Hacker News Reader

Comment by nnq | Hacker News Reader

So, can I use the ones with faces of people in them if they don't have a Model Release Form... ?

"The only restriction is that identifiable people may not appear in a bad light or in a way that they may find offensive, unless they give their consent."

> in a way that they may find offensive

IANAL but isn't that too vague?

ShutterStock is similarly vague, although they give some examples of offensive use.

From the ShutterStock license:

[YOU MAY NOT] Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, "adult videos", adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) in a political context, such as the promotion, advertisement or endorsement of any party, candidate, or elected official, or in connection with any political policy or viewpoint; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities.

this is one area you'd want it to be vague (from the image curator/host's perspective)

...so if the model happens to be Muslim and someone uses it in a website which sells pork meat, there is a potential case here? (I chose the example because I'm coming from a country in which this kind of stuff usually happened to be a problem - nothing meant against any religion or group).

Nope. Not in the USA. One of the best reasons to use a reputable commercial provider. Pixabay told me via email that their models do sign releases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com