Do you need the permissions from the subjects? Specially if there is money to be made.


4 Answers 4


The short answer is "it depends", and the rest of my answer is based on US law. To be on the safe side, you'll probably want to have a release. Many contests have a motive to find the best photos possible that showcase a product or service, and the subject(s) in your photos could be inferred to be endorsing that product or service, a model release would definitely be needed.

If the usage is purely editorial, a model release may not be needed.

Of course, be sure to read the fine print of the particular contest, it may address the issue of whether or not releases are required for individuals in the photos.

Someone will also inevitably point out that you can do anything, as long as you don't get caught :)

  • \$\begingroup\$ I want to know the right course here. I took some pictures on the street and now I am not sure how to find those guys. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 8, 2010 at 19:08
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The rule is: if you can recognize someone you need a release, unless you are shooting in an editorial context in which case no release needed. Most contests I have been involved with (mostly local inside photography circles) accepted photos in an editorial context (the photos were just for show and not for sale), the rest were ambiguous. I think what I am saying is don't be hesitant to use a picture because the terms of the contest are confusing. Unless you are selling the photo there is no real reason to worry (but still read the terms). \$\endgroup\$
    – Jay
    Aug 8, 2010 at 20:10

One of the answers on another question that I asked, I was directed towards this guide on photographers' rights in the UK - there are also guides on there for the US and Australia.

Ultimately, you should check the terms and conditions for a particular contest; I would expect a contest with a theme of social documentary to be far more accepting than if you were coming up with an image to promote something or someone. Bear in mind that how a photo is manipulated also comes into play; I did hear the case where a sports centre took photos of people in the street, with permission, but then found themselves in hot water as the final image gave the impression that two of the people were a couple even when they were shot separately.


Assuming you can publish the photo as a work of art (which is not guaranteed), then it mostly depends on the terms of the photo contest. i.e., let's put aside the question of whether or not you can publish a photo of a stranger at all, and just think about the contest.

In general, the fact you're making money/receiving prizes doesn't have a direct bearing on whether or not you need a release. Selling a photo as a work of art doesn't require the subject's permission (for emphasis, with the assumption you can publish it).

Things that might impact you in the contest terms are clauses like these:

  • The right to use the photo in promotional material.
  • The right to sublicense the photo.
  • A requirement to indemnify the organizers.

So tip #1 is read the terms and conditions. In most contexts, promotional use puts a larger burden on the photographer than simple display, and would normally require a release. The hypothetical problem boils down to this: you enter the photo, and win. It's used to promote some aspect of the sponsor's business/operation. The person sees it and objects to this use of their image, sues. You end up on the hook for costs.

Is this a big deal in practice? Yes and no. I've never heard of it happening, but on the other hand: if terms like these aren't subject to sensible limits (such as only requiring rights for the winning photos, and/or only for use directly in connection with the contest itself) then you should probably think twice about entering the contest anyway.


Well you ll have to read the detailed contest rules... check the life framer award http://www.life-framer.com for exemple... To cover your self you should have people approval and avoid famous building that are likely to be recognizable (property copyright).

  • \$\begingroup\$ I can't, in a quick skim, find the relevant part of the rules you give as an example. Could you quote them in your answer, please? \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Dec 9, 2013 at 21:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ At least under UK law, it is only the architects plans for the building which are copyrighted, not the building itself so the concept of "property copyright" doesn't exist. This is why general answers like this aren't particularly helpful, because it depends so much on where you are. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall
    Dec 9, 2013 at 21:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PhilipKendall Whether they are on good legal grounds or not (I don't know), at least a few London property owners claim some sort of intellectual property rights, among them the London Eye and 30 Mary St. Axe \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Dec 9, 2013 at 21:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mattdm Yep, but it's got to be other rights (probably as a registered design) that they're claiming rather than copyright. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall
    Dec 9, 2013 at 21:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PhilipKendall Yes. Copyright does not work that way \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Dec 9, 2013 at 21:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.