Posted by lobo estepario: 
Can anyone send me a copy of a model release form?

Here is a simple one

Posted by MyLeah: 
Model release forms should state that the photographer has all rights to do as he/she wants to do...

Only for stock use. Otherwise it would be more usual for the release to be quite specific - stating use (or categories of use), territory and duration, just like the licence the photographer issues to the client.

Posted by MichaelBell: 
How does this work? If you pay a model for a shoot, do you have the rights to sell those photos to intrested parties? or is that something you need to discuss with the model beforehand? I am of the mind that if you pay for the photoshoot, you should be able to use them as you wish.

Botton line...it boils down to usage of image.....OK so you don't known or understand copyrights just yet. YOu are the creator of said images, but don't be stupid in not understanding that your a$$ might get sued up the yen/yan for not making it  clear to the model the usage of said image and where it will be reproduced. So now that the model has taken you to court and sued every last dime out of your stupid a$$ for not doing the simple thing of getting a model release and stated the usage of image and period that is will be used and please don't forget to inform them each time. You need to take business course if anything, please stop taking what is a business for most of us with a digital camera and state you are a pro, I mean no ill intent in what I am just saying to you...but this is business..be smart!

Posted by IndianaGlamour: 
"and if the photographer has filed with the Library of Congress, he is entitled to sue for punitive damages"

Submitting images under Title 17 is irrelevant to your subsequent ability to bring litigation against someone who infringes your copyright.  This is one of several common misunderstandings I see on photography-related message boards.   

It's not a misunderstanding, it's the law, read it. You must register your image to file an infringement case and if you registered it prior to the infringement, or within 90 days of first publication then you the possibility of recovering statutory damages of up to 150 grand per infringment as well as the ability to recover attorney fees. If you haven't registered in a timely fashion then you can only recover actual damages and possibly profits

Posted by Aaron_H: 

Posted by IndianaGlamour: 
"and if the photographer has filed with the Library of Congress, he is entitled to sue for punitive damages"

Submitting images under Title 17 is irrelevant to your subsequent ability to bring litigation against someone who infringes your copyright.  This is one of several common misunderstandings I see on photography-related message boards.   

It's not a misunderstanding, it's the law, read it. You must register your image to file an infringement case and if you registered it prior to the infringement, or within 90 days of first publication then you the possibility of recovering statutory damages of up to 150 grand per infringment as well as the ability to recover attorney fees. If you haven't registered in a timely fashion then you can only recover actual damages and possibly profits

Is putting an image on the web considered publication?

Posted by Arice: 
Legally fokes, when a photographer takes a picture, he or she owns the copyright for that image and can do whatever he/she wants to do with it. Model release forms allow the photographer to use the image in publications or anything that requires the release of the copyrighted image from said photographer. No one can use that image, including the model without permission of the photographer. Doing so, opens that person for legal action and if the photographer has filed with the Library of Congress, he is entitled to sue for punitive damages.

This is not always true;

Photographers shooting for someone that has paid them to make the photograph, may not always hold the copyright. It depends on the intent of both parties. (Shooting for hire)

When you get a model release signed, it's is important to state what the signee is getting in exchange. Even on trade for print shoots I put down a dollar amount, on the form, plus other goods, which is the photos to be given. Just one dollar makes it legal, in most states.  Lot's of land deeds are also written this way. ( One Dollar and other considerations)

I then have my models fill out a Models information form that has their stats, plus a check off list of what kind of work they are wanting to do. (Portrait, nude, fashion, etc.)  This is really a job application, and shows the model asking for work.

The forms are kept togather along with a photocopy of a state issued ID. (Required by the new US law # 2257)

For more protection, and when there is no witness present to sign the release, make a photo of the model holding the release up beside her face.

Now if I had to go to court I can prove the models intent, and this is what has to be done if you are sued, and want to win the case.

Be sure and protect  yourself, becaues anybody with a few bucks can sue you today.

Posted by Jack D Trute: 

Posted by Aaron_H: 

Posted by IndianaGlamour: 
"and if the photographer has filed with the Library of Congress, he is entitled to sue for punitive damages"

Submitting images under Title 17 is irrelevant to your subsequent ability to bring litigation against someone who infringes your copyright.  This is one of several common misunderstandings I see on photography-related message boards.   

