Hacker News Reader

Note that this isn't necessarily something especially new. Stock sites already require property releases based on various (ill-defined) criteria.

See e.g. http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/...

However, unlike model releases for people required for commercial (as in non-editorial) use like marketing and advertising, it's a very fuzzy area.

View on HN

Model releases are also a fuzzy area.

"The legal issues surrounding model releases are complex and vary by jurisdiction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release

Fair enough although that link isn't exactly one of Wikipedia's finest efforts. This link is more complete: https://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html#...

It's generally pretty well established that a properly executed model release provides a pretty wide latitude of commercial usage--although one can always come up with corner cases, e.g. use of a photo in a context that implies the subject is a drug addict or something similar.

By contrast, there's very little legal precedent around the scope of property rights in commercial photography.

The analogous question is what rights you have to use a photo for which you don't have a model release, and that's where I think things are pretty fuzzy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com