Frisson wrote:
I need a model release for a TFP simply stating that the images may only be used for self-promotion (web-sites, comp-cards etc) by both parties. If possible a rider needs to be put in stating that if I am approached by a buyer I am obliged to contact the model first before any agreement is reached....

Terry
[email protected]

Don't understand why you, or anyone else, would ever even want to do that.

Sigh!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Don't understand why you, or anyone else, would ever even want to do that.

Studio36

If the model's participation provided no value to the photographer (and ultimately the purchaser), then why ever shoot photos of any model?

Clearly, it's a partnership between the photographer and model. If you doubt it, then sell photos of an empty studio, but make sure to put plenty of ruffles in your cloth backdrop to liven it up a little. Report your sales back here for comparison and analysis.

If the guy wants to agree to it, let him. That is between him and his model. If you want to conduct business differently, you are free to do so. Models can decide whether to work with you or not. It's still a (mostly) free country.

SoFlaMfigure wrote:
If the model's participation provided no value to the photographer (and ultimately the purchaser), then why ever shoot photos of any model?

If a model's "participation" provided no value to the photgrapher they should be paid for taking the photos.

SoFlaMfigure wrote:
Clearly, it's a partnership between the photographer and model. If you doubt it, then sell photos of an empty studio, but make sure to put plenty of ruffles in your cloth backdrop to liven it up a little. Report your sales back here for comparison and analysis.

If the guy wants to agree to it, let him. That is between him and his model. If you want to conduct business differently, you are free to do so. Models can decide whether to work with you or not. It's still a (mostly) free country.

Would you ever buy a car on the agreement that, once purchased and paid for, you wouldn't receive the clear title and you would never drive it?

Would you ever buy a car and agree that both the seller's name AND your name appear on the title as the legal owners?

I thought not.

So if that is the case with cars WTF do you do it with photographs? H E L L O !

Studio36

Frisson wrote:
The purpose of the release is not to assign co-copyright as you seem to be suggesting. I still own the pictures and within limits can do what I want with them, however I wish to provide the model with a written reassurance that if I should receive payment for the work from a third party that she will in turn receive a fee.

Seems fair to me.

Terry
PS. Thanks John

I would suggest that you get a full release and do anything else you like under separate cover. Even then, preferably time limited - even if it is five or ten years - which is a long time. To do otherwise or to do it on/in the release itself could, or does, or will, compromise your position vis a vis copyright and use rights for the life of the copyright - and that is your lifetime + 70 -75 years.

Some people here will tell you, as I will, that even in as little as six months, but certainly over many years, you may no longer be able to, and probably won't, find the model to comply with your agreement... much less your inheritors after you pass on but while the copyright is still in force.

Something to think about in that context [long term effects of a muddy or muddled  release]

I've shot pix of models that I couldn't find, call, locate or even contact through their friends in as little as two weeks after they were photographed. One was shot to death in a gang murder. Another is in prison. Another, still, was sectioned and is in a secure mental facility. They moved, they left the country, they fell in love, got married and changed their name... you name it, but they just sank below the surface never to be seen again.

Studio36