any of those photos without my permission".
I mean, if we go this way, editorial photos don't make sense anymore. Word "minors" is connected only with fact that some adult is responsible for them. So, I guess the same adult can be responsible for him self. Seems like children are in position to be protected by adult who cannot protect him self from editorial photos. That's odd. Next time when I see photographer on the street I will tell him to avoid taking picture of me because I'm gonna sue him. Let's see what will happen...


	Ignore \| Logged

hali

« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2009, 11:40 »

#link

Quote from: whitechild on January 09, 2009, 03:22

whitechild, most times people are almost nice to me 99% , as I have a very approachable personality.
But, sometimes, you do get a bad apple and it's best not to complicate things. I live a strange philiosophy in life : " avoid confrontation unless someone is going to hurt someone I love, then watch out fella !".

In this particular situation I related before, the look on the children's faces, and the way the father spoke to me and his kids, was enough for me to think, "leave, this one is not worth the picture !" .

also, in the past, I've noticed experienced national and foreign journalists when not to photograph even if it is editiorial and could make news. That's when they feel it could hurt the person involved.
Too long to relate here, and perharps not the right place to relate such long events.

In summary, better to skip an image then to spend time mending broken fences. The time and money involved could not pay for the earning you get from publishing that photograph.
If you understand what I mean.


	Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2009, 12:35 »

#link

Yes, I understand, and I agree with you. I was just asking, what is the point of editorial photos, if you still have to ask somebody to take a picture.


	Ignore \| Logged

johngriffin

« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2009, 14:12 »

#link

yeah i don't claim to be an expert either but i wanted to err on the side of caution when their were minors involved.

in other cases, there are contributors who will upload images without model releases and mark them as editorial when they are clearly not editorial. i am not saying this was you at all goldenangel but there are sometimes that people do that just to avoid getting a model release.

Can anyone provide more useful info on children in editorial images? I would be interested in learning more.


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2009, 14:13 »

#link

I agree. Editorial should be "what is there", not "I took the time to stop and ask permission". Buyers using editorial inappropriately is another matter.


	Ignore \| Logged

Tuilay

« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2009, 20:38 »

#link

Quote from: johngriffin on January 09, 2009, 14:12

You asked: Can anyone provide more useful info on children in editorial images? I would be interested in learning more.

John, how about this?
The same way that you would if you happen to be jogging along a mountain road somewhere (or hiking the Rockies) and come across a cougar kitten or a bear cub, respectively.
Wink


	Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Model release for editorial?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results