AJ Bella wrote:
Is it as safe and legit as signing one face to face? And why are you photogs so damn meticulous about "said" photos?

I accepted ONE release via snail mail after the fact and that is only because I already had seen the persons signature and knew the person to begin with, otherwise its in person only. As for "said photos" that means "the photographs covered by this release".

AJ Bella wrote:
Is it as safe and legit as signing one face to face?

Good question.

Add in if you left out a part,  want to add something or change something,  Or lost the release but cannot travel just to sign a release.

ArtisticDigitalImages wrote:
The best model release is one you have time and capacity to read and understand.

If the terms are unreasonable think how much time, effort, and overexposure you save.

Model releases are 90% about safety for the photographer and not too much about safety for the model.

This I've noticed. Most releases I have read could care less about the model's rights but that's the nature of the game right?

I've read enough to know what to look out for. But receiving one through an email today was quite new to me.

ArtisticDigitalImages wrote:
Model releases are 90% about safety for the photographer and not too much about safety for the model.

Model releases are 100% about the safety for the publisher.

The only thing a model release does--or can do--is to release the rights to publicity and privacy of the model.  It allows the model's image to be released for publication.  That's it.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Model releases are 100% about the safety for the publisher.

The only thing a model release does--or can do--is to release the rights to publicity and privacy of the model.  It allows the model's image to be released for publication.  That's it.

Well, not necessarily - unless we are talking about the generic "Standard Model Release" available on the web, in books, tear-off pads, etc.

True, the point of the release is mostly to protect the photographer's rights. However, as with all contracts, they can be customized to say whatever either party wants them to say and is agreeing to.

As as example, I shoot a tremendous amount of nude figure. For various reasons, many of the models do not want to be identifiable in the images. I have a a release customized for this purpose, one that guarantees the model's anonymity.

FWIW -

Bill Ballard
Blue Water Photography
Savannah, GA
[email protected]

AJ Bella wrote:
Most releases I have read could care less about the model's rights ...

It is a release of model's rights.

Blue Water Photography wrote:
As as example, I shoot a tremendous amount of nude figure. For various reasons, many of the models do not want to be identifiable in the images. I have a a release customized for this purpose, one that guarantees the model's anonymity.

Which raises a question, Bill, one I've asked myself: if the model is unidentifiable in the image, why is a release necessary?

vanWingo wrote:

AJ Bella wrote:
Most releases I have read could care less about the model's rights ...

It is a release of model's rights.



Which raises a question, Bill, one I've asked myself: if the model is unidentifiable in the image, why is a release necessary?

Good point -

I suppose it could be that such a release simply makes them feel more secure about the shoot and assures them that I'll keep my part of the bargain....other than that, it is, more or less, a "standard" release.

Bill Ballard
Blue Water Photography
Savannah, GA
[email protected]

AJ Bella wrote:
Is it as safe and legit as signing one face to face? And why are you photogs so damn meticulous about "said" photos?

Before usurping AJ Bella's thread entirely, and though I'm not an attorney, yes, a facsimile signature is just as legal as an original.

Blue Water Photography wrote:
I suppose it could be that such a release simply makes them feel more secure about the shoot and assures them that I'll keep my part of the bargain....other than that, it is, more or less, a "standard" release.

I agree, though model's maximum security would seem to exist in the absence of any release.

vanWingo wrote:

AJ Bella wrote:
Most releases I have read could care less about the model's rights ...

It is a release of model's rights.



Which raises a question, Bill, one I've asked myself: if the model is unidentifiable in the image, why is a release necessary?

Because the average person on the street could see the model (face) and the photo and not know they were the same person. On the other hand, the models' SO can recognize the distinct mole shaped like Kentucky a half-inch above her labia. You hve to be protected from that.

AJ Bella wrote:
Is it as safe and legit as signing one face to face?

If you express clearly that you agree to a contract, then that agreement may be held to be legally binding.  But without your signature there is greater room for dispute.  An email agreement is therefore little stronger than a verbal agreement would be. 

My own business practice is to post a copy of a general modeling agreement on my website so that potential models can read it before they book with me.  My modeling agreement tells what the model will be asked to do, what compensation she'll get, what the photos may be used for and how the copyrights will be distributed.

After a booking is arranged, I email out copies of a shoot-specific agreement so the client and models have time to review it in detail before the shoot.  On the day of the shoot, before the shoot begins, I sit down with all parties and go through every paragraph of the agreement verbally, explaining what each clause means, since some people don't read carefully.  Once all questions are answered and all is agreed to, I sign the agreement and all other parties sign the agreement.  Any missing signature means no shoot.

