I'd say the biggest issue here is the goodwill issue with your friend and the fire department..... Legally you probably don't need permission or a release, but other considerations may come into play with this particular image.
Just reading the description and it looks like you have the possibility of obtaining one so I would say go get it. This article would be a good read too: //www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648
eta: Hmm..the shot was from 2 years ago though. Well, if you can get a release signed it would be a good idea
In the past, iStockphoto required a release for photos where the model was easily recognized. If the eyes were visible for instance, a release was needed, but close-ups of someone’s lips would not require one. However, in some cases the model might appear in a photo and be recognizable, even though no part of her face is shown at all. A scar or tattoo might give the identity away, or it may be the time, place and company kept, which makes the context unique enough to warrant a release.
We call these 'contextual releases' — model releases required when the context of the image makes the person(s) in the photo identifiable.
Who was it that asked? You may have other issues as well such as artifacts from processing. I had this problem with many of my challenge entries I wanted to submit.
I'd say the biggest issue here is the goodwill issue with your friend and the fire department..... Legally you probably don't need permission or a release, but other considerations may come into play with this particular image.
I agree with Cory...they gave you permission to take pictures and so it would be only right to get a model release since you got free models. By the way, awesome picture!!
I'm not a lawyer, though my mother did voice-overs for LA Law ...
If you clone out the type and logos on the equipment, you should not need a model release. However, since you were shooting from government/agency property, albeit with permission, you might need a property release if the photo is associated (via the article/caption, etc.) with that specific location; you'd get that from the department administrator, not the individual firefighter.
Perhaps you can solve this with a phone call to your co-worker's supervisor/chief ...
I agree... the biggest problem with this as a stock image as presented is the Scott logo on the air pac... and the shoulder badge. While the rest would not require a release, it would not be worth the loss of a friendship or even a friendly relationship (as in with this fire department)to use it without permission.
I'm not a lawyer, though my mother did voice-overs for LA Law ...
Seriously?
Yes, she had a group of improvisational actors called SuperLoopers which did looping (background vocal work) for TV and movies -- Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue, LA Law, Raiders of the Lost Ark ... she also appeared on some TV shows including Fernwood Tonight and Happy Days, and her earlier improvisational group appeared on some variety shows (e.g. Merv Griffin) ... and seriously I'm not a lawyer but I once considered taking the LSAT to see what would happen ... ;-)
In the past, iStockphoto required a release for photos where the model was easily recognized. If the eyes were visible for instance, a release was needed, but close-ups of someone’s lips would not require one. However, in some cases the model might appear in a photo and be recognizable, even though no part of her face is shown at all. A scar or tattoo might give the identity away, or it may be the time, place and company kept, which makes the context unique enough to warrant a release.
We call these 'contextual releases' — model releases required when the context of the image makes the person(s) in the photo identifiable.
Sounds like you will actually need a release here Spiff, kinda surprising to me, but.... *shrug*
Unless the fire hat is unique enough to ID the fire fighter, I don't see anything in the shot that would provide identification - no city identification, time identification, rank insignia, badge / brigade / engine number, etc. The shot could be from anywhere that they use (or used) this type of fire suit & gear. Virtually all fire departments conduct training exercises, and not even enough of the burning building is visible to identify it or its location. Perhaps the fire fighter's name is spelled out in the flames, though.
I agree, if it isn't a big deal to get the model release from the fire fighter, then get it.
You could submit a model release with anyone's name / signature on it and I would be very surprised if anyone could prove the identity one way or the other.
