Law on photography about publishing photos here in SA

[Delko]

Hi All.
Can someone please help me on the law here In SA.
I know for commercial photographs where you sell it like on istockphoto then i will need a model release.
But regarding the editorial photographic use and the laws thereof.
My question is if I do a photoshoot with a model. Am i allowed to post my photos on a personal blog? A social network page or flickr without a model release?

I know the photographs belong to me because i created it.But can a model take legal actions against me if i poat her photos without trying to sell her.The agreed to pose and they post the photos on a social pageor a modelling database....
what restrict me from doun something simmiliar?
Like flickr facebook google blogger??
Thanx

[Chris F]

who paid whom ?

Did the models pay you to do a portfolio shoot for them? OR did you pay the models to do a shoot for your own use afterwards ?

[Delko]

Totally free like tfcd or tfp...
no exchange of money.
I need experience they are willing to help me if they can have some photos.

[Anonymous]

Why don't you just get a release signed?

[Delko]

Why don't you just get a release signed?

In the future it will definitly be he easiest.


Thanx

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

Always get a release... just makes the problems easier to solve after the fact. Point is that there seems to be different interpretations of "the law" depending on who you ask.

[TheronFamily]

Model releases are not for protection of income, they are for protection of privacy.

Do not base your ideas on the thought that releases are not necessary in non commercial situations.
Sure, the photographs belong to you, but the likeness / image / subject matter does not.

[Andrew Roos]

It's more complex than simply whether you make money from the sale of the images. Steve Cornelius, professor of law at Pretoria University, made the following comment in respect of the recent civil case Wells v Atholl Media, in which a photograph of a 12 year old girl was published by a surfing magazine without her consent:

"The judgment in Wells has redefined the right to identity and provided some clarity on what the infringement of that right would amount to. When the attributes of a person are used without consent, the right to identity can be violated in one of four ways. A person's right to identity can be infringed upon if the attributes of that person are used without permission in a way which cannot be reconciled with the true image of the individual concerned, if the use amounts to the commercial exploitation of the individual, if it cannot be reconciled with generally accepted norms of decency, or if it violates the privacy of that person. "

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1869743

The bottom line is, it's legally very complex, and the relevant law is currently being refined by court judgments so the terrain is shifting. As the others say, get a model release.

Andrew

[TheronFamily]

good find there Andrew, thanks.