Everyone gets a paper copy of the agreement immediately after signing.  I file my paper copy, but I also scan it and keep it with the image files from the shoot so that whenever I want to use an image I can quickly review the photo rights. 

I have recently begun including the scanned agreement on models' photo disks too, because I've learned that models often misplace their copies of the modeling agreement.

AJ Bella wrote:
why are you photogs so damn meticulous about "said" photos?

Dispute, or at least confusion, over image use and photo rights comes up more often than one would expect, and so I've found that clearly written modeling agreements are always necessary, even in cases where you'd think they wouldn't be.

Vito wrote:
On the other hand, the models' SO can recognize the distinct mole shaped like Kentucky a half-inch above her labia. You hve to be protected from that.

Perhaps, provided that the person who wants her nude modeling kept secret is willing to provide public evidence that she is the subject of the photograph.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:
I always send my release/contract via email before the shoot so the model has time to read, understand, and ask questions before the shoot.  I don't want to waste my time with someone who is going to show up to the shoot, read the release, and refuse to sign it.  My release covers both the photographer's right to the images and the intended compensation to the model (usually digital images, sometimes prints).

This seems to me to be an excellent approach, and it points out the problem I have with the OP's question.  Why is sending someone a release in email a problem?

Blue Water Photography wrote:
True, the point of the release is mostly to protect the photographer's rights. However, as with all contracts, they can be customized to say whatever either party wants them to say and is agreeing to.

Well, yes they can.  However, on that theory you could also include a time share condominium rental, sale of your house, and power of attorney all in the same document as the part ceding rights from the model to the photographer.  You could, in fact, put anything you want in there, as long as both parties agree to it.

But when you do that, it's not a "model release" any more, it's something else, which just happens to also incorporate some of the features of a release into it.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Model releases are 100% about the safety for the publisher.

The only thing a model release does--or can do--is to release the rights to publicity and privacy of the model.  It allows the model's image to be released for publication.  That's it.

Brian -- your argument is 100% correct -- assuming that the model release is a pure model release, with no other language in it. But the fact is in the real world, there are a lot of photographers who include additional language, such as a release of limited usage rights to the model. So in these cases, even though it may be titled "model release," it is much more. We could argue all day long whether this is a good practice or not, but it is a common one.

So I think your point is a bit technical. The truth is, a lot of "model releases" do in fact assign certain rights to the model.

Blue Water Photography wrote:
Well, not necessarily - unless we are talking about the generic "Standard Model Release" available on the web, in books, tear-off pads, etc.

True, the point of the release is mostly to protect the photographer's rights. However, as with all contracts, they can be customized to say whatever either party wants them to say and is agreeing to.

As as example, I shoot a tremendous amount of nude figure. For various reasons, many of the models do not want to be identifiable in the images. I have a a release customized for this purpose, one that guarantees the model's anonymity.

FWIW -

Bill Ballard
Blue Water Photography
Savannah, GA
[email protected]

In my release I state that no images will be used in adult related material (porn sites or mags), this is more to put the model at ease than anything else since I dont shoot nudes.

It also says that I will give the model a CD and contact sheet or prints within 2 weeks after the shoot. After hearing all the stories about photographers not giving models there images on this site I thought it would be a good idea.

bang bang photo wrote:

Brian -- your argument is 100% correct -- assuming that the model release is a pure model release, with no other language in it. But the fact is in the real world, there are a lot of photographers who include additional language, such as a release of limited usage rights to the model. So in these cases, even though it may be titled "model release," it is much more. We could argue all day long whether this is a good practice or not, but it is a common one.

So I think your point is a bit technical. The truth is, a lot of "model releases" do in fact assign certain rights to the model.

a poster answered this:

There are three distinct forms/legal documents associated with a model shooting (in general):

1. COPYRIGHT FORM: Not always filled and filed, but is should be. This protects the image and the photographers' rights to the image.

2. MODEL RELEASE: Gives the photographer (et al) the right to use/sell the images of the model.

3. LICENSING AGREEMENT: Gives the model the right to print/use the images as she needs.

Number 1 is a Goverment form and there is no altering. For Two & Three, there are standard forms out there, but almost every photographer has there own "tweaked" version, which is fine as long as they don't contradict the others.

vanWingo wrote:

AJ Bella wrote:
Is it as safe and legit as signing one face to face? And why are you photogs so damn meticulous about "said" photos?

