Photo Waiver at Rallies

Do any of you have photo waivers signed at rallies? It came up at our rally committee meeting yesterday. I have always put photos from the rally on our site (actually on my Smugmug account and linked to the rally site, except for the Flash bit on the index page.) http://cvmgparisrally.ca/

Now the question has come up: Do we need waivers to use photos of people and their bikes? Any thoughts on this? What do you do at your rallies? Is this in the National Rally waiver? (Sure, I read every word before I sign! Yeah right!)

Thanks,

Holly

Wisc Dells Rally

Holly -

Here is what we put on the Wisconsin Dells Rally registration forms:

I / we hereby waive, release, and hold harmless the Wisconsin BMW Motorcycle Club, Inc, its Officers and Rally Organizers, Chula Vista Resort, and the May Agency from any liability from damage, loss, or personal injury while traveling to or from or while attending the 200_ Wisconsin Dells BMW Rally or for any cause or action I now have, or in the future may have against them. I hereby grant permission regarding all photographs taken of me or my minor children to be used for illustration, promotion, and advertising. This waiver extends to my heirs, executors, and assignees.

Thanks, Sue

That is exactly the sort of information I'm looking for.

Holly

Excellent! The thought of running around getting model releases was threatening to take a lot of fun out of shooting the national!

Here is something that will really cover you and yours

http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.asp?article_id=991

Getty Images Is a major stock photo supplier to all industries worldwide

From what I have gathered from reading about this issue on many photo forums and photo sharing web sites it boils down to "intent" and "use" issues of the images..... basically that

• A: You don't need a model release for pictures taken in public if there is no commercial intent for the use of the photo, i.e. you are not receiving any compensation.
• B: Also, there is no "expectation of privacy" when someone is in public so they can not sue for their image appearing in an image that is posted for non-commercial purposes, such as images taken at some public gathering, whether its a paid to enter event or not.

Including a "photo release" in a rally registration form is fine if you want to, but there is really no need.

RM

rocketman said:

From what I have gathered from reading about this issue on many photo forums and photo sharing web sites it boils down to "intent" and "use" issues of the images..... basically that

• A: You don't need a model release for pictures taken in public if there is no commercial intent for the use of the photo, i.e. you are not receiving any compensation.
• B: Also, there is no "expectation of privacy" when someone is in public so they can not sue for their image appearing in an image that is posted for non-commercial purposes, such as images taken at some public gathering, whether its a paid to enter event or not.

Including a "photo release" in a rally registration form is fine if you want to, but there is really no need.

RM

Click to expand...

Word. That's the law in a nutshell. There are a few other considerations regarding private property, but those aren't germaine to a rally environment, so I won't cloud the issue with them.

glenfiddich said:

Excellent! The thought of running around getting model releases was threatening to take a lot of fun out of shooting the national!

Click to expand...

you wouldn't necessarily be covered by a release signed by other rally goers unless you are working for or as part of the rally committee. Looking at Sue's example here's my take on this issue...

Sue said:

Holly -

Here is what we put on the Wisconsin Dells Rally registration forms:

I / we hereby waive, release, and hold harmless the Wisconsin BMW Motorcycle Club, Inc, its Officers and Rally Organizers, Chula Vista Resort, and the May Agency from any liability from damage, loss, or personal injury while traveling to or from or while attending the 200_ Wisconsin Dells BMW Rally or for any cause or action I now have, or in the future may have against them. I hereby grant permission regarding all photographs taken of me or my minor children to be used for illustration, promotion, and advertising. This waiver extends to my heirs, executors, and assignees.

Click to expand...

that is the key, because of the (possible) intent to use for promotion, advertising, etc. but that would only cover those photographers working for the rally, private photographers i.e. other rally goers, are Not covered by the release since it states that this coverage extends only to those specifically named i.e. "Wisconsin BMW Motorcycle Club, Inc, its Officers and Rally Organizers, Chula Vista Resort, and the May Agency"
so in that case if you are just another attendee taking pictures for your own pleasure/enjoyment you would Not be covered by the release anyone signs for the club's use of images taken by them; and would not cover those images you took as an attendee, but you shouldn't need it either, unless you sell the images or receive compensation for them.

RM

Waivers.

My understanding is that waivers chage from state to state. Most courts agree if you are a celebrity then your privacy isn't the same as a private citizens. But if you publish a picture of a private citizen that is out with someone other than their spouse you could be part of the following litigation.

Photo wavers

It does mess with my witness relocation from time to time.........


Ridesalot
The one with the bugs on it.

moshaffer said:

My understanding is that waivers chage from state to state. Most courts agree if you are a celebrity then your privacy isn't the same as a private citizens. But if you publish a picture of a private citizen that is out with someone other than their spouse you could be part of the following litigation.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of an occasion years ago when I had an assignment to take some shots at a new bar (I was working for a newspaper). I walked into the joint, talked to the manager and bartender to let them know what I was up to, then stood back to take some shots. The patrons scrambled and cleared out like rats except for a few guys. I heard one of them say, "Don't get me in your picture" as he headed for the door. "I'm not supposed to be here."

Who cares?

