> Another misconception I saw in many threads was that I didn’t have permission from the subjects in my photographs to sell these images using NFTs.
> To be clear, every person I photograph signs a model release in order to participate in this project. The model release is a “full” release of rights, which means that each person I photograph gives me permission to use the images in “any media” and for “any purpose” and in “any product or service” relating to this project.
> While not strictly required, this type of unilateral release is common in the film and photo business because it’s often required by downstream commercial publishers of the photography (such as book publishers, film distributors, etc.). Personally, I use these releases so that there’s no confusion about rights before any photos are even created.
I don't think that's what they meant. There's a clear difference between ethical and legal permission. Were the 'subjects' informed they would be sold as NFT's?
I saw quite a bit of commentary suggesting what he did was illegal, so that's probably what they meant.
That this blew over now and not in April, when it launched and the photographed people were informed also kind of suggests it's not the primary issue? (Although I guess the wide "NFTs are bad!" message is more recent, so people depicted might very well have developed opinions now they didn't back then)
> To be clear, every person I photograph signs a model release in order to participate in this project. The model release is a “full” release of rights, which means that each person I photograph gives me permission to use the images in “any media” and for “any purpose” and in “any product or service” relating to this project.
> While not strictly required, this type of unilateral release is common in the film and photo business because it’s often required by downstream commercial publishers of the photography (such as book publishers, film distributors, etc.). Personally, I use these releases so that there’s no confusion about rights before any photos are even created.
I don't think that's what they meant. There's a clear difference between ethical and legal permission. Were the 'subjects' informed they would be sold as NFT's?