Back to the issue of photographing a pet on private property - it seems like your intent is not stock and not commercial/advertising. Therefore you don't need a signed release if used as a fine-art image for sale based on your description of events and intents. You were also granted permission to photograph on her property which furthers your "case".
Unless you are using photos for advertising purposes, in most cases you don't need a release. Exceptions do occur and I would recommend everyone consult their own lawyer, but this isn't one of these exceptions.
Someone earlier mentioned if the owners of the pet can identify the pet then it is an issue - not entirely true, as the way I understand the law, a normal person not associated with all parties must be able to identify the subject - not just the pet owners or parents if this was a child. And again, this applies to people and not pets. And again to advertising uses, not selling as a fine-art image.
Sounds like this lady is trying to get something from you for free now knowing you make your living from photography.
Matt Suess
http://www.MattSuess.com
Fine Art | Workshops
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment