Shawn Ray wrote:
If you pay for the pics... you own them PERIOD!

I must respectfully disagree. As a mundane example, do you have children? Have you ever had school photos taken? If so, you will note that while you paid for the pictures, the copyright remains with the photographer/company.

If you truly believe what you said to be true, might I suggest you consult an attorney versed in this field?

danzfotog wrote:
Under basic first amendment law, the photographer can use the image he/she produced for artistic, editorial and educational purposes, without a signed release. This includes using the photo in his/her portfolio (whether printed or online).

I have read that statement so many times.  It has been argued by so many as well. 

The right to use an image in an online portfolio will depend on the nature of the use.  Posting to an online portfolio may, in some circumstances be a commercial use and require a release. 

Check out this link:  http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#2

Dan explains releases in pretty clear language.  He is a noted author.

The best advice if you are concerned is to ask a lawyer, not a photographer.  When you sign a release, you are, by and large, protecting the photographer, not the model.  If you expect to be able to use the images yourself, then you need to look at getting a license from the photographer for usage rights.  Some photographers combine both a release and a license into a single document.

The bottom line though is that Chris is right.  You are getting a lot of information in this thread, both right and wrong.

EDIT:  Mhana has also created a thread which lists the various discussions about releases and copyright.  Word to the wise, the posters are not, in general, lawyers.  Take it with a grain of salt, but you will hear a lot of viewpoints on the issue.

Here is the thread:  https://modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=48869

Darren Green wrote:
The photographer can use images without release for exhibit, editorial, and anything else deemed to be NOT for commercial gain!  (commercial gain is a grey area from country to country and only from state to state if you get as far as a court of law and let a judge decide)

Good Luck!

This is an oft-repeated mis-statement. It's commercial USAGE that is prohibited without permission, not commercial GAIN.

So, for example, I can take your picture and sell it to the NY Times for a handsome profit, and that usage would not be prohibited, despite the fact that I received commercial gain. Similarly, if I sell your picture in an art gallery, despite my commercial gain, it's probably OK.

On the other hand, if I take your picture and slap it on the label of my new bang bang photo peanut butter jar, I'd better have your permission to use your image commercially, or in every state and most countries I'm familiar with, you are likely to prevail if you sue me.

In any case, my motto is -- when in doubt, get a release.

JOEY G. wrote:
....So what rights does this leave me with regarding my image and what rights does the photographer have?....My limited understanding is that If NO release is signed then the Photog owns the shots but has to ask the models permission for usage, and if there are commercial gains from the usage then compensation is agreed upon at the time.......

So, the doors are open...

In general, copyright law says that a photographer owns the rights to a photograph he makes, unless he is in a work for hire situation, or otherwise assigns the rights to somebody else.

Privacy law governs the rights of the people who appear in the photographs. In most countries, you must get someone's permission before you use their picture to promote a product or service -- people have the right to choose what they endorse, and to be compensated for that endorsement if they wish. Most countries grant certain exceptions to this rule -- editorial usage, for example. So even if you own the rights to a work in a copyright sense, you do not necessarily automatically own the rights to use the work however you see fit.

So in the commercial photographic world there are typically two legal concerns surrounding picturs that must be addressed -- the photographer must obtain releases for people who appear in his pictures, as well as certain types of property. And then he must grant usage rights to his client so that the client may use the photo as needed.

When granting rights, most of us try to restrict them as much as possible. When receiving rights, most of us try to get as unrestricted rights as possible. Ain't capitalism grand?

Regards,
Paul
PS -- I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. So this isn't legal advice.

JOEY G. wrote:
OK...lots of good info here but a little grey in areas.......say, for example, an image of me that was taken casually with no release was to be used in a book of the photographers work, to be sold comercially.....?

The interesting thing is that it will always be grey. Sometimes it's so grey that reasonable people can't come to any agreement, and it ends up in a courtroom to decide.

In the example you give, putting a photo in a book is considered editorial usage, which in many countries, means a release is not required. There's nothing wrong with commercial gain -- so it's perfectly all right if you make a profit from the sale of the book.

