Shyly wrote:
She is attempting to shaft you.  No way would any photographer I know sign that, particularly after having paid the model in question for her time.  In the future, always discuss these things before any photographs are taken.

Exactly! I take it you didn't get a release of your own signed at some point before or immediately after the shoot?

FROM PE WEBSITE:
I guess some photographers are not happy about our drive to get them to trade fairly for prints. TFP means Time for Prints. We believe if a photographer and a model work together without payment to each other, then the raw unedited prints or digital images should be the copyright of them both.

Traditionally, the photographer, by law, has natural copyright to all photographs he takes of a model, even when she is unpaid. We develped a FAIR-TRADE TFP to give both photgrapher and model equal rights. A few photographers resent this and often try to find ways to put this project down because of it.

Some photographers just don't like me (mol smith) and they are perfectly welcome to their personal views about me, but I will not accept any slander towards my objectives or aims of this project.

Studio36

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
I don't get it!

Don't you see?  This is junior high school!  All of these people pretending to be models and photographers are junior high school kids  This is MySpace: with boobies.

Tim Little Photography wrote:
Here is the release in full (Except for names) Also, the model is NOT on MM.


All parties are hereby notified that, in accordance with United States and international copyright law, all rights provided under copyright belong to both parties (model and company/ photographer). These rights never expire and may be assigned to any party at any time at the models sole discretion.


While this release covers several scenarios, I understand that this document does not limit the rights of the model or her assignees or licensees. If any portion of this agreement is held to be invalid, legal action will be taken in full force and effect.

This is a rather interesting document not written by a lawyer:

1. It tries to claim a dual copyright, but says the model may assign at their discretion. You can't do that when two people own a copyright. Both must agree to the sale or transfer of the copyright.

2. The document limits the use for both, but not the assignees or licensees? That's very confusing and incorrect for a contract.

3. The "portion of this agreement is held to be invalid" is usually followed by "the rest of the agreement shall be held valid". Legal action will be taken in full force.... after that doesn't really make sense.

You don't have to sign it. Reminds me two real life instances.

A. Local bank offered a great intro rate to get new customers. My friend, a finacial manager for a doctors group went immediately and deposited a rather large amount at the intro rate. The bank called later and told him they made a mistake - the intro rate was not for commercial customers with such huge deposits, could he please come down to the bank and they would change the deposit for the normal rate. My friend agreed and said yes, he would be back - two years hence when the intro rate period expired to take his deposit and the interest out.

B. I bought a car at a dealer for what I thought was a good deal. The dealer called later and said the finance company couldn't complete the deal because the amount was about $1,000 less than they could process for that loan but if I added some acessories to make up the difference, they could complete it. I replied that I had a signed contract for the deal - were they telling me they wanted to switch a valid contract to bump up the loan price? They hung up.

How did you pay this model? I hope by check or you got a reciept or release. But after the fact contracts - (especially badly written ones) you don't have to sign. You own the copyright. They're trying to change the conditions after the fact. Tough nookies, if they can even find a lawyer to take this case.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
This is a rather interesting document not written by a lawyer:

1. It tries to claim a dual copyright, but says the model may assign at their discretion. You can't do that when two people own a copyright. Both must agree to the sale or transfer of the copyright.

Only on this point will I disagree... JOINT ownership can allow, and generally does in law, BOTH parties to act independently as long as the actions of one [e.g. issuing an exclusive license] does not prejudice the right(s) of the other. If a profit is realised by one it must be shared, as of right, with the other but both may still act independently in nearly any respect with the part/percentage they own.

Copyright is a property right... exactly as with any property one owns... it can be given away; sold; ect... and survives the death of the owner passing to their estate or inheritors. None of those things REQUIRES the consent of the other owner(s) of a joint copyright.

Studio36

EDIT: Even without a release the OP has more rights in the image(s) [as first owner of the copyright] if he DOESN'T sign this nonsense. It's an invitation to a court battle over some real or imageined slight against the model.

Tim Little Photography wrote:
...should I sign it or should I just say no thanks.

Just say no (forget the thanks).

RED Photographic wrote:
Just say no (forget the thanks).

