|
Forums >
General Industry >
NEW question about model release forms....
I appreciate everyone's advice on my last post, but now I am brought to a new question. If I am offered a shoot from a photographer that has no release form or contract or doesnt offer me one, should I just not shoot with them or should I make my own? I have a few shoots lined up and none of them have mentioned anything about anything to sign or read over. I asked them all to send me sometihng, but no one has responded yet. Does not having any forms mean they arent reputable? any suggestions? thanx! Feb 21 06 07:10 pm Link I shoot without model releases all the time. All it means is that the photographer doesn't have a release from me to use my image in a commercial context. If you're doing a TFP portfolio building shoot, no release is pretty standard. Feb 21 06 07:12 pm Link My two cents. I disagree. I think it is important for the model to sign a release form whether the shoot is a pay or a TFCD shoot. Just safe for both model and photographer. Every model I work with signs a release. Different releases for different situations, but always a signed release. Feb 21 06 07:18 pm Link To further clarify, a release can state what the photos will or will not be used for. Although many releases tend to give full rights to the photographer, not all do. Every photographer should have some kind of release or agreement form. It's in both theirs and the models best interest. In many cases it puts in writing what the model should expect after the shoot. You should definitely get something in writing as to what you're getting. The release can also state clearly the models usage rights and boundaries for the photos. If you do put together your own release you should focus on what you are authorized to use the photos for. Such as promotion, portfolio site use or what ever you may need the photos for. Feb 21 06 07:29 pm Link I never shoot without a release -- as others have noted, it protects both parties. Feb 21 06 07:31 pm Link In my opinion, many get too hung up on model release forms. In signing a release for a photographer, you are giving up alot and gaining little or nothing. If he or she just wants to do some tfcd for experience and/or self promotion, without doing a release, I wouldn't worry about it. Instead, spend the time finding a photog with some skills who will shoot you for free and who you have been able to check out to be sure he/she is trustworthy. To me, this is just one more area in which new models are bombarded with "advice" from others who suggest that they should charge exhorbitant rates, have managers and treat everything like it was the business deal of the century. While this is a cool site, it really isn't all that different from Myspace, etc., and many of us post pics of ourselves, our families, our dogs, the family car, boat, yada, yada, yada on such sites regularly. Do we think we have to "get all legal then?" Obviously not. The time may come when you are always asked to sign a release because the person paying you needs to be able to make money from the work. You may also become in such demand that you can require certain aspects of the release to be in your favor. When that happens get legal, but until then just go have some fun! Feb 21 06 07:34 pm Link While I agree that a release can spell out what both the Photographer and the Model can do with images and who can do which, it can also define what can not be done with the pictures and in the case of the model not getting papers in advance this is what her version of the release my want to clairify. I have always gotten a release for non-editorial shoots. I understand those that don't think their needed unless your selling them you have to realise that the copyright on the image belongs to the photographer but the likeness belongs to the model, these rights need to be exchanged in some legal format. Just my 2c. Feb 21 06 07:54 pm Link beware of no paper work...for there is no paper trail...the business feeds on paper....you should have your own release anyway...one that favors you Feb 21 06 07:59 pm Link A Model Release is a photographer document that allows the release of images and signature thereof provides consent to do so. Nothing more, nothing less. The model is releasing the use of their their likeness through imaging produced, thus the model has neither the need or requirement for a Release. Beyond the Internet, Releases are written not as blank granting of rights, rather they state specific purpose for the imaging to be used. If the imaging is for stock photography, then the outlets should be provided to best determine the value of the imaging for due compensation payment. If a Release is used in a TFP situation then it should be clearly stated that imaging is not for re-sale unless the model agrees that the barter is worth granting rights to release any and all images in perpituity for any and all purposes. It is unclear (at least to me) why signing a Model Release "protects" the model as previously stated beyond validating the Release upon receiving due compensation, and then proof of delivery would be required through a sign-off process. Feb 21 06 08:25 pm Link I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer and may have misunderstood the few dozen model releases I've encountered. My understanding is that they function to release a model's likeness for commercial purposes. They are necessary for sessions which are intended to lead to the sale of the images generated, whether that is art in a gallery, book publishing, website