I have heard it argued, however, that once you put the photo on the COVER of the book, that becomes commercial usage, and now, a model release would be required. Not sure if that is true or not, but it sound reasonable to me.

bang bang photo wrote:
The interesting thing is that it will always be grey. Sometimes it's so grey that reasonable people can't come to any agreement, and it ends up in a courtroom to decide.

In the example you give, putting a photo in a book is considered editorial usage, which in many countries, means a release is not required. There's nothing wrong with commercial gain -- so it's perfectly all right if you make a profit from the sale of the book.

I have heard it argued, however, that once you put the photo on the COVER of the book, that becomes commercial usage, and now, a model release would be required. Not sure if that is true or not, but it sound reasonable to me.

The problem is that there are variations on when an image is or is not commercial in nature.  For example, in some states if a photo is destined for a gallery, that might well be considered a work of art which is protected by the first amendment.  Therefore, if you took a copy of the photo and put it on a brochure to sell the work of art, that brochure itself might well be protected.  Take the same photo and put it on a brochure for the gallery, which is a profit making venture, you are now endorsing a product, the gallery.  Potentially that could be commercial use.  The art within the gallery may be protected while the business itself may not.

The same is true of a book.  There are a lot of factors to be considered.  That is why some images in magazines require a release and others do not.  It would take a lawyer with an understanding of the specific facts to give an opinion.  Suffice it to say, that it could go either way depending on the circumstances.

Ryan6663 wrote:
no release is better for me

errrr...thanks?.....

Shawn Ray wrote:
If you pay for the pics... you own them PERIOD!  The photographer has to have permission to use them.  That is why you pay the photographer.  Once payment has been made... you have bought the rights to the photos.  The

Even if you Pay for the photos, you do not have all the rights.  The photographer still owns the copyright.  You CANNOT make copies of the photos, for example.  If when you pay for the photos, you could make copies, then wedding photographers along with cruise lines would not mark the photos as copyrighted.

Cardillo Photography wrote:

Even if you Pay for the photos, you do not have all the rights.  The photographer still owns the copyright.  You CANNOT make copies of the photos, for example.  If when you pay for the photos, you could make copies, then wedding photographers along with cruise lines would not mark the photos as copyrighted.

All of this assumes there is no agreement between the photographer and the model. If there is a verbal or written agreement assigning rights and permissions, than that's what the rights are.

I never shoot a single frame until I hav a signed document that outlines what my ownership rights as a photographer, and what usage rights I am assigning to the model. When I am shooting for a client, they will typically have a similar document for me to sign -- if they don't, then I provide the client with a written transfer of the usage rights that we agreed upon.

Anyway, my point is -- the issue of rights is rarely the default situation. Typically promises are made that constitute an agreement.

Anjel Britt wrote:
However a model who is obviously posing, in the studio, for a photograher might have difficulty getting a judgement that permisson had not been given for use of the photos - especially if that model was in other publications
& if the specific exposure were deemed to be beneficial to the model.
Better to just ask for cash, or percentage?

Not true at all -- it's very common for people to give releases for VERY limited and specific uses -- so when the photo gets used outside of that agreed usage, it is legally actionable. Just because I pose for you doesn't mean that I approve of every possible usage, or even any usage you could make of the pictures.  As far as exposure being "deemed to be beneficial to the model," I would be surprised if that argument holds up. Most states and countries have laws giving individuals the right to control their own publicity, and whether or not you get to use someone's picture turns on their granting permission, not whether some court or individual thinks the unapproved usage benefits the model.

I'm just a photographer who studies a lot -- I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on tv.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

The problem is that there are variations on when an image is or is not commercial in nature.  For example, in some states if a photo is destined for a gallery, that might well be considered a work of art which is protected by the first amendment.  Therefore, if you took a copy of the photo and put it on a brochure to sell the work of art, that brochure itself might well be protected.  Take the same photo and put it on a brochure for the gallery, which is a profit making venture, you are now endorsing a product, the gallery.  Potentially that could be commercial use.  The art within the gallery may be protected while the business itself may not.