It's not a misunderstanding, it's the law, read it. You must register your image to file an infringement case and if you registered it prior to the infringement, or within 90 days of first publication then you the possibility of recovering statutory damages of up to 150 grand per infringment as well as the ability to recover attorney fees. If you haven't registered in a timely fashion then you can only recover actual damages and possibly profits

Is putting an image on the web considered publication?

If you are talking about a portfolio, it all depends on whch side of the issue you want to argue.

Posted by theda: 
It is my understanding that registration is NOT required to bring a copryright infringment suit.  Registration provides a quick, easy proof of authroship and broadens your copyright protection so you can recieve punitive damages rathe rthan just actual damages.

I think you are right.  I have had to collect twice, when my photographs were published. Both time it was settled out of court, with me getting paid a fair amount. (One newspaper, and one Airline.)

Posted by theda: 
It is my understanding that registration is NOT required to bring a copryright infringment suit.  Registration provides a quick, easy proof of authroship and broadens your copyright protection so you can recieve punitive damages rathe rthan just actual damages.

Correct.

Posted by theda: 
And yes, the internet is publication. And self-promotion of your commercial enterprise is a commercial use.

I think this is correct. I have been looking for a ruling by a judge that says a model release is required for use of an image in a portfolio on the internet. I know it's not copyright law, but it seems like a related issue.

Posted by Marvin Dockery: 
I have had to collect twice, when my photographs were published. Both time it was settled out of court, with me getting paid a fair amount. (One newspaper, and one Airline.)

Seems the best way to be paid as a photographer is to have your image stolen by a deep pocket company..... hmmmm STEAL my images .. please..
j/k

Mike

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

Posted by theda: 
It is my understanding that registration is NOT required to bring a copryright infringment suit.  Registration provides a quick, easy proof of authroship and broadens your copyright protection so you can recieve punitive damages rathe rthan just actual damages.

Correct.

No, incorrect. I'm sorry but you must register your copyright to sue for infringement, look it up. It's not really that relevant because the relevant part is to register prior to the infringement because that's a preventative measure if your clients or others know you've registered, or it's the "club" that puts you in strong negotiating position when looking to settle with or just bill an infringer. In most cases, without a timely registration there is little risk to the average infringer, he knows you're not likely to get more than he should have paid for the usage in the first place and that there is little chance of being sued due to the costs of filing a federal copyright suit along with the attorney fees. It would be a losing proposition unless it was a slam dunk case with very major usage where the original fee would have been substantial and the profits were substantial. But if it's a good case and the images were properly registered then an attorney might be willing to take it on contingency.

But yes, as a procedural matter, registering the work is a required prerequisite to file a copyright suit. There was even a major case recently that was thrown out because the moron didn't register before filing.

Posted by Michael Feinberg: 
Even an image of a person can be used without a release for editorial purposes. This is when the image stands on it's own without commentary, explicit or presumed endorsement. A portfolio, online or physical would easily qualify.

Very few photos are published completely without commentary or stand on their own with no caption or context. But commentary or being used to illustrate a story doesn't remove it from the realm of editorial use as opposed to commercial use - endorsement, promotion or advertising. A picture of a baby in a story about babies, or motherhood or whatever, or a picture of a baby enjoying the summer sun in a park used as a newspaper feature filler with just a caption about people enjoying the sunny day are all editorial uses. Any of those same pictures used in an organization’s marketing materials or an annual report, or of course in an advertisement, would be commercial uses and would need a release.

Posted by piers: 
Sheesh, your copyright situation is worse than I thought. What happened to the (pretty much) universal situation that the copyright automatically belongs to the artist? - A situation that is effectivly undermined if you can't protect your rights without additional action.

Well Piers, it does automatically belong to the artist unless there's a specific agreement otherwise aside from a true work for hire situation where there is an actual and existing employee/employer relationship and the art is created as a normal or expected part of your job (a simplified explanation). However even though it belongs to us the protections and remedies are complicated.

My view of the laws and system is that, as most laws in the US, they are written by and put into place by and for the interests of the wealthy and the corporations. Therefore copyright is a tricky business because they want to protect it for themselves but exploit it from others. They want laws in place that offer themselves full protection and remedy when they own the copyright, and they try to get those copyrights from us because they understand the value. But they also set up the registration process, and made it and the laws confusing, so that the average schmoe might not know about it, or understand it, or bother with it. That way they will make sure to properly handle their own copyrights but also hope that we won't, which reduces the risk when they inadvertently or intentionally violate someone else's copyright

Posted by Aaron_H: 
No, incorrect. I'm sorry but you must register your copyright to sue for infringement, look it up. 