Before usurping AJ Bella's thread entirely, and though I'm not an attorney, yes, a facsimile signature is just as legal as an original.



I agree, though model's maximum security would seem to exist in the absence of any release.

hmmm...i was always under the impression that a Fax signature cannot stand up in court....

bang bang photo wrote:

Brian -- your argument is 100% correct -- assuming that the model release is a pure model release, with no other language in it. But the fact is in the real world, there are a lot of photographers who include additional language, such as a release of limited usage rights to the model. So in these cases, even though it may be titled "model release," it is much more. We could argue all day long whether this is a good practice or not, but it is a common one.

So I think your point is a bit technical. The truth is, a lot of "model releases" do in fact assign certain rights to the model.

Sure,  If the items are combined into one sheet of paper which is often done then it is about what is stated.   This is like the TFP police fighting over the rules of TFP.
If it is a written agreement then the rights are based on what is written and what is agreed upon.

If an agreement is written including restating that the photographer has copyright's to the photos,  a release for use of the photos for an agreed upon usage, and agreement giving the model rights to use the image in agreed upon places,  all based on agreed upon compensation then it is an agreement.   

Also if a model release is very restrictive to the photographer then if fact by default does protect the rights of the model.

If a photographer writes or has to change a model release to limit the photographer to a small area of use then it does protect the model.

If the model release states that I can only use the image in my studio(physical) and my print book while limiting usage to sell the image commercial, editorially,  and even on the web then in fact the model release does give rights and protects the model.   This is true if both parties involved sign and recieve a copy.

Not sure of the OP's question.

But When are emails considered to be agreeing to something for even verbal agreement(though hard to prove) are considered legal.

If we email back and forth agreeing to something.   At what point is this a legal agreement.
Signature by fax.  By Scan.   By messenger.

I will have to ask some of my lawyer friends but the two parties are not always in the same place when signing to something or agreeing to something.

As stated above and the discussion in the stylist section is discussing,  what is needed for an agreement to be legal if you want to change the agreement later on even if the agreement was verbal or if you have a release and want to change part of it then what needs to be done if the two parties cannot meet in person?

Marksora wrote:

bang bang photo wrote:
But When are emails considered to be agreeing to something for even verbal agreement(though hard to prove) are considered legal.

If we email back and forth agreeing to something.   At what point is this a legal agreement.
Signature by fax.  By Scan.   By messenger.

I will have to ask some of my lawyer friends but the two parties are not always in the same place when signing to something or agreeing to something.

i think this is the point of the OP

Marksora wrote:
If a photographer writes or has to change a model release to limit the photographer to a small area of use then it does protect the model.

Yes, but . . .

It "protects the model" only in the limited sense that it fails to give away more of her rights than it otherwise might.  However, signing a release (assuming that it is "a release", and not a document including the kitchen sink and claiming to be a release) does not in any way give the model better protection than signing nothing at all, no matter how restrictive the release is.

TXPhotog wrote:

Yes, but . . .

It "protects the model" only in the limited sense that it fails to give away more of her rights than it otherwise might.  However, signing a release (assuming that it is "a release", and not a document including the kitchen sink and claiming to be a release) does not in any way give the model better protection than signing nothing at all, no matter how restrictive the release is.

If the release stated that I could never use the image on the web,  or for editorial/educational use and only for a print portfolio then it would be more restrictive then not signing it at all.  Whatever you want to call it?

images by elahi wrote:
hmmm...i was always under the impression that a Fax signature cannot stand up in court....

Again, I'm not an attorney; however, I understand that the U.S. Code finds acceptable "... the autographic or facsimile signature of persons authorized ...".

For example, share (stock) certificates issued by corporations (General Electric has issued millions of them) bear the facsimile signatures of the corporation's secretary and transfer agent.  And a more familiar example, payroll checks.  Large corporations issue thousands of them every month, all bearing facsimile signatures.

Blue Water Photography wrote:
As as example, I shoot a tremendous amount of nude figure. For various reasons, many of the models do not want to be identifiable in the images. I have a a release customized for this purpose, one that guarantees the model's anonymity.

vanWingo wrote:
Which raises a question, Bill, one I've asked myself: if the model is unidentifiable in the image, why is a release necessary?

Which is a valid point.  It seems to me that a release guaranteeing that a model is not identifiable at all in not a release but a consent by the model to pose nude if her identity is undisclosed.