The same is true of a book.  There are a lot of factors to be considered.  That is why some images in magazines require a release and others do not.  It would take a lawyer with an understanding of the specific facts to give an opinion.  Suffice it to say, that it could go either way depending on the circumstances.

Good points Alan. As far as getting a lawyer's opinion goes, I've found that to be problematical at best. Lawyers need to cover their ass just like anybody else, so they will typically give you advice that involves completely risk-free behaviour. Unfortunately, in the real business world, anything that gives you an edge over the competition involves some sort of legal risk, so you end up getting advice that will keep you safe, but also broke. Obviously, not always true in all circumstances, but happens often enough to make you question the wisdom of running to a lawyer on every issue. . .

bang bang photo wrote:
''Not true at all - - it's very common for people to give releases for VERY limited and specific uses....''

Whats not true? That people can't make a case? I think you'll find that they CAN, AND DO though I'm not recommending it!
I am not making any blanket statements about releases but referring 2 the OP.There is NO release in this example. (And no wish 2 go to court)

Anjel Britt wrote:

Whats not true? That people can't make a case? I think you'll find that they CAN, AND DO though I'm not recommending it!
I am not making any blanket statements about releases but referring 2 the OP.There is NO release in this example. (And no wish 2 go to court)

I was just making the point that just because you stand in front of a camera, doesn't automatically mean that you approve of or grant all possible usages of the pictures that are taken. I don't believe, for example, that there is an assumption on the part of the law that allowing your picture to be taken carries with it automatic implied rights to then use those pictures for commercial advertising. If there is no release, then it's a "he said/she said" issue, but the model still has the right to control how her image is used for publicity.

Anjel Britt wrote:
In addition to the public / private shot thing... people can always make a case, after printing of the book, that they didnt agree to usage (and if theres no proof of agreement one could make a case, even if there had been a verbal agreement)
Might be fun, publicity, scandal! (if you didnt want to be friends anymore)
lOl
However a model who is obviously posing, in the studio, for a photograher might have difficulty getting a judgement that permisson had not been given for use of the photos - especially if that model was in other publications
& if the specific exposure were deemed to be beneficial to the model.
Better to just ask for cash, or percentage?

;-)

or else refuse now and not be in book?
I dont think so - better to chase the Covers for cash!

I gave no release for this shot...it wasn't even a planned shoot in a studio....it was an impromtu shoot at a location.....next i learn it's gonna be in a book. There was no question of 'Joe, do you mind me useing you in the book?'...it was...'that shot is in the book'....I will personally, get nothing, exposure wise, that could benefit me, from being in this book...

...But if i say anything regarding this matter...I know the friendship will be over....but i guess i'm just a little pissed at the fact that no permission was EVER asked...it was just assumed, in fact, i don't even think it matters to him one way or the other what the model thinks...he will use the image anyway....so it is an ego thing....really....i guess some photographers are just out there believing that models will be happy to shoot with them for nothing, in fact will pay to shoot with them and feel 'Honored' to be in their book...so nothing ever gets said on the matter.....
I know this is true of several photogs on MM who have released books using models that were never paid for the session or any money's paid from the commercial returns of the publication.
I have been in situations in the past were i have willingly, and stupidly, signed a model release for a library shoot...been paid $150 and since then seen the image on the cover of several magazines...(the first image on my port)...

...I guess photographers are given this cushion and status by a wealth of choice of beautiful models willing to work with them at any cost..for pictures, kudos, etc.....

....I guess i have to make a choice between friendship and principal.....but then would a real friend take blatent advantage of another friends good faith?....

bang bang photo wrote:
Good points Alan. As far as getting a lawyer's opinion goes, I've found that to be problematical at best. Lawyers need to cover their ass just like anybody else, so they will typically give you advice that involves completely risk-free behaviour.

The job of a lwayer is to help yo minimize risk.  It is not to help you skirt the edge.  So I understand exactly what you are saying.

The bottom line though is that a lawyer will tell you what you need to know to generally avoid liability.  How you interpret their advice and how much closer to the line you travel is up to you alone.

What you would like is for a lawyer to advise you how to skirt the rules.