Legal Logo issues

[Dante]

I have a TFP photograph of a model that I've heavily manipulated in Photoshop - it's now a silhouette with colored light rays extending from the edges. (The model agreed to the photoshop work at the time of the shoot) I'd like to work the image into my website logo/advertisements, but my gut instinct is telling my I'm about to open a can of worms if I do. Are there any legal issues I should be aware of first?

[brian.austin]

If you have a model release covering either promotional, commercial or full use, you should be fine. My own logo was used with a promotional release (not the avatar but the one on my site of the eye).

If you don't have a model release and still have contact with the model, get one.

Someone else can tell me if I'm right or wrong here: if the model isn't identifiable, you don't necessarily NEED a release from my understanding.

[Dante]

Thanks for the heads-up Brian! I'm still a noob when it comes to model photography.

I've been told elsewhere that if the model is unidentifiable then a release isn't necessary *although* you should have one incase the model claims she and others close to her can recognize her.

[UnivModels]

When I shoot with a model, I always get a release.

Model release stems from the right of "unjustified compensation" - if you make money because of his/her image, it's not fair, and you can be held accountable (for money). Obviously the person has to be recognizable - not a shot of a blond from the back

If he/she signed a release, saying they compensted, it doesn't matter if you give them prints, and then sold the art for $1,000 - they were compensated.

Side notes - photos used in news items (papers, mag, tv, etc.) do not require a release. And if you feel these people might go to court - it would cost less to shoot it again with someone else, and get a release.

[waple]

I don't think that a sillouhette would actually be able to be recognizable. Can you show us the photo?