Release Question

I had the understanding that I only needed a talent release if the person or persons in the video were recognizable. Is this correct?

Yes, any person that can be recognized needs a model release.
Even if you video taped yourself, you need a model release for you as the model and photographer.

Having a release is a touchy thing. If you video someone on the street with there back to you the question would be could they recognize themselves in the video. If the answer is yes, you should have a release or pass on the video.
Tattoos are another thing to watch out for.

Welcome to Pond5 by the way,
Jake

And kids are always even more touchy. If you have the back of a childs head they usually ask for one. Probably cause parents freak out if their kids are in things...

And P5 is the easiest stock agency to work with on this subject.

All my clips with the one or two eyes were rejected on P5 because I needed to supply a model release.

If you can't get a model release (because the shot is of people on the street etc.) you can also submit clips "for editorial use only". Check off the box marked 'editorial' when you're submitting this kind of file.
orbitrob

Hi, orbitrob!

If you write about my clips containing eyes I submitted them with the 'editorial' check box checked and they were rejected. I'll get releases because these are clips of my friends and relatives, but was not sure yet if 'eyes' will sell...

Zygis

I think the editorial box is if the clip is news worthy, not just because you don't have a model release.
Showing eyes would definitely warrant a release because the person could identify themselves if they saw the video.

Jake

There are some unique cases:

1. If you are shooting on a public street, in reality everything goes. This is how "Girls gone wild" won a case in FL when they caught a young lady flashing them as they drove by. Turns out the young lady was a minor and a judges daughter. The judge then decided to go after the owner of GGW - he lost simply because it was a public street. It was deemed that GGW had no control over who does what and also was not required to have one release. Still risky if you do not have a cash "war chest" to defend yourself.

2. If you film at an establishment, say at a restaurant, all you need to do is post signage that is very obvious at all the entrances that state clearly that you are filming and that any individual that enters may be subject to getting on such film. Of course in such a situation, you will definitely also need a property release from the owner of the establishment.

3. Military - if you get permission from the DOD to film for example graduation ceremonies that you will be re-selling to the troops and their families, no individual release is required and everything goes. According to DOD, troops are DOD property. Usually this is done with special and time based contracts.

3. Photographer's rights... - here is an interesting article from an attorney that everyone probably should read: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

I agree Andy with that if we were doing public broadcasting and had large legal pockets.
But with stock, I've never had a photo or video accepted of someone on the street when I didn't have a model release. Ultimately its up to the agency to accept without a release.

Heck, one place I submit to rejected a clip I shot of a bridge that was a mile in the distance because of tiny specs of people walking across.
When I questioned that, they told me I would be surprised at the amount of people that would be able to recognize themselves.
It's their rules, I just had to suck it up.

Jake