Are there actually people that would take some sort of legal action for having their picture put in the ON? What is this world coming to? If they don't want their likeness reproduced they could wear a sack over their head or maybe a ski mask or maybe you could just include a waiver in the contents of the membership form we fill out when we join, then it could cover all events. We should be contributing this space to some important topic like how to adjust valves on an airhead or what brand tires to buy. Give me a break.

moshaffer said:

My understanding is that waivers chage from state to state. Most courts agree if you are a celebrity then your privacy isn't the same as a private citizens. But if you publish a picture of a private citizen that is out with someone other than their spouse you could be part of the following litigation.

Click to expand...

Maybe in this case, you could just get the other spouse to sign a waiver...

There are a few concepts being tossed about here that have a more specific legal meaning than might be commonly thought. "Commercial use" is one of those. "Fair use" is another. There is a growing body of law on such topics which is generally directly related to the internet, Facebook, MySpace, even SmugMug. Generally, if you take a photo of someone in a public place and that photo ends up in, say, a gallery of rally photos which are just for the benefit of rally goers to see what it was like, there would not likely be a problem. "Commercial use" is often a profit oriented use where the photo is used on say, a poster or T-shirt or greeting card and involves publication and dissemination for profit. If a rally attendee's photo appears on the MOA website or in the magazine as part of a showing of rally photos, I don't think it would be a problem. Crop the photo to one specific person (who is not considered a public figure), put it on a T-shirt and try to sell them at next year's rally for a profit and you are more likely to get sued.

And, yes, anybody can sue anybody else at any time. Often they do. The trick is to have a way to get out from under the heavy weight of extended litigation in the shortest amount of time, at the least expense. A short waiver form on the registration form is probably the best, cheapest, easiest way to do that.

BTW, this does not constitute legal advice. Please consult your lawyer for advice specific to your questions.

Edit: Couple more things: who is the photographer? If "employed" (including volunteers) of the MOA, they own the copyright to the photo. But consent to the use of the person's identity belongs to the person being photographed. In other words, you may need to obtain a "license" from the photographer to use his/her copyrighted image (if s/he is not employed by the MOA) and the photographer may be responsible for obtaining consent via a "model release" from the person "identified" in the photo. Make sense? I may be as clear as mud but there are a number of issues in this whole discussion, which is why lawyers make so much money !! (luv your lawyer... you may need him someday )

Munchy said:

Make sense? I may be as clear as mud but there are a number of issues in this whole discussion, which is why lawyers make so much money !! (luv your lawyer... you may need him someday )

Click to expand...

I think that's a worthy clarification. I'd say when in doubt get a release. Better to have one you don't need than need one and not have it. But as pointed out throughout the thread 99% of the time an amateur photographer shooting on their own behalf with no commercial intent (now or in the future) is going to be fine. And I might add your average run of the mill attorney won't be an expert or reliable counsel in intellectual property or copyright law.

I was just at an event where the ticket indicated participants may be photographed or videotaped and the purchase of the ticket and entry into the event constituted consent to be have your image reproduced for the benefit of the organizer (heavily paraphrased because I don't have the ticket in front of me). Seemed pretty simple to me.

bricciphoto said:

And I might add your average run of the mill attorney won't be an expert or reliable counsel in intellectual property or copyright law.

Click to expand...

Geez, I've never been insulted by somebody who drives an 07 Porsche Cayman before.... painful.

Munchy said:

Geez, I've never been insulted by somebody who drives an 07 Porsche Cayman before.... painful.

Click to expand...

I take it you're an attorney? Please don't take offense. I apologize. I work with a lot of attorneys on a any number of fairly technical/esoteric issues and they readily admit when an issue is beyond their area of expertise. Most in a general practice don't encounter intellectual property on a regular basis*, that's all I was saying.

*Although in thinking about it, probably more so than I realize with the growth of the Internet and all of its potential perils not to mention the web as a communications/marketing tool.

What's wrong with a 07 Cayman? It's almost as fun as a bike.

bricciphoto said:

I take it you're an attorney? Please don't take offense. I apologize. I work with a lot of attorneys on a any number of fairly technical/esoteric issues and they readily admit when an issue is beyond their area of expertise. Most in a general practice don't encounter intellectual property on a regular basis*, that's all I was saying.

*Although in thinking about it, probably more so than I realize with the growth of the Internet and all of its potential perils not to mention the web as a communications/marketing tool.

What's wrong with a 07 Cayman? It's almost as fun as a bike.

Click to expand...

No offense taken. I've been insulted by many, and regularly have other lawyers take issue with the depth of my knowledge. Not to mention a few judges. Sometimes they agree with me Occupational hazard. After many years in my trade, I think my skin is as thick as anyone's. And, yes, any ethical lawyer will tell you when he is going beyond his/her area of expertise. As said, I'm not offering legal advice here but I've been a student of the arts longer than I've been a lawyer and have taken a special interest in copyright, intellectual property and the like. It is an area even more complex now than it ever was and courts have a hard time catching up with Flickr, Facebook and now IP law must learn to deal with the cell phone camera and the world of IPhone "apps."

And the '07 Cayman? Nothing wrong with that. Just wish the Germans would apply their vast engineering expertise to helping improve miles per gallon.