Hello,

Does anyone have a good example of a photographer release? One that allows a model to print her own image.

I've signed lots of model releases, releasing my image, either allowing the photographer to sell or not sell it, either to use it solely for his/her own self promotion or to sell to others.  But I guess I didn't cover myself...

Today I tried to print a couple headshots, which had to go into the mail today. The print shop I've always used refused to unless I faxed them a signed contract from the photographer, discribing the pictures and allowing me to print them.  I tried calling the photographer (from OMP) but she was out in the field, and no where near a fax machine.

They were my frickin' headshots!  Of course the photographer intended for me to be able to print them!  So, everytime I've done TFCD, technically I don't have permission to print any of it?!?!

Also, I tried to print a page from a photographer's website, with me on it, as a tearsheet, and they said I wasn't allowed to?!!

So, I guess I understand where they are coming from.  But, honey, I need to be able to print out pictures for my portfolio.  And I can't tell a casting director what my head shot looks like.

So, I guess the lesson is that I will now ask every photographer I do trade with to sign a release allowing me to use the images for my own self promotion, including prints, online portfolios (like this site.... so are all of my images here illegal!?) as well as promotional materials I plan to have in the future, such as a website.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I'd like to see some examples.  Does anyone have one??

Much obliged.

Models in California, you might want to start doing the same.

I don't think it is any stricter in california, you just found a place that is enforcing it. you could actually just try a different printer or print them on a inkjet if you are in a hurry. It seems that, yes, there should always be a release or some sort but it may not give you any rights.

here is a link to the one I use for TFP

http://www.jacknorth.com/TFP/sampleTFP.pdf

it allows the model to get prints made.

To fix what's past, perhaps ask each of the photographers you have worked with to send you a letter stating that you are allowed to reproduce the images and use them for your self promotion.  Maybe even write the letter yourself and ask the photographer to sign it – make it super easy for the photographer.  I don't think it needs to be anything fancy, just a clear statement of what you are allowed to do with the images over his or her signature (I give a detailed written usage license to any model who asks.  It allows the model fairly broad permission to reproduce the images and  use them for the model’s self promotion).

And if the photographers you have worked with won't sign such a letter for you for at least a few of your favorite images from each session that probably tells you all you need to know about that photographer.....

Many businesses that do a large amount of photo printing have begun shielding themselves from lawsuits and complaints by turning down work that might be protected by copyright.  Because of this I have now added the following wording to the labels of photo disks I send to models:

Images from this disk may be copied or printed.  This disk is provided for that purpose.

Copyright is established in the Constitution and in federal law.  It is the same in all states.

As it happens, a similar (somewhat broader) question just arose on the Stylist forum, and I would urge you to read the thread there.  To save you the indignity of actually having to look it up, I have reproduced below the post that I made on the subject.  It contains some references that are explained in the thread:

A.  What's at Stake Legally

There are two very different rights at issue. 

1.  Copyright (the right to make copies).  Unless something very unusual has happened, it is owned by the photographer, and he has the legal right to control whether or not anyone gets to make copies of his images.  If you already have a copy (say, he gave you one) you are free to show it to anyone you want - but you cannot legally make more copies without written permission from the copyright holder.  Use on the Internet is "making copies".  If he has registered the image with the Copyright Office (he may well; I register all mine) a violation allows him to sue for hefty statutory damages and attorney's fees.  If he hasn't registered, he can sue for actual damages only, which are hardly worth the effort.  Copyright is governed by federal law, and is the same in all states.

Please also note that when a picture is published in a magazine it is not "in the public domain".  It is still protected by copyright, and the use in the ad or editorial is agreed to by the model, but that agreement does not apply to other uses.  Consequently, again as a matter of law, copying tearsheets on comp cards or on the web is a violation of both copyright and the models privacy/publicity rights if permission for that use has not been given.  Also, in such cases, the copyright holder may be the magazine or advertiser; in that event permission of the photographer is not sufficient.

2.  The model's rights of privacy and publicity.  (And, in California, a statutory right which prohibits misappropriation of likeness as a separate tort.)  These rights are governed by state law, and they vary widely by state.  What happens in New York is different from what happens in Texas, and very different from what happens in North Dakota.  No advice given to someone in, say, Texas based on what happens in another state is reliable.

In New York the legislature has explicitly written into the relevant statutes (NY Civil Rights Act Sections 50 and 51) an exemption for use by a photographer in his studio to advertise his services.  So far nobody to my knowledge has challenged the applicability of that exemption to use on the Internet to advertise his services; arguably it is not permitted.

In most states, "editorial use" of non-private pictures (generally, pictures taken where the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy) is allowed without a release.  "Commercial use" (use for purposes of advertising) is generally NOT permitted without the consent of the subject.  In some states consent has to be written (New York is one such); in others oral consent is accepted.  Note:  use for "self promotion" on a website is "commercial use" and as a matter of law is not allowed without the consent of the subject in most states, no matter what some people would like to believe.

