Forums >
General Industry >
Model Release's......
OK...so i'm sure this is gonna spark up all kinds of Model vs Photographer debates.....but i don't want a bitching match here...just some professional and valid responses please. ...I have done a few shoots since arriving in LA...some professional and some, through MM, not...., so.... ...Since i was used to doing professional work through my agencies in London and Milan, they usually took care of all the legalities of model release's etc....I just turn up and give my best on the day...but since doing some work with photogs on MM i have only signed one model release with one photog, but have shot with several others who I've NOT sign any release with. I suppose it's a little slack on mine and the photographers part to not sign a release of some kind, but i've been very selective with the people i've shot with and been friends with most of them so haven't really worried too much till now.... ...a couple of situations have arisen making we wonder what my 'legal rights to my image' are....I plead the 5th with the details in order to protect myself and others etc...... ....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... May 20 06 12:39 pm Link You will receive a slew of responses, and I predict that only two will be correct, and one will be rude, though correct. The very short answer: a release is, generally, a document that conveys rights to the photographer, and a waiver of rights that the model would normally have, again to the benefit of the photographer. An example, but not the only one, might be a waiver of rights regarding usage and potential libel claims as a result of usage. Please note that I have not mentioned "copyright" here. If you care, I stronly advise you to seek the advice of an attorney who specializes in the area. It is money well-spent. There are also a number of very good books, written by industry professionals, that give a good grounding in the issues regarding releases, contracts, assignments, and their ilk. EDIT: I already see incorrect responses to you, below. I reiterate - consult with an attorney if you want advice you can rely on. This is not legal advice. May 20 06 12:49 pm Link The photographer can use your images in his/her portfolio without a release.....he/she can't sell the images May 20 06 01:03 pm Link This list will give you many threads related to this topic. List of copyright arguements and discussions https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=45764 And the search for release https://modelmayhem.com/search.php?sear … mit=Search The list of release threads, samples, questions. https://modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=48869 May 20 06 01:05 pm Link 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 only release to be signed at that time is a release asking the model permission to use the photos, and rates for usage can be negotiated at that time. Now, if you don't pay for the photos, then it is the photographers responsibilty to get a realease form signed by the model. This would then give him ownership and rights to the pics. Even so, make sure you check out the usage. Never sign over FULL rights even if it is a TFP. You do have some rights as to where you pics are placed. You don't want them on anything that might degrade your character as a model. Check out the laws in your local area. That is the only TRUE way to know. Shawn. May 20 06 01:17 pm Link Shawn Ray wrote: 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. May 20 06 01:26 pm Link Copyright law in the United States is fairly clear that once a photographer clicks the shutter, he/she owns the copyrights to that photograph he/she produced. So, unless another agreement is signed that supercedes basic copyright law (Such as work-for-hire agreements), the default ownership of the goes to the photographer, not the model. Usage of the image is a matter entirely different than copyright ownership. The model might not own the photograph, but he/she owns the her own image (any sort of depiction/likeness of his/her face, body parts, etc. -- whatever might reasonably identify her to a viewer). This is called rights to publicity. Because of the model's rights to publicity, no one may use his/her image for commercial speech (First amendment rights of the photograph trump the model's rights to publicity) 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). Commercial speech (such as advertisements, commercial products -- like using photo on a mug, etc) is not protected by the first amendment. Therefore, the model's rights to publicity trump the photographer's ability to use the image commercially. So, without a signed model release, the photographer cannot use the image commercially. Now, a model's usage of the same images requires the photographer's consent, because the model does not own the image. That consent is something that is determined at the time of the shoot. If the model paid the photographer, the model might have the rights to use the image, but certainly doesn't have the rights to own the image without a signed agreement to that effect. This is by no means to be considered legal advice. This is simply the understanding and application of the law by a humble photographer. I hope it makes some sense to someone. May 20 06 01:42 pm Link danzfotog wrote: I have read that statement so many times. It has been argued by so many as well. May 20 06 02:20 pm Link I was on my way to don my legal hat but had to pass the fridge and remembered there was beer in there! I was gonna write some long complex explanation on rights and law but the beer would bee too warm by the time I was done....so here's the short version....again!! Who pays who is irrelevent!! 