Model Releases and Photo Stock Photography

[SteveB2005]

I have noticed that some stock photography houses want models releases for any people images, even if the person cannot be recognized or blurred out, or if their back is turned away for the camera. This is for commercial use, not necessary for editorial use. We always thought a model release was only needed for permission to use a person's image if the person could be identified by themselves or anyone who could recognize them as well. So why is that an issue? Anyone know the reasoning behind it?

[Swampy]

Which stock photog house, Steve? I'm reading over on NAPP that some sites are removing all copyright info from digital files. If they had the model release, and the Terms of Use state they can resell the image, then they would probably want to cover their butts if some model recognizes themself.

It's getting to be crazy out there with digital images.

[SteveB2005]

Swampy, hello. I read this on Shutterstock.com forum, that they are starting to require this more and more as reported by some of their stock photographers. I don't get it though, how can a release be required if the person in question can't be recognized?

steve

[Swampy]

Steve, I don't think you need a release if the people are not recongnizable, but everyone is so up tight about it all these days, some lawyer has probably advised them "it would be best".

[resto]

I think some people just freak out with security and legal protection on businesses, but I kind of hard to blame them in the U.S. with all the lawsuits and slimy lawyers.

[SteveB2005]

The main thing to remember is if an ad agency prints an ad with someone for commercial purposes without a signed release and took it off the internet without going through the proper procedure, they would hold the legal responsibility, according to some lawyer's interpretation.