Canstock rejected shot of my dog for release issue.
SS and FT approved the same shot.

Probably u need siganture from mother and father's dog too?  Ask them 

 

Quote from: Dog-maDe-sign on January 18, 2016, 08:40

Canstock rejected shot of my dog for release issue.
SS and FT approved the same shot.

Probably u need siganture from mother and father's dog too?  Ask them 

 

Of course, she is clearly a puppy, not adult

Pets are considered to be personal property so a release is needed.

consider the following quotes which i got when i bumped into a pet-owner, ...

- yes, i spoil them rotten
- my dog is more important to me than my bf
- if you touch my collie, better get ready to leave with just your socks on
- there's only one thing more important than my hubby...

so, from these experiences with total strangers, i would say, i would be more cautious when
using a photo of a pet, than i am with a person.

i even remember reading of a woman who passed-away and left nothing to her husband
and everything to her poodle.
so, once again, yes, ...

Pets are considered to be personal property so a release is needed.

A pet is a living being, and a living being cannot be the property of somebody (from my point of view).
If people really consider them as friends or companions pets belong to themselves.

Quote from: mlwp on January 18, 2016, 11:03

Pets are considered to be personal property so a release is needed.

A pet is a living being, and a living being cannot be the property of somebody (from my point of view).
If people really consider them as friends or companions pets belong to themselves.

Some agencies determine pets to be personal property and require a release. I think that's what mlwp was saying. But pets are personal property. Otherwise why do you have to license them like a car?

What about strays? If I shoot a pic of a stray alley cat, do I need to get the cat's signature?

It's obvious many of the responders here have never had a cat in their household.  People don't own cats.  Cats own people.  We are their minions, subject to their every whim.  If we ever want to submit a self portrait of some sort, in addition to a model release it will require a property release from the cat.  Cats were once worshiped as Gods ... they have never forgotten this.

Yes there is a cat that peruses my property and I am coveting him for model. Now offering cat food in the hopes he will stop by more often. He consideres my backyard his territory and hunting grounds. If he has an owner, I don't care. He is in my backyard. 

I'm not sure that legally you actually require a property release for ANYTHING......so its the agencies call and they tend to be cautious

http://danheller.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html

This person skims over the facts and ignores the cases where we do need a release. Famous animals are protected. A neighbor dog or a stray cat aren't. Unless it's somehow a prize show dog. He gives people a false impression that we are allowed to do almost anything, when the truth is, it's each case and situational.

http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html

We don't need a release to take a photo. We don't need a release to sell a photo or a license. As news or art we can display and sell. But if it's used in a way that is harmful to the owner, we can be sued, should have a release. It's much more complicated than yes or no.

Yes you are right it is of course more complicated that's why every agency interprets it differently and there is no yes or no which is why I said its the agency's call

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 19, 2016, 14:08

I'm not sure that legally you actually require a property release for ANYTHING......so its the agencies call and they tend to be cautious

http://danheller.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html

This person skims over the facts and ignores the cases where we do need a release. Famous animals are protected. A neighbor dog or a stray cat aren't. Unless it's somehow a prize show dog. He gives people a false impression that we are allowed to do almost anything, when the truth is, it's each case and situational.

http://asmp.org/tutorials/using-property-releases.html

We don't need a release to take a photo. We don't need a release to sell a photo or a license. As news or art we can display and sell. But if it's used in a way that is harmful to the owner, we can be sued, should have a release. It's much more complicated than yes or no.

Generally speaking, in most laws animals aren't "protected" against photography at all. That's because taking an image of something does not reduce that something in any way, it is not an infringement on the owner's property rights.

Property releases are required by platforms to avoid a couple of issues, none of which have anything to do with the subject legally being personal property of someone:

1. Copyright or design rights of the makers of a thing. The easiest here is art, of course. Sell a photo of a sculpture and you may need the artist's (NOT the owner's!) okay. This also applies to architecture and some designed objects.

2. Trademark and name rights. If I want to sell an image of my dad's MacBook with the Apple logo displayed, I need Apple's consent -- NOT my dad's.

3. Avoid trouble. In 99% of the cases where an agency requires a property release, it will simply be by their own guidelines, not because the law says so. They just want to avoid trouble with certain troublesome people -- like pet owners.