Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does a person's shadow require a model release? Any thoughts on this?

 

e.g. Are there any people in the image below?

 

shadows-of-a-man-house-and-bare-tree-cas

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :blink: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :blink:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

..........

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does a person's shadow require a model release? Any thoughts on this?

 

e.g. Are there any people in the image below?

 

shadows-of-a-man-house-and-bare-tree-cas

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)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

management-change-and-new-leadership-con

Edited by ann
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does a person's shadow require a model release? Any thoughts on this?

 

e.g. Are there any people in the image below?

 

shadows-of-a-man-house-and-bare-tree-cas

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.