Model releases and pets...

K_user

This maybe a no brainer, or not, but its something I’m a little curious about. Course it might go along way to prove that I have too much time on my hands for idle thoughts…

If you take a picture of a persons pet do you need to ask permission if you wish to sell that image?

You can’t sell branded images without special permission, you can’t sell portraits without model releases, but how about animals, or pets?

I’m sure that in most cases you could get away with it. Like a random shot of a dog on a beach, it would be impossible to prove who owned that particular one. But close up shots of pets, with lots of detail, that’s a different story. To the owner there might not be any doubt. So that leads to my question, are releases required?

Fajitas!

This is an interesting one alright!

Animals count as property, I think...

Looking forward to the legal take on it!

peasant

As the owner of some very distinctive dogs I'd say definetly YES, some form of permission is required.

I'd hate to see the image of one of my dogs being sold into mass circulation, possibly even for adverts or something.

Extreme example why not:

It would end up in everybody wanting a dog just like that ...and possibly mine getting stolen for that reason, or at least it becoming impossible to take that dog for a wlk without constantly being harrassed with remarks like "Ooooh, isn't that the Dulux/ Andrex dog" ...pain in the neck.



If pics of this fella should be sold commercially, at least there should be some supply of doggy biscuits in it, as royalties...don't you think?

shepthedog

haha thread title gave me a laugh... But its a very interesting point and one I hadnt thought off..

K_user

Hey I get it, the last thing I’d want to see is one of my pets splashed all over the place and getting no compensation for it. Very cute dog btw!

But if I were to take a photo of your dog and sell it would there be anything that you could do about it? Legally I mean, not just hoping in the car and calling around to my house with a baseball bat in hand.

After all you need a license for a dog, they require daily walks and meals, regular grooming and washing. They are a huge investment of time and money. If they attack someone you are responsible. In legal terms they are “property”. But…do they fall under modelling agreements?

Apart from dogs, there are cats, birds, fish, hamsters, rabbits, snakes, spiders and a whole host of other pet types. Then there are the other animals that are “property” such as cows, sheep, chickens, pigs…are these fair picking too?

Again I stress that a random shot of a cow fairly looks like another cow. A sweeping landscape with sheep in it shouldn’t be open to royalty claims. But if you were to call over to a farmer with the express intention of photographing his cows and sheep with the sole intention of selling those images…

robinph

peasant wrote: »

"Ooooh, isn't that the Dulux/ Andrex dog"

There's no way that dog would be able to get mistaken for an Andrex puppy but with a bit of black dye and enlargement it could possibly be a stnd in for the Dulux one.

Would the owners of the various Andrex puppies over the years really be able to spot thier one from a set of similarly posed shots of the various dogs?

K_user

robinph wrote: »

There's no way that dog would be able to get mistaken for an Andrex puppy but with a bit of black dye and enlargement it could possibly be a stnd in for the Dulux one.

Would the owners of the various Andrex puppies over the years really be able to spot thier one from a set of similarly posed shots of the various dogs?

But the Andrex and Dulux dogs were "hired" for the job. Its not like someone borrowed one from the neighbour and then filmed the advert on the QT.

What I'm getting at is the legal aspects to selling prints of animals that are belong to someone else - but without asking the owner first.

Paulw

If the animal is in public and you're in public, and you're not misrepresenting the animal, then you wouldn't need a release.

Same if you took an image of a person in a public place.

Borderfox

Might not explain the legality of it but...

http://members.cox.net/artfuldogger/ModelRelease.html

Borderfox

But you can only use the shot in an editorial manner not a commercial manner similar to a person, you could be slandering that dog

K_user

Borderfox wrote: »

But you can only use the shot in an editorial manner not a commercial manner similar to a person, you could be slandering that dog

robinph

K_user wrote: »

What I'm getting at is the legal aspects to selling prints of animals that are belong to someone else - but without asking the owner first.

But would someone actually be able to tell the difference between two Andrex puppies if they thought that a picture of theirs was being used without their consent? How would someone actually know that a print was of their particular dog, other than the situation that the animal is in which they might remember, I really doubt that anyone can tell the difference between the animals that well.

K_user

Borderfox wrote: »

Might not explain the legality of it but...

http://members.cox.net/artfuldogger/ModelRelease.html

I certify that I am the photographer who created this image(s), and own all applicable copyrights; I am not submitting somebody else's work or property

But thats about the photograph, not the animal contained in the image.


Another way to look at it is this...

If I were to take photo's of my neighbours kids at a birthday party, there would be no problem.

If I were to take photo's of them as the were playing in their garden, to my knowledge its not illegal, it would be creepy, it might rightfully earn me a black eye and a broken camera, but its not against the law.

Were I to sell those photo's to an advertisement company I could be sued so badly that my own kids would be in debt!

Now change "kids" to "dog" in that story.

At party - fine.
In garden - fine.
Sold to advert company...


*Just a slight disclaimer - I have not, not now or ever, taken photo's of my neighbours anything!!! Just in case he's reading!!!

K_user

robinph wrote: »

But would someone actually be able to tell the difference between two Andrex puppies if they thought that a picture of theirs was being used without their consent? How would someone actually know that a print was of their particular dog, other than the situation that the animal is in which they might remember, I really doubt that anyone can tell the difference between the animals that well.

That is a fair point.

But if you were to go around to all your neighbours and ask if you could take a picture of their pets. Just tell them its a project you were working on. Most would think you odd, but I'm willing to bet that you'd be allowed, especially if you promised them a copy of any good images.

Now if two months later you are seen selling cute animal pictures at a stall in the local market...

This is not an Andrex puppy line up. Its a group of people who all can testify that you photographed their animals. And that you are now selling images of those animals for profit. And that they were never made aware of that aspect of the "deal"...

Hence my query on model releases. You set out to photograph a particular person you need a release. Is it the same for an animal?

Borderfox

From my point of view I can take pictures of Horses and riders and sell them back to themselves and use them in an editorial format, but nothing else without a release.

YeahOK

Ah lads seriously???:rolleyes:

Just have the dog sign the bloody thing. Once they are over 2.5 human yrs old they are 18 in dog years. Effectively, they are legally able to sign a contract. So take out their agent (owner) and go direct to the model. Save yourself a few bob and any hassle.

BTW how in the name of jaysus can you slander a dog? I'd like to meet the Judge that would entertain such proceedings.

K_user

YeahOK wrote: »

Ah lads seriously???:rolleyes:

Just have the dog sign the bloody thing. Once they are over 2.5 human yrs old they are 18 in dog years. Effectively, they are legally able to sign a contract. So take out their agent (owner) and go direct to the model. Save yourself a few bob and any hassle.

BTW how in the name of jaysus can you slander a dog? I'd like to meet the Judge that would entertain such proceedings.

K_user

Borderfox wrote: »

From my point of view I can take pictures of Horses and riders and sell them back to themselves and use them in an editorial format, but nothing else without a release.

Interesting. So you couldn't take a picture of the horse and sell it elsewhere?

Deacon Blues

K_user wrote: »

Interesting. So you couldn't take a picture of the horse and sell it elsewhere?

I suspect the important part is "riders", not horses.