MaryLau wrote:
the photographer doesnt do them

HAHAHHHAhaahhahahahha. .... hhahahah.... haha

*wipes away tears*

Hope you don't mind being part of his 'private' collection of images that he pulls out on long lonely nights.

Okay seriously... a release form (generally) is you giving the photographer permission to use your likeness in his art/photos.  The majority of releases will also include usage rights to said photos.  This would be the most important thing you should be taking into consideration.  Is there something you DON'T want him using the photos for?  Would you mind if he airbushed nipples into your picture and mounted you on a camel and posted it on-line?  The same release protects the photographer from models who think that posting images to on-line portfolios "isn't allowed" etc.

Releases will protect both the model and photographer.  Anyone serious about their work will have a release.  If they don't, they get to deal with all sorts of fun that can arise at a later date.


-PKD

Miss Gi-G-Spot wrote:
Is anyone aware of the Suicide Girls release?
Specificly section 8?

I had to just turn them down because it seems a bit of a Career-Killer

Whatever does it say? I haven't seen it (and I'm really not likely to - I don't have tattoos...)

Miss Gi-G-Spot wrote:
Is it Ok to post it in here?

Or can I send you a screenprint as a message?

Just put up a link to it... or post the text for just that section.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Studio36

[EDIT] Never mind I just read it. The non-compete provision. I am doubtful this could even be enforced in Scots law or British law generally.

They even seem to be having problems enforcing it at home in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuicideGirls

...Many of the former models involved in the 2005 dispute are now involved with the competing sites GodsGirls and Deviant Nation. The owners of both of these sites have been sued by SuicideGirls LLC for hiring models who were allegedly still under contract with SuicideGirls and for allegedly violating SuicideGirls tradmarks. Several former models were also threatened with legal action. As of June 2006, none of SuicideGirls LLC's lawsuits or threatened actions against former models or competing sites has resulted in a victory for the plaintiff....

[FURTHER EDIT] In signing that SG release you [the model] must also be prepared to give them the actual copyright to the images. Unless you are shooting yourself in a mirror you won't own those rights to give them... and for what they reportedly pay [for the photographer's benefit] you won't get them from most photographers in any case.

CapturedImage wrote:
Whatever does it say? I haven't seen it (and I'm really not likely to - I don't have tattoos...)

http://suicidegirls.com/img/Model_Agreement.pdf

Studio36

CapturedImage wrote:
Whatever does it say? I haven't seen it (and I'm really not likely to - I don't have tattoos...)

Basically you sign over your immortal soul & firstborn child to work for SG as a model or as a photographer.

studio36uk wrote:
[FURTHER EDIT] In signing that SG release you [the model] must also be prepared to give them the actual copyright to the images. Unless you are shooting yourself in a mirror you won't own those rights to give them... and for what they reportedly pay [for the photographer's benefit] you won't get them from most photographers in any case.

I have all their stuff for photographers
You sign over EVERYTHING before they even consider paying you, and it's a pittance
More to the point, the way it's worded they could conceivably sue you for ANY other photos you took of that model & try to claim they were covered under the copyright license.
Meh, no thanks.

MaryLau wrote:
New to MM- How important is having a release form and if the photographer doesnt do them should you still do a shoot?  Also if they don't do them should you still bring one.

MaryLau,

This link will explain model releases to you.

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#1

In General: a standard model release is something that is more of a concern for the photographer than the model.  It simply makes it "easier" for him to sell a photograph to a publisher. The photographer owns the photo and can do anything he wants with it or to it - released or unreleased.  The release does not protect you (the model) from anything.  The release doesn't give the photographer anything he doesn't already have, other than your written permission to use or sell your picture - something he can do anyway. The primary purpose of a release is to protect someone who buys the photo from the photographer and wants to "commercially" publish the photo.  A "released" photo is easier to sell than a non-released photo.

-Glenn

DigitalCMH wrote:
I've never used them.  I have no need for them.  I shoot for portfolio purposes only.  On two occassions at a later date for specific projects a release was required and then I had those signed.  With those releases, they were for very specific purposes and the client in question is paranoid enough about legal issues that even if I had my own releases already signed by the model, they would not have accepted them.

How could you not??  You're stuff is awesome and have the potential of ending up all over the net/walls/desktops/even printed.  Would you want to cover your butt a bit?

PK Digital Imaging wrote:
Okay seriously... a release form (generally) is you giving the photographer permission to use your likeness in his art/photos.  The majority of releases will also include usage rights to said photos.  This would be the most important thing you should be taking into consideration.  Is there something you DON'T want him using the photos for?  Would you mind if he airbushed nipples into your picture and mounted you on a camel and posted it on-line?  The same release protects the photographer from models who think that posting images to on-line portfolios "isn't allowed" etc.

Releases will protect both the model and photographer.  Anyone serious about their work will have a release.  If they don't, they get to deal with all sorts of fun that can arise at a later date.

A release has NOTHING to do with giving a model permission to use the images from a photoshoot. Indeed, giving a model permission to use the images is the granting of a license, not the release from liability (which is what a model release actually is).  They are conceptually two different elephants.

Photographers need to understand that.  There is nothing wrong with having a single document which is both a release from the model (giving the photographer permission to use her license) and also a license/usage agreement, granting the model specific rights to use/reproduce copyrighted material, but they are two entirely different things.

For those photographers who do TFP and combine them, I have no problem with that.

So the bottom line, for a model, it is irrelevant to her if she signs a release.  The signing of a release is the giving up of rights.  A release does little or nothing to protect the model.

On the other hand, if you are expecting to have the right to use the photos being provided to you, it is important to get a written usage agreement.  So, as a model, you need the latter, it is up to the photographer to decided if he needs the former.

PK Digital Imaging wrote:

How could you not??  You're stuff is awesome and have the potential of ending up all over the net/walls/desktops/even printed.  Would you want to cover your butt a bit?

Awww shucks, thanks.  Well, the other stuff that's gonna end up out there is low resolution stuff, so I'm not too worried.  I've got the really good files which without MY signature, can't be used commercially.  And I don't know if there is a market for my stuff.  Who wants to buy a bunch of a bikini photos that are a dime a dozen?