99% of the time! If the model pays the photographer for the shoot AND draws up and has a signed contract by both parties that she will have all copyrights after the shoot then she will own the copyright! That's the 1% exception. Unless the contract states the model is to recieve the copyright well then it dosen't matter who pays who! It's remains the property of the photogrpaher. 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) He can't use images without a contract for things such as a national ad campaign for Pepsi, firstly because the law says so and secondly and most importantly no major company worth their salt is going to use an image without a contract no matter how good it is) Heres an example to simplify it: He uses a picture of a young woman for a national ad on teenage pregnancy, he need's a release! That same image in a magazine used to illustrate an article about teenage pregnancy and he dosen't need a release? Get it? I'm no lawyer, (but did date one for six years, my legal costs went through the roof when I dumped her) and I know I'm going to get a whole flurry of experts rebuking me and arguing this post but please remember all I write about is all I know. My advice comes from long cold experience and to date I have not managed to break one law in the US or UK by following these guidelines. (And yes a couple of them have made it before a judge and ended in my favor) Without the further details as to your situaion specifics no one here can help you in any real depth the only advice I offer is to make sure a release is always present and signed and both parties understand it. Many newbee photographers try to avoid a release feeling that it gives away the photographers rights when the opposite is the case and it actually protects the photographers rights! Good Luck! May 20 06 02:38 pm Link Darren Green wrote: This is an oft-repeated mis-statement. It's commercial USAGE that is prohibited without permission, not commercial GAIN. May 20 06 05:52 pm Link JOEY G. wrote: 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. May 20 06 06:02 pm Link 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.....? May 20 06 06:04 pm Link JOEY G. 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. May 20 06 06:09 pm Link bang bang photo 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. May 20 06 06:33 pm Link no release is better for me May 20 06 07:37 pm Link Ryan6663 wrote: errrr...thanks?..... May 21 06 01:36 am Link Shawn Ray 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. May 22 06 09:28 am Link Cardillo Photography wrote: 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. May 22 06 09:37 am Link 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! May 23 06 01:50 am Link Anjel Britt wrote: 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. May 23 06 08:42 am Link I'd just like to note in r.e. the couple of mentions of verbal agreements, they're generally not worth the paper they're written on. If it's not in writing (and witnessed or better yet notarized, just look at that poor guy whose life Cameron Diaz ruined) it never happened. May 23 06 08:54 am Link Alan from Aavian Prod 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. 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. . . May 23 06 08:59 am Link Occasionally I photograph attorneys for various reasons usually for their author photos in a Law review or Journal. All have been happy with the release I supplied to them. However, this was not always the case. Back in 2000 I was circulating a release that was invalid. This posed major problems as I couldn't sell the work. I had an attorney knowledgable in the field create four releases for me. One is for test shoots where I don't own the photos. The second is for most of my work. The third is a property release. Obviously since I paid for...I'm not posting them. However, some agencies allow you to download their releases and customize them. My advice is to spend the money and have an attorney draw something up if you plan to sell the images. In the back of PDN you can occasionally find attorney advertisements specifically geared to the photogrpahic industry. If you want to spend some serious money and get something iron clad contact the IP department at http://www.wilmerhale.com. Best of luck May 23 06 09:18 am Link bang bang photo 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! May 23 06 10:25 am Link Anjel Britt wrote: 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. May 23 06 11:06 am Link Anjel Britt wrote: 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... May 26 06 06:39 pm Link bang bang photo wrote: 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. May 26 06 08:14 pm Link unless you can just simply communicate something to the friend - it's not a friend. And the resentment will still be there that you never expressed. How about taking a gentle line on it and just saying, like you feel ''a bit'' taken for granted? It would do the ego good maybe...just a small reality check! xox May 29 06 02:17 am Link |