what does it mean for a person to be recognizable by his clothing?
This rule is widely misunderstood in the stock community but I am going to explain it to you.
First of all, when it comes to model releases and 'likeness',
most federal governments do not have laws that stipulate a requirement for model release forms. In the US, at the federal level, this requirement would fall under case law. In most countries, you can film people in the general public view without their permission. In the US, each state will have different laws.
However,
depending on how the photo is used, you might violate a law (editorial vs commercial). i
As an example, you have probably heard stories where someone takes a day off from work (to attend a concert or sporting event), and they get caught by their employer because they end up having their photo appear on the front page of a newspaper. the newspaper does not need a model release form because it is being used for editorial purposes.
For commercial purposes, you usually need the person's permission to appear in an ad.
However, sometimes you will have people in the photo or video whose face is not shown but are recognizable due to their clothing. What does this mean?
Some people can be recognized by their clothing, by the general public. Some examples are Michael Jackson, Larry Bird, Liberace, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Elvis, Punky Brewster, etc. meaning that if you completely obscure their face, you can still recognize the person because
their clothing has become part of their identity.
Most people cannot be recognized by their clothing by the general public. Even if you can prove that you are the person in the photo, you would have to prove that the general public recognizes you. The general public is not your friends or family or people that know you intimately, the general public is everybody else. That means that complete strangers would have to be able to look at your clothing in the photo, not see your face, and say "that person is John Smith" and be right, solely based on viewing the photo. If they cannot do that, then the model cannot be recognized due to his clothing. since your model or actor is not known to the general public, you do not need model release forms simply because a portion of their clothing appears in a photo or video, as determined by federal case laws in the US in regards to likeness.
People that can be recognized by their clothing are always going to be celebrities or otherwise famous people, and must be known by the general public. The average model does not fall under this category.
99.9% of people in stock photos
cannot be identified by their clothing.
self-identifying yourself in a photo does not grant you any rights.
--------------------------------------------
these people can be identified by their clothes. if we do not see their face, we still need their permission because their clothing has become part of their identity:
this group of people are dressing like Kiss, but they cannot be identified by their clothes because their clothing has not become part of their identity:
-------------------------------------------
elvis presley can be recognized by his clothes, even without his face we know who it is:
this is an elvis impersonator. if his face is removed, we do not know who he is simply based on his clothes:
--------------------------------------------
Can be recognized by his clothes, as they have become part of his identity, we still recognize him even without his face:
Cannot be recognized by his clothes. he isn't famous or well known. his clothing is not part of his identity, even if he can self-identify himself. no model release form necessary by the laws of most countries:
this person's clothes do not identify him:
----------------------------
can be recognized by his clothes as they have become part of his identity:
cannot be recognized by his clothes, no model release form is required by law. his clothing might be the same as Larry Bird, but clearly it is not larry bird. his ability to self-identify himself does not grant him any legal rights. the general public does not recognize him based on his clothes:
------------------------
can be identified by his clothing as it has become part of his identity:
cannot be identified by his clothing:
------------------------
can be identified by his clothing (Gabriel Iglasies) because his clothing has become part of his identity. if we remove his face we still know who it is:
cannot be identified by his clothing. if we remove the face we do not know who the person is:
-----------------------
can be identified by his clothing (flava flav):
-------------------------------------
michael jackson can be identified by his clothes, as his clothes have become part of his identity:
jamie foxx cannot be identified by his clothes even if he wears the same glove. if we remove the face, we do not know who the person is:
---------------------------------
liberace can be identified by his clothes:
this person (barack obama) cannot be identified by his clothes. if we remove the face, we do not know who the person is based on his clothes:
this person cannot be identified by his clothes. he could be any of millions of people. being able to self-identify himself is not a right protected by law. even if the person could be identified somehow,
the image does not require a model release form because the general public cannot identify the person simply by viewing the photo according to the laws of most/all countries:
this person's clothes are not a part of his identity. no model release form is necessary by the laws of most countries. even if he can self-identify himself, it does not grant him any rights, because
the general public cannot identify the person simply by viewing the clothes in the photo:
stock agencies that are rejected images based on someone's ability to self-identify himself are doing so wrongfully, and are not based on any federal or state laws.
June 09, 2007, 19:34
