I’ve long told people that you seldom need releases for the use of pictures of people, property, logos etc, and it it great to find a lengthy posting by Dan Heller, who has written a book on the subject that states this clearly. And although Heller is clearly writing from a US perspective, I think that most if not all of what he has to say would also apply here.
Basically, in his Busting Myths about Model Releases, Heller states clearly that you would only need a model release to use a picture where it could reasonably be seen to imply that the person shown was recommending or endorsing a particular product. To get a judgement against you, the claimant would have to show that the mythical man on the Clapham omnibus seeing the picture in the way it was used would come to that conclusion.
If you photos are not being used to promote some kind of product, then there is no need to worry at all.
In a follow-up post, Commercial Releases and Model Releases he suggests that we need to replace the idea that model releases are needed for commercial use a concept that more accurately reflects the law, that of ‘advocacy’. And basically if it isn’t ‘Advocacy’ you can use it for any purpose without any kind of release. In particular you can use pictures in books, exhibitions, your own portfolio and of course your own web site without one.
If, like me, you are often told that you are not allowed to photograph in a particular private place, the good news is that any pictures you take before that you can use how you like. Of course in many places that information comes on the the ticket that you buy to gain admission or is on a highly visible notice at the entrance.
There are perhaps other ways in which a photograph might be defamatory, an area into which Heller has not yet strayed in this series of posts.
He does mention that there are cases where the photographer may have signed an agreement restricting their use of the pictures before taking them in what he calls a ‘closed session.’ Obviously such restrictions are then binding, although in general other than for some types of private photography I think photographers should either decline to sign these at all, or to cross through any restrictive clauses before doing so. Better not to do the job than to have great pictures you can’t use.