The truth is, you don't always need a model release form. The question is, when do you have to cover your assets, and when can you shoot freely? Hopefully, we'll be able to shed some light on some of the confusion.

For more than a century, photojournalists in the United States have had the pleasure of shooting wherever and whenever they please, because they know that the First Amendment protects their rights to get coverage for their story. The gray area comes about with non-journalists who are in the dark about their implied 'rights' and don't exactly know when or why they might need a model or talent release form.

Imagine all the breath-taking photos taken by noted TIME and LIFE magazine photojournalist Margaret Bourke-White, who traveled the country during the Great Depression, capturing the drawn faces and look of loss and hopelessness of the subjects she photographed so richly. Imagine the horrific images of the realities of war captured by Robert Capa at Omaha Beach and Normandy during World War II. Consider all the video we've witnessed coming right off Wall Street and across the country when the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations unfolded. Had those who posted Occupy images all over the web been detained or expected to provide model release forms, we might only have seen a few select shots that were 'approved' by the government or Wall Street leaders - images of "scary dangerous long-haired crazy people" - rather that the moving shots of senior citizens using walkers, young families, and average business people. If photojournalists had to get a release form for every shot like those, it certainly would have killed the spontaneity of the moment, and many a camera would have stayed capped due to legal concerns.

What is Photojournalism?

An ethical photojournalist works within very well-defined rules. The images must be impartial, honest and tell the story in a way to complement a newsworthy event. They must be objective. The photographers or videographers aren't allowed to "stage" anything within the event to capture the image they want - they are merely the extension of the eye of the camera. (I know what you're going to ask next, but let's not debate the accusations of right-wing or left-wing news slant today; that's for a different story for another time!) Photojournalists don't need releases, they know they are protected under the First Amendment, and if you're shooting for editorial purposes, neither do you. Newspapers, TV news stations, and online reporters aren't required to obtain permission to take people's pictures at newsworthy events. This means if you're shooting for editorial purposes for a news organization, you shouldn't have to have permission or releases, either. Usually.

What's the Difference?

TV news and newspapers, are considered "editorial sources" rather than "commercial" operations. Their chief purpose is to inform and educate. TV stations don't usually require you to supply a model release, but publications like Videomaker do. Although publications like ours are in the business to "educate and inform," our photos and videos are illustrative scenes meant to explain an action, event or product - so there's a gray area with some publications or video outlets. Some establishments that sell footage or apply footage for commercial use might ask for a release before they use your photos or video, or they might simply require you to send them an email granting permission. "Commercial use" means when you are selling the images for anything other than editorial (educational or informational) coverage. If it's your own work, that's easy. If it's someone else's, or there's an unnamed person in the shot, you'll need their permission via a signed release.