Images of famous people - model release

[Ein Buch in 7 Minuten]

Hello,
am i allowed to show public domain pictures of politicians and celebrities in a video i earn money from, even though i dont know if the creator of that image has a model release?

I dont understand that part. I feel like people show images of famous people on youtube all the time, but google told me that you need a model release for commercial use.

 

[sanitary103]

I would just be on the cautious side and choose pictures that have a model release/public domain type etc.

 

[Ein Buch in 7 Minuten]

Thanks for your answer.
Im still interested in more clear insights though, because this would limit the available images significantly.

 

[UKHypnotist]

Hello,
am i allowed to show public domain pictures of politicians and celebrities in a video i earn money from, even though i dont know if the creator of that image has a model release?

I dont understand that part. I feel like people show images of famous people on youtube all the time, but google told me that you need a model release for commercial use.

Was that Google Search, or Google in the form of YouTube Help Articles? If it was the latter (YT Help Article), then you'd better believe you'd need to verify model release to insure publicity rights are cleared for commercial usage.

In general, for commercial usage the following rights must be cleared as a "package".

1. For all media you haven't created yourself, broadcast or in the case of mainstream media re-broadcast rights. In the case of Public Domain Material, proof that the media actually is in the Public Domain is required. (Note; it's considered a bit "tacky" to monetize unaltered PD material, but people do it all the time.) If you are using stock footage, make sure your license allows commercial use.

2. Publicity rights for all recognizable people in your video. This is where your model release comes in.

3. If you use mainstream media re-broadcast material, there may be multiple licenses involved. If the footage is from a public event held in a hall or stadium, you will need the venue owner's permission to both use and monetize shots of the event. If the event is a team sports event, you will need the club or team owner's permission, plus model releases for all players who appear in the footage, plus commercial rights from the club.

Finally, most major team sports events are already licensed for broadcast to one or more media networks; so you will again need all involved networks' re-broadcast license plus commercial rights.

Hope this helps!

 

[Ein Buch in 7 Minuten]

Thanks for your answer.
And this holds true for celebrities and politicians too? Because in another thread i was told they can be used without a model release.

 

[UKHypnotist]

Thanks for your answer.
And this holds true for celebrities and politicians too? Because in another thread i was told they can be used without a model release.

Especially for celebrities!

Politicians will depend on the country they are attached to. The US Government's media releases are not copyrighted; it's actually against US law for this to happen. But politicians just like any other citizens of the world have privacy rights, though such may be limited by the public office they hold.

Your best bet here, would be to check the privacy laws of the country your subject politician live and works in, remembering that the publicity rights aren't enough if you are monetizing; you need commercial usage rights also.

 

[Ein Buch in 7 Minuten]

But google says, you can show public figures without their consent, as long as you dont use them to advertise your product:

"The image of a public figure can, without his consent, only be used for information purposes"

"Everyone, including celebrities and public personalities, has the general right to control the use of his or her image for commercial exploitation. Courts are often concerned, however, that putting limitations on the use of public figures’ images might chill the free exchange of ideas and political debate. Courts draw the line when a public figure’s image is used to convey his support or endorsement of a product. For example, an artist may, in general, sell a print that depicts the president, but if the print implies the president’s endorsement of a product, it would violate the president’s publicity rights."


When i understand that correctly, i can use the images of famous people in videos and i can even make money off the video, i just cant use them to advertise a product.[DOUBLEPOST=1497292887,1497272641][/DOUBLEPOST]So from what i understand after extensive google search: You can use images of famous people in youtube videos without their constent, even when you make money from it (as long as you dont break copyright rules). You just cant use them to advertise your products.

 

[UKHypnotist]

So from what i understand after extensive google search: You can use images of famous people in youtube videos without their constent, even when you make money from it (as long as you dont break copyright rules). You just cant use them to advertise your products.

And if you don't at least have the photographer's permission (if you are using photographs), or the cartoonist's permission (if you are using a cartoon depiction of said person) you would definitely be breaking copyright. I honestly think at this point you need to consult an Intellectual Property Lawyer; you are starting to tread on some shaky legal ground here.

If you are doing monetized videos you are definitely doing commercial exploitation of the image even if you are not using it to advertise a product.

 

[Ein Buch in 7 Minuten]

I already said in the opening post, that this is about public domain images, so they are not copyright protected.

If its allowed, its not "shaky ground". There are tons of videos about politicians and celebrities, do you think all of them emailed them personally and got their permission?

I'm thankful for help, but just throwing presumptions around doesnt help anybody.

 

[UKHypnotist]

I already said in the opening post, that this is about public domain images, so they are not copyright protected.

If its allowed, its not "shaky ground". There are tons of videos about politicians and celebrities, do you think all of them emailed them personally and got their permission?

What are you using for your image sources? Like everything on YouTube, you may need to provide proof that these are indeed in the public domain when you use them. And for photos of US Politicians only government press office produced ones are in the Public Domain, unless a private photographer has actually done either a CC0, or a statement of release into Public Domain.

The UK Government actually has copyright media which devolves to the Crown.

Archive.org cannot be completely trusted as a PD source. I've found whole movies which are still under copyright on there. A lot of the videos about politicians and/or celebrities you see on YouTube, if not from official news network channels, have been stolen from broadcast TV and are takedowns waiting to happen.

"The image of a public figure can, without his consent, only be used for information purposes"

That is from the post you made before your current reply. Are you monetizing the videos you will use these images in? If you are, then your usage is no longer "only for information purposes", PD or not.

And that is why I said you were on shaky legal ground and needed to consult an Intellectual Property Lawyer.