I would have a less polite response RED... probably because I'm older and don't tolerate stupidity in business dealings.

Studio36

Dredful Jaymz wrote:
If you paid you own. If she paid she owns.

Sounds like she's wanting all the cake and eating it, too. Too bad she'll have to purge in order to keep working. LOL

"If you paid you own. If she paid she owns."

Dear Dredful,

Not according to the United States Copyright laws. The law is crystal clear on this matter. It states that if you push the button you are the creator of that image & you own all of the rights to that image. The exception to this law is if the work was “Work for Hire” and this must be in writing. A paid model test is not work for hire unless it is in writing.

I shoot advertising where clients pay me thousands of dollars for a days work. They do not own the photographs, I do! I have never given all rights to any of my clients and I’m not planning on it. All of my work is used in accordance to a usage contract.

“Sounds like she's wanting all the cake and eating it, too.”

Now here you are correct.

Steve Thornton
http://www.stevethornton.com

Tim Little Photography wrote:
I did a shoot a couple of weeks ago with a wonderful model, I contacted her to see if she was interested, she sent me her rate and schedule. I agreed to pay her what she asked and we had a very productive shoot, she is an excellent model.

By email I received a copy of a release she wants me to sign that gives her all rights to the image and I can only used them with her permission for self-promotion. The release also prevents me from altering any of the photos. I Photoshop just about everything. We never discussed this before the shoot, should I sign it or should I just say no thanks.

Here is the release in full (Except for names) Also, the model is NOT on MM.



All parties are hereby notified that, in accordance with United States and international copyright law, all rights provided under copyright belong to both parties (model and company/ photographer). These rights never expire and may be assigned to any party at any time at the models sole discretion. It is to be acknowledged that any copies of photographs provided to both parties are for archival and self promotion purposes only and may not be exhibited, copied, printed, altered, distributed, sold, leased, loaned, or recreated for any purpose other than self promotion (as in a modeling or website portfolio). Any and all copies and reproductions of these photographs must contain the approval of both parties. Also any uses other then previously agreed upon (pictures on websites) need approval by both parties or the contract is breached.

The photographer or licensees may not alter or retouch any of these photographs without my permission, prior approval, or consent. In all cases of picture exposure both the name and website of the model and Photographer/ Company must be provided either accompanying in the picture or below the picture. (credit must be given on sites for both parties)

While this release covers several scenarios, I understand that this document does not limit the rights of the model or her assignees or licensees. If any portion of this agreement is held to be invalid, legal action will be taken in full force and effect.

I have read this model release form carefully and fully understand its meanings and implications.

So this woman is hired by you and now, after the fact, wants you to share the copyright ownership? The gall of this person!

Tell your model friend that you are not interested in giving your rights to her. Tell her according to the United States Copyright law if you push the button you are the creator of that image & you own all of the rights to that image. The exception to this law is if the work was “Work for Hire” and this must be in writing. A paid model test is not work for hire unless it is in writing.

I shoot advertising where clients pay me thousands of dollars for a days work. They do not own the photographs, I do! I have never given all rights to any of my clients and I’m not planning on it. All of my work is used in accordance to a usage contract.

You hold all the cards here. You can send her a letter back saying that since you paid her and since you are the legal owner of the copyright that she may only use the images with your permission. At this point you can either charge her a licensing fee or say you don’t want her to use any of your images. They belong to you! The US Copyright laws state this in no uncertain terms.

What I would do is to send the model a nice letter stating that she:
May use all photographs of yours for her modeling only, she may use the images for her portfolio, comp card & modeling web site only. Further more she may not sell, license, give any of your images to anyone without the express written consent from the copyright holder (That your be you) or allow any third party to use any of the images. The exception would be photos to family & friends, but again they are allow to use the images for personal use only. At no time can this limited copyright release be transferred to any third party without the express written consent by & fee paid to the copyright holder.

Next time you pay a model, get them to sign a model release. In fact I would ask every model you shoot to sign a model release, paid or not. Make sure it is a major release and not one of the ones you can buy at a photo store that has a few lines on it. Every photo on my web site is released with the exception of 2 or 3 models.

Steve Thornton
http://www.stevethornton.com