Since Texas is at issue in this thread, here is a summary of Texas law on a person's Right of Publicity.  There is no statute that applies to living persons, but Texas has recognized a common law right of publicity (labeled "privacy") for living persons. Kimbrough v. Coca-Cola/USA, 521 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975); Henley v. Dillard Dep't Stores, 46 F. Supp.2d 587 (N.D. Tex. 1999). To prove a cause of action, a plaintiff must show (1) that his or her personal identity has been appropriated (2) by the defendant (3) for some advantage, usually of a commercial nature, to the defendant. Nat'l Bank of Commerce v. Shaklee Corp., 503 F. Supp. 533 (W.D. Tex. 1980). 

Again, note that "for some advantage" includes self promotion.

There is also a right of privacy in Texas that applies as a separate tort:  Texas has made the misappropriation privacy tort actionable. Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. 1973); Patton v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., 910 F. Supp. 1250 (S.D. Tex. 1995). Texas does not recognize the tort of "false light" invasion of privacy. Cain v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. 1994).

Note in all these cases that "copies" is not the issue.  The photographer, as copyright holder of an image, is free to make as many copies as he wants under the law.  He just can't show them to anybody ("for some advantage").  A stylist can't even make copies (without the photographer's permission), and also can't show the pictures to anyone "for some advantage" without permission.

All of the above says that, as a matter of law a makeup artist cannot put pictures of a person on her website, use them in comp cards or make any other use without the written permission of the photographer and the permission (written or oral, depending on the state) of the model in most cases.  She can use the pictures in her book, if the photographer gave her the picture and she has permission of the model.

B.  Modifications for "Industry Standard Practice"

The foregoing was the strictly legal situation.  It applies any time there is any question of the continued actual or tacit consent of the photographer and model to use of their images.  But among professionals, particularly agency professionals, that legal requirement is generally ignored, and without any problems.  As a matter of industry standard practice it is understood that tests are for the use of the model, photographer and other team members for self promotion, and nobody ever objects to such use.  To do so would likely mean the person objecting would be blackballed by the rest of the industry - and their objection might be rejected in the courts because of a tacit consent theory.  Or it might not.

The Jennifer Anniston case above, if true, would be just such a case.  A headshot photographer certainly expects that his work will be reproduced in headshots, and even though he generally doesn't give the subjects a waiver of copyright, as a practical matter, not as a matter of law, he loses any right to object when the pictures are used for the purpose that was intended.  (If the same shot was suddenly used on a Wheaties box, however, all bets are off, and the photographer is in for a big payday.)  In this case (again if true - I haven't seen any other coverage of the issue) it sounds like a photographer has decided that he can make enough on this one lawsuit to overcome any blackballing in the industry - and he may well be right.  Or the judge may rule against him.

So while I agree with the commentary of Mary and Ashley above, it is based on the fact that they are operating in professional environments, governed by "Industry standard practice".  When you work with other people that protection breaks down, and may not exist at all.  Some random "model" who isn't with an agency and never will be is probably not aware of those "standards", doesn't feel (and isn't) bound by them, and can exert her formal legal rights if she chooses.  Same for amateur and peripheral "pro" photographers.  It's very unusual for a photographer to ask for compensation for a model or team member to use shots on comp cards, for instance, but I have known it to happen.

Short form advice:  get a release from the model and a copyright waiver or license from the photographer.  If you don't, you are at potential peril in the future when the model changes boyfriends or the photographer gets real strapped for cash and decides he needs money more than he needs a good reputation.

That said, I expect real professionals working among themselves to continue to operate without releases, and without problems.

What you need to get from the photographer is not a release, but a license to use the photos that were provided to you at the TFP session.  The photographer has probably already granted you "usage rights" to the photos orally allowing you to use them in your portfolio or to print headshots, the problem you are having is that the printer wasn't there to listen to the agreement.  He doesn't want to run afoul of copyright laws.

The license to use the images can either be a separate agreement or the terms can be spelled out in the model release provided to you giving the photographer permission to use your likeness.

It need not be complicated.  It merely has to spell out how you are permitted to use the photos that were provided to you and in what manners you may duplicate them.

I'm sorry to hear about your frustrations.  Good luck to you.

Any models have an opinion?

I place a README.txt file on the disc that says (and include on the label "See README file"):

To whom it may concern:  Reproduction permission is granted for (name here) to use the images contained herein and/or presented before you for her own personal self-promotion, website, Zed cards, headshots, trade advertising and similar non-commercial uses. Where possible, photographer's credit line is appreciated.

Nothing in this document is implied, expressed, or shall be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any right of copy of registered works.
Description of photos: (description of photos)

In addition, every image includes copyright, usage permission, assignment, and my contact information embedded in the file info.