work, magazine, stock, etc. When that is the case, the release will specifically say so. However, the "standard" release that many photographers use isn't at all specific, and usually says some variation of, "the photographer may use my image or any morphing thereof, along with my modeling alias or real name, for whatever purpose he likes, forever and ever, amen" and is often whipped out in TFP portfolio building situations where the model cannot expect any recompense, and has been provided no information about what commercial purpose the photographer plans to use her image for. How does this protect the model's interests, exactly? Feb 21 06 08:32 pm Link I don't think it's necessary to have a release. I've only done 1 shoot so far where I had to sign one and it didn't change anything at all for me... Feb 21 06 08:35 pm Link As an addendum: I think photographers, like any other bunch of folks, are mostly good people. I've signed those broad releases from time to time, and haven't yet regretted doing so (though the time may of course come), and I don't think most photographers who ask a model to sign them have nefarious plans. However, it behooves a model to pay attention to these things. Feb 21 06 08:35 pm Link area291 wrote: again Is ate: a licensing agreement is what is needed when the model is granting usage of her images (or a photographer for that matter) for commercial exploitation... Feb 21 06 08:39 pm Link Shyly wrote: no technically if you were to use a model's pix for promotional purposes without their permission it COULD cause some problems.......a release is always needed even foe non-commercial purposes Feb 21 06 08:46 pm Link Privacy and Publicity Rights Privacy and publicity rights reflect separate and distinct interests from copyright interests. Patrons desiring to use materials from this website bear the responsibility of making individualized determinations as to whether privacy and publicity rights are implicated by the nature of the materials and how they use such materials. While copyright protects the copyright holder's property rights in the work or intellectual creation, privacy and publicity rights protect the interests of the person(s) who may be the subject(s) of the work or intellectual creation. Issues pertaining to privacy and publicity may arise when a researcher contemplates the use of letters, diary entries, photographs or reportage in visual, audio, and print formats found in library collections. Because two or more people are often involved in the work (e.g., photographer and subject, interviewer and interviewee) and because of the ease with which various media in digital format can be reused, photographs, audio files, and motion pictures represent materials in which issues of privacy and publicity emerge with some frequency. The distinctions among privacy rights, publicity rights, and copyright are best illustrated by example: An advertiser wishes to use a photograph for a print advertisement. The advertiser approaches the photographer, who holds the copyright in the photograph, and negotiates a license to use the photograph. The advertiser also is required to determine the relationship between the photographer and the subject of the photograph. If no formal relationship (e.g., a release form signed by the subject) exists that permits the photographer to license the use of the photograph for all uses or otherwise waives the subject's, sitter's or model's rights, then the advertiser must seek permission from the subject of the photograph because the subject has retained both privacy and publicity rights in the use of their likeness. The publicity right of the subject is that their image may not be commercially exploited without his/her consent and potentially compensation. While copyright is a federally protected right under the United States Copyright Act, with statutorily described fair use defenses against charges of copyright infringement, neither privacy nor publicity rights are the subject of federal law. Note also that while fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, fair use is not a defense to claims of violation of privacy or publicity rights. Privacy and publicity rights are the subject of state laws. What may be permitted in one state may not be permitted in another. Note also that related causes of action may be pursued under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), for example, for unauthorized uses of a person's identity in order to create a false endorsement. While an individual's right to privacy generally ends when the individual dies, publicity rights associated with the commercial value connected with an individual's name, image or voice may continue. For example, many estates or representatives of famous authors, musicians, actors, photographers, politicians, sports figures, celebrities, and other public figures continue to control and license the uses of those figures' names, likenesses, etc. Although the risks for using an image in a periodical's "editorial" pages may be less than for use in advertising or for other commercial purposes, the risk can still be high if the person depicted is held up to ridicule or presented in a libelous manner. While it is true that famous or public figures who seek recognition have thereby surrendered some privacy, they may have the right to control the commercial use of their image (likeness, voice, signature, etc.). This principle recognizes that a celebrity's image can be an asset in trade. Feb 21 06 08:48 pm Link Rather than debate what "release" does or should mean