You're right. That is the case in the US.

Posted by Michael_Creagh: 
I would not shoot a model test, get some business forms model release, and expect or later sell that image as an advertisement.  You are asking for trouble.  Be specific with your plans.  If it is for stock, then state it is for stock.  I wouldn't turn around a directly sell it to a client unless your release says that you are free to sell this image for national and international ad campaigns.   If I were a model, I would NOT sign any open release for a few lousy bucks or a free test and would be careful with stock photo releases.

But "stock" is not a type of usage in the same sense. Any image that you keep copyright control of automatically becomes "stock" beyond any initial usage agreed to as part of an assignment, or if there never was an assignment. If you have an unrestricted release then advertising, which is a form of usage in the sense we mean, is one of the ways a stock image can be used. A cautiously worded full, unrestricted release will actually list a bunch of potential types of uses, including advertising. So if they've signed such a thing then yes indeed you can use it for pretty much anything.

Here's a snippet from the ASMP release, fully approved by, and probably written by, it's head legal counsel: "in any and all media now or hereafter known for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever. I also consent to the use of any published matter in conjunction therewith."

Posted by Michael_Creagh:
Be fair and honest as most people will work within the budgets available.

But if they sign a full release in exchange for money or something of value such as needed test shots or portfolio shots then they understand that's what they're doing when they sign. They must decide at the time whether they think it's a fair exchange or not. It's not unfair or dishonest if that's what was agreed to.

A photographer’s stock collection has thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of images in it and the ones that really make money are few and far between. They can't know ahead of time which ones or when they'll pay off. There is a ton of time and money invested in producing all that work, paying the models whatever they do at the time of production is part of the cost of doing business, it's already figured in, and with the hope and expectation that some of the stuff will sell over time, there's no reason to then go back and pay even more just because an expected part of the process eventually comes into being unless you're just feeling generous.

The fact is that the average real live high end model test will generally have almost no commercial value as stock for advertising anyway. And the average, or even above average MM,OMP, or other web modeling style shoot has far, far less chance than the average lottery ticket of hitting a jackpot.

Stock for advertising, that has any real chance (by and large), comes from commercial jobs or from dedicated stock shoots with pretty specific goals in mind done by experienced commercial or stock shooters who know and study the market, and, or are getting specific input from stock agency art directors or editors. They are often as involved and fully produced as full blown large ad shoots. Virtually none of them will produce work that looks anything remotely like anything found on 99.9993% of MM/OMP portfolios

Posted by CO Model Amber: 
You have to discuss selling any of the photos with the model.

False.  If a model release has been signed by the model allowing the sale the model has no say.  This includes TFP.  If the model has chosen barter for payment then it can be considered a done deal, no other discussion or compensation is required.

Posted by Aaron_H: 

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

Posted by theda: 
It is my understanding that registration is NOT required to bring a copryright infringment suit.  Registration provides a quick, easy proof of authroship and broadens your copyright protection so you can recieve punitive damages rathe rthan just actual damages.

Correct.

No, incorrect. I'm sorry but you must register your copyright to sue for infringement, look it up. It's not really that relevant because the relevant part is to register prior to the infringement because that's a preventative measure if your clients or others know you've registered, or it's the "club" that puts you in strong negotiating position when looking to settle with or just bill an infringer. In most cases, without a timely registration there is little risk to the average infringer, he knows you're not likely to get more than he should have paid for the usage in the first place and that there is little chance of being sued due to the costs of filing a federal copyright suit along with the attorney fees. It would be a losing proposition unless it was a slam dunk case with very major usage where the original fee would have been substantial and the profits were substantial. But if it's a good case and the images were properly registered then an attorney might be willing to take it on contingency.

But yes, as a procedural matter, registering the work is a required prerequisite to file a copyright suit. There was even a major case recently that was thrown out because the moron didn't register before filing.

You may want to leave replying to the original query to those of us who actually work in the industry.  Weekend photographers providing information on message boards serves no one.  I'm sure you were just trying to help.