> My understanding is, that it is always better to have a release, but if
> something is a news item a release is not required, and if profit is not
> being made from the picture a release is also not required. A free-lance
> photographer who takes a picture for a museum must get a release because
> this photographer is making money from that shot by selling it to the
> museum. A staffer at a museum taking a picture for a newsletter does not
> need to get a release because it is news and/or because the staffer is not
> making money from that shot.
> nburlakof
>

Not entirely correct.

Yes, in most cases it is better to get a release.

First, it is unlikely that a Museum "newsletter" would be classed as
journalistic/news - it is more akin to a corporate in house
organ/publication (and a website similarly -educational or promotional?).

It may or may not be classed as educational - but you would need to a) check
with a very good lawyer b) probably not want to risk it. Especially if it in
anyway "advertises" your museum - do you charge an entry fee? Do you charge
for the outreach programmes etc - in which case, it would most likely be
classed as advertising.

Secondly:

> A free-lance
> photographer who takes a picture for a museum must get a release because
> this photographer is making money from that shot by selling it to the
> museum. A staffer at a museum taking a picture for a newsletter does not
> need to get a release because it is news and/or because the staffer is not
> making money from that shot.

It doesn't matter who takes the shot - it's the end use that counts (and the
end user that is generally responsible for any releases - especially if the
photographer has their paperwork in order. For example, my paperwork says
the client is responsible for obtaining any releases that are required if I
haven't been specifically asked to obtain them - and the client indemnifies
me against any such use by them if releases aren't obtained).

A freelancer can take the pictures and sell them for news use or educational
use - they still make income off them, but they don't need releases, as it's
not "commercial" use.

A staffer can take the pictures of an educational programme - but if you use
them for some form of advertising - especially if you charge any kind of
fees - it will most likely be classed as commercial use. And a release
required.

The rights for the exact same images of people can be licensed for use for
news/educational and for some kind of advertising/commercial use and not
need a release in the first case, but need one in the second - whoever took
the images.

In this case, as I said before, especially being in the US, you might have a
hard time arguing that any use was purely educational - so you are much
safer erring on the side of caution. It's a very complicated are - as an
example - you don't need release for use if images of a person in a
magazine - it's "editorial" use. But you DO need one if that image is on the
cover of the same magazine, as it has been judged the cover is used to
advertise the magazine and so is "commercial" use. (and if you are in
Quebec, you can't use anyone's image for anything - news or otherwise -
without permission...!)

tim

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).