Owning the photograph is not enough

Copyright settles a different question

A photographer owns the copyright in their photograph. That settles who may copy it. It does not settle whether it may be used to advertise a product, because the person in the frame has interests of their own, and in many places so does the owner of the building, the artwork on the wall, and the brand on the packet.

This surprises people, including photographers, and the moment it surfaces is usually after a client has printed something.

The model release

A model release is a written permission from an identifiable person for their likeness to be used in stated ways. It is not a copyright document; it addresses rights of privacy, publicity or personality, which exist in some form in most countries and differ substantially in strength.

The distinction that matters in nearly every jurisdiction is editorial versus commercial use. Photographing people in a public place and publishing the image journalistically is generally permitted. Using the same image to advertise a product is a different act, and it is the one that typically requires consent.

A workable release names: the person, the photographer, the date and place, a description of the images, the scope of permitted use, whether it is unlimited in time and territory, any payment, and a signature. For anyone under the age of majority, a parent or guardian signs.

Get it at the time of the shoot, on paper or on a phone. Chasing a release afterwards is unreliable, and a person who was happy to be photographed may be far less happy to be on a poster.

Property and other releases

Private property. Photographing a private interior generally requires the owner’s permission, and many venues (museums, stadiums, shopping centres, some public transport systems) impose contractual conditions on entry that restrict commercial photography regardless of copyright.

Buildings and public art. Whether you may publish a photograph of a building or a public sculpture depends on whether the country has a freedom of panorama provision, and these differ sharply. Some allow photographs of anything permanently in a public place; some allow it for buildings but not sculpture; some restrict commercial use specifically. The same photograph of the same building can be fine in one country and a problem in another.

Artwork in frame. A painting on a wall behind your subject is a separate copyright work. Incidental inclusion is treated leniently in many systems, but a painting that is a significant element of the composition is not incidental.

Trade marks and products. Showing a branded product is usually acceptable when it is incidental or descriptive. It becomes a problem when the use implies endorsement or association, or when it is the point of the image.

Working with people you did not hire

Two situations recur.

Crowds and passers-by. For editorial work, generally fine. For commercial use, anyone identifiable is a risk, and the usual professional practice is to avoid identifiable faces, obtain releases, or use a location where you control access.

Client staff. A business asking you to photograph its employees for a website should obtain releases from them, and you should ask whether they have. Employment does not automatically grant a right to use someone’s image commercially in every jurisdiction, and staff leave: a former employee’s face on a current website is a recurring complaint.

When you are the one commissioning

If you hire a photographer, illustrator, model, voice artist or musician for a client project, you need two things in writing: what rights you are getting from them, and whether those rights are wide enough for what you have promised the client.

The common failure is granting a client worldwide perpetual rights while having bought a one-year national licence from the photographer. This is not usually deliberate; it happens because the two agreements were made weeks apart by people looking at different documents. Check them against each other before you sign the client’s.

Doing it at no cost

Release templates are widely available free from professional photography associations, and using one is far better than nothing. Read it and make sure it says what you need rather than copying it blindly, particularly around territory and duration.

For the paperwork itself, a PDF signed on a phone is fine in most contexts. Free tools exist for collecting a signature, and in many jurisdictions a clear email confirmation from the person also carries weight, though a signed document is stronger and the difference matters precisely when things are contested.

Keep every release filed with the project, permanently. A release you cannot find is a release you do not have.

Telling the client what they bought

Put the constraints in the handover note, plainly:

“The images of the staff are cleared for the website and print brochure in India for three years. If you want to use them in paid advertising or beyond that period, tell me and I will arrange it.”

This does two things. It prevents the client using a constrained image in an unconstrained way. And it establishes that limitations exist, so when they later want the billboard, it is a conversation rather than a discovery.

The limitation

Personality, privacy and publicity rights are among the least harmonised areas of law anywhere. Some countries protect image rights strongly and for decades after death; others have thin protection and rely on general privacy or unfair competition principles. Freedom of panorama varies building by building and country by country. Nothing here is a substitute for a local answer where real money or a public campaign is involved.

What travels is the habit: get written permission from identifiable people at the time, check that what you bought from every contributor covers what you promised the client, write the limits into the handover, and keep the paperwork where you can find it in five years.