I happen to think you are right.  A release is generally not required if a model can't be identified, so this is merely a promise by the photographer to do conceal her identity.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
A release is generally not required if a model can't be identified

You know better than this Alan.  A model is entitled to copyrights in photographs she participates in, even if she is not identifyable.  After all, how many photographers are identifyable from their photographs?  A photographer who wants to ensure his rights will obtain a release whenever possible.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
. . . so this is merely a promise by the photographer to do conceal her identity.

If there is anything I have learned from photographing nudes is to never promise a model that her identity will be concealed.  I simply don't make promises that I can't ensure.

vanWingo wrote:
Again, I'm not an attorney; however, I understand that the U.S. Code finds acceptable "... the autographic or facsimile signature of persons authorized ...".

For example, share (stock) certificates issued by corporations (General Electric has issued millions of them) bear the facsimile signatures of the corporation's secretary and transfer agent.  And a more familiar example, payroll checks.  Large corporations issue thousands of them every month, all bearing facsimile signatures.

hey if the US Codes say that contracts and agreements are enforcable under those circumstances then that's the answer...is that what it says?

vanWingo wrote:

Again, I'm not an attorney; however, I understand that the U.S. Code finds acceptable "... the autographic or facsimile signature of persons authorized ...".

For example, share (stock) certificates issued by corporations (General Electric has issued millions of them) bear the facsimile signatures of the corporation's secretary and transfer agent.  And a more familiar example, payroll checks.  Large corporations issue thousands of them every month, all bearing facsimile signatures.

The problem is, how do we prove the facsimile signiture was actually done be the model and not someone with access to her email. All she has to do to cast doubt on the release is to say "I didnt sign it, in fct I neveer saw it, maybe my boyfriend did for me".

No, I would no use or accept a release ssent via email.

Doug Lester wrote:

The problem is, how do we prove the facsimile signiture was actually done be the model and not someone with access to her email. All she has to do to cast doubt on the release is to say "I didnt sign it, in fct I neveer saw it, maybe my boyfriend did for me".

No, I would no use or accept a release ssent via email.

exactly

Blue Water Photography wrote:
Good point -

I suppose it could be that such a release simply makes them feel more secure about the shoot and assures them that I'll keep my part of the bargain....other than that, it is, more or less, a "standard" release.

In this case, the release states the photog will keep the image of the model's face (the identifying factor) private -- if they have signed it and she becomes famous.... and the photog decides to sell her photos with her face... she can sue him for breach of contract.

Bill Ballard
Blue Water Photography
Savannah, GA
[email protected]

If the photog signs the model release of his rights to her pictures of not identify or print identifying photos of a nude model and the model becomes very famous... and he then decides to sell the photos, the model has legal recourse.

**sorry, I wrote it in the wrong spot...

vanWingo wrote:

AJ Bella wrote:
Is it as safe and legit as signing one face to face? And why are you photogs so damn meticulous about "said" photos?

Before usurping AJ Bella's thread entirely, and though I'm not an attorney, yes, a facsimile signature is just as legal as an original.



I agree, though model's maximum security would seem to exist in the absence of any release.

This is true, but to really protect the photog from taking and releasing photos he needs a copy of her driver's license with her release proving she is over 18. The problems with Tracy Lord comes to light... you know there are a lot of emails going back and forth online between people that think they are talking to someone that they are in actuality not.

As for the model... I'd be very careful too.

Picture Perfect Makeup wrote:
This is true, but to really protect the photog from taking and releasing photos he needs a copy of her driver's license with her release proving she is over 18. The problems with Tracy Lord comes to light... you know there are a lot of emails going back and forth online between people that think they are talking to someone that they are in actuality not.

As for the model... I'd be very careful too.

If they two parties do meet or have met then knowing who you are supposed to be talking to is known.

If the person you are thinking you are communicating with has a representative doing so and agreeing to issue or even signing things by messenger, email, fax,  or mail is the agreement still valid?

Doug Lester wrote:
The problem is, how do we prove the facsimile signiture was actually done be the model and not someone with access to her email. All she has to do to cast doubt on the release is to say "I didnt sign it, in fct I neveer saw it, maybe my boyfriend did for me".

No, I would no use or accept a release ssent via email.

Of course the authenticity of the document and its signature can be challenged.  And in that case an original signature is preferable to a facsimile.  As I matter of practice, I don't accept facsimile signatures on releases either.