Do Photographers need to Get a Model Release for People in the Public Eye?

Whether you need a model release for “public figures”—such as politicians, athletes, or celebrities—depends almost entirely on how you intend to use the photograph, not on the status of the person.

The core distinction is between Editorial Use and Commercial Use.

1. Editorial Use: Generally No Release Needed

If you are taking photos for news reporting, documentaries, or commentary on public interest events, you generally do not need a model release, even for famous people.

Why: This is protected under freedom of speech and the public’s right to information.

Context: If a politician is giving a speech, or a sports star is playing a match, you are documenting an event. Selling these photos to a newspaper or using them in a blog post about that event is considered “editorial.”

2. Commercial Use: Release Required

If you intend to use the image to promote or sell a product, service, or idea, you absolutely need a model release.

The Trap: Even if the person is a famous public figure, you cannot use their image to imply they endorse your business or product without their explicit, signed permission.

Commercial Gain: If you are selling an image on a stock photography site (like those offered through 1600.co.za or similar platforms), that platform will almost certainly require a signed model release before they will accept the photo, because they need to be able to license it to customers for commercial advertising purposes.

Summary Table: When do you need a release?

Usage Type	Definition	Release Required?
Editorial	News, reporting, documentary, educational, public interest.	No (usually)
Commercial	Advertising, marketing, product endorsement, branding.	Yes (Always)

Important Caveats

The “Endorsement” Risk: Using a photo of a public figure to sell your services—even if you took the photo in a public place—can lead to legal action for defamation, infringement of personality rights, or misappropriation of likeness if it creates a false impression that the person endorses you.

Private vs. Public Spaces: While you can generally photograph people in public spaces, taking photos in private spaces (or areas where there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” like a locker room or a private office) is a different legal issue entirely and often requires consent regardless of whether the person is a celebrity or not.

Minors: Regardless of fame, special protections apply to minors (anyone under 18). Always seek parental/guardian consent when photographing children, even in public.

The Golden Rules:

1. If the purpose of the photo is to document reality, you are usually safe. If the purpose of the photo is to make money by selling something else, you need a written agreement from the subject.
2. If you have the slightest doubt about whether your intentions are commercial or not then they probably are commercial and you should choose some other image *.

Explore 1600.co.za’s People Images here.

*Take the Drone Pilot Licensing Requirements as an example:

In South Africa, the regulatory boundary between recreational and commercial drone operations is defined strictly by the presence of commercial interest, outcome, or gain.

There is no “distant future” grace period; the intent of the flight at the time of operation is the deciding factor.

The Core Condition: “Commercial Outcome, Interest, or Gain”

The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) under Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Regulations classifies a flight as “private/hobbyist” only if:

Personal Use Only: The aircraft is used solely for the pilot’s personal and private purposes.

Zero Commercial Gain: There is no commercial outcome, interest, or financial gain associated with the operation. This means you cannot sell the footage, license it to others, or use it to promote a business, brand, or service (e.g., posting it on a company’s social media page to attract clients).

No Indirect Benefit: Even if you aren’t paid for the flight directly, if the drone footage is being used to support a business activity (like documenting a construction site for a client or creating marketing content for your own agency), it is classified as commercial and requires full certification.

Why “Future Use” Is a Trap

Footage used “in the distant future” might trigger a license requirement. While the law focuses on the intent at the time of the flight, here is why that is a dangerous gray area:

The “Intent” Test: If you fly a drone as a hobbyist today, and six months later you realize that footage is valuable and decide to sell it, you have retroactively changed the nature of that flight to commercial.

The Audit Risk: If the SACAA or an insurance company investigates an incident or a complaint, they look at how that footage is being used. If it is being used for business purposes, the burden of proof is on the pilot to show that the flight was originally intended to be private—which is extremely difficult to prove if the footage is now appearing in a commercial context.

The Consequence of the Distinction

The difference between the two categories is massive in terms of legal requirements:

Recreational/Hobbyist: No Remote Pilot Licence (RPL) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating Certificate (UASOC) is required, provided you follow the strict safety rules (e.g., maintaining visual line of sight, 50m distance from people/property, and staying below 120m).

Commercial: You are classified as an “aviation operator.” You require an Air Service License (ASL), an Operating Certificate (UASOC), and a Remote Pilot License (RPL).