If you own a television, I'm quite sure that you've watched at least one program describing how fat North Americans are becoming.  The stories are interlaced with shots of incredibly large people strolling down a city sidewalk, sitting on a park bench, and spilling over their outgrown pants.  The film is shot artistically.  From the neck down.  From behind.  A closeup of fingers digging into a bag of chips or resting a can of coke on their tummy ledge. 

The way that the footage is presented ala below the neck we feel we are witnessing a faceless part of an overwhelming epidemic. Yet, every time I see one of these programs the thought that rushes to my mind is: Couldn't get a model release, could ya? I lump this type of photo into a category that I call "grab shots".  Fast shots without premeditation and without permission.  People who are presumably unrecognizable because we cannot clearly identify their facial features.

Photo credit:  Don Bayley/Rapid Eye  Istockphoto

Microstock agencies have evolved to require a model release for virtually any photo with a person in it, regardless of whether you can recognize them or not.   It makes sense.  How would you feel if you recognized yourself from the neck down on such a television program?

StockXpert takes it to the extreme and demands a release for a shot from the back, for parts of a person, and in many cases, a property release must accompany interior photos that are merely the background of another subject.
                    

Editorial content has become an option on most agencies, and as long as a photo has not been manipulated, cloned or altered (other than levels, noise reduction, contrast) it qualifies for this category.  Recognizable faces are often accepted in this category without a model's permission - but the end user is restricted to use the photograph in news worthy stories and definitely not for commercial intent.

Does your portfolio have shots of people from the back?  Is their wardrobe/tattoo/hairstyle recognizable?  It's not harming anyone is it?

In the Province of Quebec, Canada, Article 6 of the Quebec Civil Code recognizes that the use of a person's name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public is an invasion of privacy.   Ms Aubrey, a 17 year old girl who was photographed without her permission sitting on the steps of a building in Montreal, Quebec and the photograph was featured in an art magazine.  The magazine was purchased by a friend of Ms Aubrey, the information was shared, and Ms Aubrey was subject to teasing by her classmates. 

Ms Aubrey brought an action against the photographer and the magazine (originating in Quebec Aubrey vs Editions Vice-Versa Inc., [1998]) and the Court found that the unauthorized publication of Ms Aubrey's photograph was an infringement of her anonymity.  Both the photographer and publisher were ordered to pay $2000 in damages, as well as court costs.

The Court cited an extract from a thesis by J. Ravanan; (translated)

"The camera lens captures a human moment at its most intense, and the snapshot 'defiles' that moment... A person surprised in his or her private life by a roving photographer is stripped of his or her transcendency and human dignity, since he or she is reduced to the status of a 'spectacle' for others...  This 'indecency of the image' deprives those photographed of their most secret substance."

Do you have any grab shots with people in your portfolio?

This past week I sent out a microstock photo of a foot kicking a soccer ball.  It happened to be a human's foot, and I do have a model release for the human attached to it, so I attached the release as well.  Dreamstime replied "Please remove release and resubmit".  This may have something to do with the fact that buyers on DT can search "people only".   The requirements are somewhat blurred between agencies, but I would rather play it safe than sorry.