in a legalistic sense, I would just like to say that I believe that every shoot, TFP or not, should have paperwork. Call it whatever you want, it is a contract that spells out: 1. What the compensation, if any, will be (and who is paying who) 2. What the parameters of the shoot are 3. What the photographer can do with the images 4. What the model can do with the images 5. Who owns the copyright 6. Who is entitled to compensation in the event of later sale or publishing Is the model paying me to shoot her portfolio? For her to possibly publish? She may need/want to own the copyright, which must be spelled out in the contract. Am I paying the model for the shoot? Then I may need the paperwork to spell out my right to publish or sell the images for profit, and that I have control over how, and in what context, the images are used. Is it a TFP shoot? Then the paperwork should probably reflect that both parties can use the images for promotional purposes but neither can sell for profit without permission or compensation. Releases can be a tool for shady photographers to rip off or exploit naive models, but they can also be a tool for a reputable photographer to build trust and confidence before the shoot. I always use contracts or releases, and it is always a positive thing, because the model sees that I am going out of my way to be fair and upfront with her. Feb 21 06 08:49 pm Link images by elahi wrote: Yes, they can contain clauses, that isn't in dispute. No, generally they are specific in where the imaging can be used, sans the misguided placing full Releases in front of models that do not provide specificity. images by elahi wrote: Case in point, the Release states the name of the film and production entities and are specific in the contractual language. If that weren't the case, stock film would be used far more often rather than having the hassle of gaining appropriate approvals. Feb 21 06 08:52 pm Link area291 wrote: images by elahi wrote: Yes, they can contain clauses, that isn't in dispute. No, generally they are specific in where the imaging can be used, sans the misguided placing full Releases in front of models that do not provide specificity. actually I have worked on films were there were general releases...now if I am working as PM or i1st AD such is not the case, I usually compose deal memos...1-2 pages.... Feb 21 06 08:54 pm Link Sunporch Media wrote: who's debating? then again, debate is healthy....what we are arrivng at is PROPER and PROFESSIONAL protocol and standards....standards that are legally sound Feb 21 06 08:55 pm Link I use a release for TFP/CD and a different two for paid shoots, one for when I get hired to shoot the model and one for when I hire a model for soemthing I want. Shyly wrote: Feb 21 06 09:01 pm Link area291 wrote: I have always wondered why photographers say that a model should sign a release for her protection. It would make sense if a model were to sign a "non-release" where he photographer agreed to not use photos at all. Feb 21 06 09:17 pm Link A photographer doesn't have a model sign a release before shooting and: A light on a boom falls on her and she is injured, or She requests no exposed breast or crotch shots, the wind blows the blouse open or the skirt up just as the photographer snaps the shot and he posts or sells the shots to a magazine, or it turns out the model is not as she claims, to be over 18, and poses for explicit shots. Now the cops are knocking at the photographer's door. The model does a TFP and never gets any photos, while the photographer makes a killing selling the images in a gallery... Don't think you can't get arested, sued or ripped off? Remember, we live in a letigious society where lawyers love to take on cases without documentation. Photographers should always, before shooting begins, have models sign releases stating who gets what and the model is the age they claim, photograph the model holding the picture ID. Models should have releases and shared rights agreements with them if they are unhappy with the wording (or lack of) the photographer's release, better yet have some printed on 2 part carbonless paper so both can have a copy on-the-spot! Feb 21 06 09:42 pm Link Morningstar wrote: In some states a release must be signed after the shoot, not before. It is thought that it is not possible to release something that has not happened, or before the fact. Feb 21 06 10:09 pm Link area291 wrote: Because if you read some of the "whatsoever herein" guy's responses that include in their releases everything from the model's hair style to mom and apple pie... then you will begin to understand what they claim to be that is protecting the model's rights with a release. Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: ditto Feb 22 06 06:51 am Link Shyly wrote: What a great response Feb 22 06 06:54 am Link studio36uk wrote: You hit the nail on the head. These guys aren't talking about a document which grants them the right to make commercial use of a likeness, they are talking about shooting agreements. One guy wants to add a physical indemnificaiton so that he won't be sued if the model is run over by a car. Another wants a clause which acknowledges, in advance that he didn't rape the girl (which isn't going to stop the police if he does it later anyhow). Feb 22 06 07:12 am Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: I know that, you know that, some others know that... but when I said it in the companion thread to this one all I got in return were loud guffaws and a ration of s**t. Feb 22 06 07:25 am Link |
