Do I need a model release form in this case?

[timbo10ca]

This is in Canada (not sure how the laws differ)

I have a photo of a store front with someone doing something on the door (puting on a number?) , with their back facing me. They are unidentifiable, other than that it's probably the owner of the store. No-one else is in the photo, and although the person is obviously a part of the scene, they are not the main subject. Do I need a release form?

Tim

 

[2F/2F]

What will be the use of the photo?

You will need a release if the photo will be used by a stock agency to sell something, simply due to the strictness of stock agency policies. They are tired of getting sued, so are very specific. They would probably also want a property release.

You do not need one if you plan on selling it as art or journalism.

You can probably get away without one if you sell it directly (meaning not through a stock agency) for commercial use, but whoever buys it will likely want to have one for their protection, if they are any sort of established business. It would be up to them, however.

As far as the actual laws go, in the U.S. you do not legally need a release even for commercial purposes if it was within the public view and no one is individually identifiable. Technically, you probably would have needed a city permit to shoot for commercial use, but there would be no way as well as no desire for the city to enforce that retroactively, even if it found out.

 

[Claire Senft]

For simple display in your home no release would be required. For commercial use, you should have one. Even when you have done things correctly and you are sued it is still expensive to pay lawyer fees even with winning. In fact winning or losing the case might have little cost
difference.

 

[Kevin Kehler]

If it was taken from a public location that is accessible without fee to the general public, it can be used for editorial or artistic purposes. So, a shopping mall is acceptable since is a public location, without fee, even though it is private land. A movie theater in the shopping mall is not acceptable since you have to pay to enter. A person's house is acceptable if you are on the street, but not if you are on their property since it is not considered to be open to the general public. The owner of the property (or their representative) can ask you to stop taking photos but cannot make you destroy any photos made until that point, although a number of locations have "No cameras for picture taking purposes allowed" which would prevent the legal usage of their property regardless of photographic intention.

So, it would depend on what you want to do with the shot: sell it as an artistic image or for editorial purposes, you're in the clear. Use it in any commercial form, including a stock agency and you need a model release form. Art, you might be right about since there being no personal information it would be fully accepted but since one needs a model release to photograph hands/feet/"other" body parts, I think it would be needed here for commercial usage.

 

[cowanw]

Two good sites to review for Canadian content. Book mark the second one!
Dead Link Removed
http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php
Regards
Bill

 

[Patrick Latour]

I faced this situation a couple of a time, I am from Montreal. I double checked with a lawyer and here is a recap of what he told me:
1-) If the person can not be recognized, no release is required
2-) If the person can be recognized, you do not need a release for an editorial use, but you need one for a commercial use.

The same rules are applied to the building, or any other properties. If the store in your picture can be identified, you need a property release for any commercial use, but not for an editorial use.

Hope this help, and I do not charge you what the lawyer charged me to spend not much longer than it took me to write this message.