John Mitchell Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Does a person's shadow require a model release? Any thoughts on this? e.g. Are there any people in the image below? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Could have sworn that this question had been asked recently but I have searched for shadow without success. Logically, if you could recognise the person from the shadow or circumstances then yes, otherwise not, but these things are not necessarily logical. For example if some element of a person's body appears in the shot we seem to be required to say there is a person, even though recognition would be next to impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I don't see how they possibly can... particularly if they're not recognisable. I once put "people" in a five-shadows photograph so that buyers would know the number of shadows... tricky. Do you lose anything by putting in the number and letting the buyer decide? I presume RM anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Does a person's shadow require a model release? Any thoughts on this? If it was Alfred Hitchcock's shadow, in profile, then probably yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Does a person's shadow require a model release? Any thoughts on this? If it was Alfred Hitchcock's shadow, in profile, then probably yes. Right, good example. Alfred Hitchcock would easily be recognizable from his shadow, but probably not your average Joe or Jane. I always count reflections of people and body parts in glass windows.etc. as people even if they aren't recognizable. So why not shadows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Towers Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I was always in the belief that as long ass you couldn't identify the person in the image then it was legal without a release, ie, you couldn't see the face/s. However, I have recently discovered, due to my interest in food images, even if there's only a hand or a finger in the image you must have a model release! I'm therefore puzzled as to the shadow theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Excluding editorial use of course, another place requests model releases for any "likeness" of a person. In that case, for example, a shadow in the shape of Mr Hitchcock would, as pointed out above, require a model release for commercial use. A blurry shadow that is not a recognisable likeness? No, imo. More or less apropos to this discussion, I recently licensed an un-released image of an exact likeness of a particularly famous mouse . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 I was always in the belief that as long ass you couldn't identify the person in the image then it was legal without a release, ie, you couldn't see the face/s. However, I have recently discovered, due to my interest in food images, even if there's only a hand or a finger in the image you must have a model release! I'm therefore puzzled as to the shadow theory Yes, it is a bit of a puzzle. After all, a well-defined shadow of a person can be more recognizable than a miscellaneous elbow or kneecap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 On a related issue, I have a number of images of towns, villages etc. where it is not apparent that there is any person visible. However when viewed at 100% and given sufficient time, I've no doubt that someone might find a person but it is highly unlikely they would be recognisable. I've always declared that people are present on the basis that I am then covered. What do others do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 If I can't see them in the annotation window, it's no people. It's not my fault that the window is rather small. I'm sure I have a few undeclared people but it doesn't trouble me- they all go down as RM anyway. If Alamy find any they'll let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Pearson Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I've had photos with shadows accepted with the no people box ticked, I've also had one rejected for not ticking the one person box when my own reflection was just discernible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armstrong Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I've had photos with shadows accepted with the no people box ticked, I've also had one rejected for not ticking the one person box when my own reflection was just discernible. I think you are misunderstanding the acceptance process. If you are at the stage where you can select number of people etc then your image is already accepted. There is no further QC process. Your photo can't be rejected because of which boxes you tick in 'Manage Images'. Alamy might contact you about a mistake in an images attributes retrospectively but that's not something they go looking for. It will be if it crops up for another reason, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 John, I would think no, a shadow is not a person unless it represents an obvious persona, such as Hitchcock or Mickey Mouse. It would be great if someone from Alamy could chime in and add their thoughts on this! A good question, for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I've had photos with shadows accepted with the no people box ticked, I've also had one rejected for not ticking the one person box when my own reflection was just discernible. At Alamy? If so, how was the reason for failure described? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I've had photos with shadows accepted with the no people box ticked, I've also had one rejected for not ticking the one person box when my own reflection was just discernible. I think you are misunderstanding the acceptance process. If you are at the stage where you can select number of people etc then your image is already accepted. There is no further QC process. Your photo can't be rejected because of which boxes you tick in 'Manage Images'. Alamy might contact you about a mistake in an images attributes retrospectively but that's not something they go looking for. It will be if it crops up for another reason, They do if the image is for Stockimo. Happened to me. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Does a person's shadow require a model release? Any thoughts on this? e.g. Are there any people in the image below? John - general thoughts on this: If it's the photographer's shadow, it's a shadow of your former self. If taken in late afternoon, it's a 5 o'clock shadow of shadow of your former self. If it had been a macro, it could have been the shadow of your eyes. If you had also included some part of yourself, you could have said, "Me and my shadow" and used one model release. If it's the shadow of Stewart Wood, it's a shadow of a shadow government. When Jean Rys wrote "the shadow can be more important than the substance" (publ. 1928) was she prophetically referring to this very MR dilemma? Who knows? (The shadow knows, of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Yates Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I see a pyramid on the left,a tree on the right, and the top of a building in the middle, or it could be a chess piece? Regards Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I see a pyramid on the left,a tree on the right, and the top of a building in the middle, or it could be a chess piece? Regards Craig until I read your post I was certain it was a statue. What about a shadow of a ship, a building, a sculpture, any other distinct property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 I see a pyramid on the left,a tree on the right, and the top of a building in the middle, or it could be a chess piece? Regards Craig It's me (a selfie). I'm only a pawn in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I see a pyramid on the left,a tree on the right, and the top of a building in the middle, or it could be a chess piece? Regards Craig It's me (a selfie). I'm only a pawn in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Does a person's shadow require a model release? Any thoughts on this? e.g. Are there any people in the image below? John - general thoughts on this: If it's the photographer's shadow, it's a shadow of your former self. If taken in late afternoon, it's a 5 o'clock shadow of shadow of your former self. If it had been a macro, it could have been the shadow of your eyes. If you had also included some part of yourself, you could have said, "Me and my shadow" and used one model release. If it's the shadow of Stewart Wood, it's a shadow of a shadow government. When Jean Rys wrote "the shadow can be more important than the substance" (publ. 1928) was she prophetically referring to this very MR dilemma? Who knows? (The shadow knows, of course) Yes, it's possible to get quite philosophical / psychoanalytical about shadows. After all, we all have one (or two, or three). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissie Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 "f the person in your image can recognise themselves in any way, you’ll need a model release to sell as RF or for commercial use. This includes crowd scenes, parts of the body or silhouettes." I would count a shadow as a silhouette. http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denden Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Only the Shadow knows. denden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Of course this is a judgement call, and as such, I would tend to be conservative. It would not surprise me if Hitchcock copyrighted his famous shadow image. Mickey Mouse? I've had stock business dealings with Disney; they are ready to sue anyone about anything. On the other hand . . . a toe or a finger is actually part of a person. A shadow is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.