Model Release Permission: Fill & Download for Free

It depends.US specific answer here:In a public space? No, but depending on where you are, who the person is, how prominently they’re featured (E.g., are they just a background face in a crowd?), and other factors, you may need a model release to publish the recording or, for instance, use it in advertising.In a place where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy, or on private property, yes, unless you’re standing on a public throughway and the private property is not a bedroom or bathroom.Photography and the law - WikipediaIs it Illegal to Take Pictures of People Without Their Permission?The law changes if the photograph includes genitals.18 U.S. Code § 1801 - Video voyeurismState laws may vary as well.

There are two issues here:You will need to license use of the photo from the photographer. Typically you should expect to pay him some amount of money to be granted the license to use his copyrighted images. If you happened to take these photos yourself, you are in the clear, but this seems unlikely.You will need to get a model release from the celebrity allowing their image to be used for the promotion of goods or services. This is due to the Rights of Publicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_publicity) people have over their own image. These rights protect everyone from movie stars to homeless people and the contract that they must sign to allow this use is called a "model release". Again, they could expect money in order to grant this license to you.Generally you arrange this by contacting their agent.Those are both pretty big hurdles. Heck, C-list celebrities charge $50-$100 just for an autographed photo at a convention. A model release is going to be pricey. Keep in mind that sport stars endorsements of tennis shoes cost millions of dollars. Good luck with the negotiations.

Well you have two questions here, so let’s take the first, can you take a photo of anybody in a public place—technically yes, usage however is a different story and that’s what your second question is about. Now I’m speaking about photos taken in the U.S. as laws very in each country and culture. And the previous answer that stated if used for editorial usage you can't get paid, that is totally false, photographers get paid all the time for editorial usage of photos.Technically, anyone in any public place by law is directly and indirectly available for being photographed, especially if they are a public figure, without permission. And technically even if you are standing on the sidewalk that leads up to your front door, or the driveway that leads to your garage, that area is considered “public access” and included with the rights of anyone being photographed in front of their house.The law that allows anyone that right to photograph people in public places is called The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of expression plus freedom of speech, and “visual images are part of speech and they’re also an expressive work of a photographer.”There are other situations too, for example, I was an NBA photographer for five years and when photographing a basketball game there is a great possibility of getting people besides the players, coaches and refs, in the background. Ever read the back of your ticket stub entering a professional sports game or concert? Your permission normally comes with that purchase of the ticket—same with television coverage I might add.However, besides sports and music venues, it’s always best to get permission as this is one case where the old saying, “It’s better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission” doesn’t always work, unless you’re the member of the news media covering a compelling story. Now the key is what are you going to do with the photo or photos after they are taken? This usually falls under two main categories, commercial or editorial usage.By law the person taking the photograph owns the copyright of the image instantly, and if the photographer is on a work for hire assignment the entity that sent them out to take that shot normally owns it. But, the only person that owns what is known as the “likeness of an individual” is the person being photographed. Photographers own the copyright of their images instantly when a photo is taken, but the person in the photo owns their “likeness,” and unless the person being photographed provides a signed model release, those images cannot be used without their permission, except in editorial use.If the person being photographed is a minor, their parent or parents must sign the model release and they must sign the model release with their “full legal name” as a model release is a contract. Contracts require "legal signatures," not nicknames or aliases.And contrary to someone else’s answer on here, photographers get paid for editorial use and when it’s for editorial use, no model release is required; for commercial use a model release is required and even better, as a photographer, I would seek a“specific” model release. When it doubt, always get a model release.Now were things can go wrong, and they have, is when a person is maliciously defamed or slandered. For example, even with a model release, if you use a photo where the caption reads something in a libelous, malicious and/or slanderous manner you stand a chance of being sued for damages—again, release or no release, commercial or editorial use, it doesn’t matter you can’t commit libel and slander with the caption and/or usage.There are two cases I can recall, one was where a major city newspaper sent a reporter and photographer to gather information for a weight loss article, and the photographer took a picture of a “weight loss clinic” and in that picture was a prominent individual walking out the door. That person sued because it made them look like they had a weight problem and their privacy was violated—they won. If the photographer had a model release, or just took a picture of the building it would have been a different case.Now I’m no lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but the lines are blurring and it will be interesting how future precedence is set as a rule of law with all the photos being posted on social media—without people’s model releases.There are typically three things a person can sue you for when it comes to photos, 1) appropriation of likeness, aka right of publicity and this falls under common law plus can vary with each state; 2) false light and 3) intrusion of solitude. You can find the expanded explanations of the latter three on Find Law’s, “Can You Sue If Your Photo Is Used Without Your Permission?”There was another case, though it was indoors, where a portrait photographer took a picture of a perfect couple with kids and had the family sign a model release so they could get discounts on their photo package. The photographer included their photo in his “stock photography” portfolio with his stock agency. The photos were sold as stock and next thing you know the family portrait was on government marketing material for child abuse and aids prevention.The family sued, walked away with millions because they sued the U.S. government, the photographer, and the stock agency—it helped that the stock agency was owned by one of the wealthiest persons on the planet.While the photographer had a model release, the family sued on the basis that the usage of the photos painted them as a child abusing family with aids. So in a nutshell, permission or no permission, model release or no model release, editorial or commercial usage, paid or not, be careful with any photo you get published and where it’s used, including the caption information. When in doubt, get permission and a model release, plus a site release if applicable. I hope that answers your question.