Lapis wrote:
no, he needed a release for gallery rights, that is the only time I signed one, when I was paid to give up rights to percentage of prints sold with my image.

Uh, no. You don't need a release to display photos in a gallery nor to sell the same photos. This has been discussed here many many times. He may have thought he needed one or err'd on the safe side just in case, but he didn't need one.

Vegas Alien wrote:
The model mentioned nothing at all about being an agency model.  On the phone, in her message or in her bio. Her bio mentions mostly artistic and nude collaborations. "Collaboration" to me indicates an artistic endeavor that is mutually beneficial with no monetary compansation, and in our initial conversation we agreed to TFCD. My point is that it would have been nice to know her odd request up front, before setting aside studio time.

This may very well be so. I say move on, (like most of us)she is still on the learning curve, just at a different point. Let not the small stuff sweat you.

oldguysrule wrote:
I hate to bore everyone with facts, but in the USA, there is no reason to obtain a model release if its limited in the way the OP specifies. Sign/No-sign it matters not.

Now, what are the terms of the shoot? I suppose the model would like to be able to use the shots as well? Are you providing a (limited) use license? TFP is a trade/barter arrangement in which both parties are compensated with services. The terms of THIS agreement are your concern. Again, in the USA, if you aren't contemplating commercial use (including stock) then you don't NEED a release.

*yawns... growing tired of repeating himself thrice hourly

I am a big fan of model releases and use them whenever possible or viable, but a model release is not necessary for the terms the OP was specifying.

Vito wrote:
Uh, no. You don't need a release to display photos in a gallery nor to sell the same photos. This has been discussed here many many times. He may have thought he needed one or err'd on the safe side just in case, but he didn't need one.

and it seems that the during the many, many discussions you would understand that if the subject is recognizable, then what?  i'll let you answer that.

here's a hint.  model release:  allowing the usage of one's likeness for commercial sale application as in advertisng or image purchase thereof.

--face reality

Vito wrote:

How many errors?

First, if you're shooting nudes you should have a photo(copy) of the models' drivers license (preferably her/he holding it next to their face). It is not illegal, but it will be less of a headache if you can prove that hot young-looking model in the pigtails and checkered skirt with no top on and no panties on is 18 or over. It would be stupid not to have a copy of ID.

TFP does not REQUIRE a release. You can (and should) have a release but it is not required unless you plan on selling the images (to a third party for publication).

Talk about errors, here.....

You can demand a photocopy of the license if you like, but she'd be crazy to provide it.  You don't need it legally.  And no matter how much headache it saves you, it could cause her great headache.

Secondly, in the US, the legal definition of "publish" includes any public display of photos - the web included.  This hasn't changed in 30 years.  So TFP used for self-promotion is defined as a "commercial use".  It needs a release.

FaceReality wrote:

and it seems that the during the many, many discussions you would understand that if the subject is recognizable, then what?  i'll let you answer that.

here's a hint.  model release:  allowing the usage of one's likeness for commercial sale application as in advertisng or image purchase thereof.

--face reality

WRONG. Gallery showings (and subsequent sales) are covered (and protected) under art. With your "if the subject is recognizable" you also wouldn't be able to sell editorial photos without a release too. You see there are exceptions. Gallery shows and editorial are among them as far as releases go.

Luminos wrote:
Talk about errors, here.....

You can demand a photocopy of the license if you like, but she'd be crazy to provide it.  You don't need it legally.  And no matter how much headache it saves you, it could cause her great headache.

Secondly, in the US, the legal definition of "publish" includes any public display of photos - the web included.  This hasn't changed in 30 years.  So TFP used for self-promotion is defined as a "commercial use".  It needs a release.

WRONG! Self promotion is allowed (for both model and photographer) without a model release (and a license for the model) in absence of one. This is especially true with TFP/CD.

Why would a model be crazy to let you copy a license as proof of ID? and why would a photographer in his right mind not require proof of age when shooting nudes?

Luminos wrote:
So TFP used for self-promotion is defined as a "commercial use".  It needs a release.

bullsh*t

Vito wrote:

WRONG. Gallery showings (and subsequent sales) are covered (and protected) under art. With your "if the subject is recognizable" you also wouldn't be able to sell editorial photos without a release too. You see there are exceptions. Gallery shows and editorial are among them as far as releases go.

Again, you need to start getting some good legal advice here.

Any public display is "publishing" under legal terms.  Art galleries are included.

Where the model generally loses is where "implied contracts" get argued.  Why did she permit the photos to be shot, if not to be used.  The winning arguement is, she wasn't paid as agreed.

You are handing out some very bad advice.  The only exception the courts have recognized are those for news and illustration, or fair use.

oldguysrule wrote:

bullsh*t

Right! TFP for self-promotion is NOT commercial use!

oldguysrule wrote:

bullsh*t

'Fraid not.  Talk to a lawyer.

Ragnar wrote:
This is silly, today you need a release and I wont shoot without one. Let her go she is just not worth it.

ditto

Luminos wrote:

Again, you need to start getting some good legal advice here.

Any public display is "publishing" under legal terms.  Art galleries are included.

Where the model generally loses is where "implied contracts" get argued.  Why did she permit the photos to be shot, if not to be used.  The winning arguement is, she wasn't paid as agreed.

You are handing out some very bad advice.  The only exception the courts have recognized are those for news and illustration, or fair use.

bullsh*t

vito is correct... in the USA

Vito wrote:

WRONG! Self promotion is allowed (for both model and photographer) without a model release (and a license for the model) in absence of one. This is especially true with TFP/CD.

Why would a model be crazy to let you copy a license as proof of ID? and why would a photographer in his right mind not require proof of age when shooting nudes?

Self-promotion is called advertising, which is a commercial endevour.

I didn't say the photographer shouldn't require proof.  But demanding a copy of the driver's license is above and beyond.  Seeing it is fine.  Taking down information opens the model to identity theft.

oldguysrule wrote:

bullsh*t

vito is correct... in the USA

Actually, the USA has the most restrictive definition.  He's only correct in the UK.

Luminos wrote:

Again, you need to start getting some good legal advice here.

Any public display is "publishing" under legal terms.  Art galleries are included.

Where the model generally loses is where "implied contracts" get argued.  Why did she permit the photos to be shot, if not to be used.  The winning arguement is, she wasn't paid as agreed.

You are handing out some very bad advice.  The only exception the courts have recognized are those for news and illustration, or fair use.

Maybe in Maryland, but here in America, "any public display" is not publishing.
Gallery showings are protected under some art exception (I'm not going to look it up now, you can feel free to).

And what about the Hassidic man who's image was captured by a "sidewalk photographer". The photog published a book of these images, the man sued and LOST! And that was a commercial usage!

oldguysrule wrote:
I hate to bore everyone with facts, but in the USA, there is no reason to obtain a model release if its limited in the way the OP specifies. Sign/No-sign it matters not.

Now, what are the terms of the shoot? I suppose the model would like to be able to use the shots as well? Are you providing a (limited) use license? TFP is a trade/barter arrangement in which both parties are compensated with services. The terms of THIS agreement are your concern. Again, in the USA, if you aren't contemplating commercial use (including stock) then you don't NEED a release.

*yawns... growing tired of repeating himself thrice hourly

In all honesty, shots obtained from TFP shoots, may very well be marketable. It isn't a good business practice (on the part of the photographer), to let him/herself fall in a rut (by not requiring the model(s) to sign a release. After shooting and showcasing images, which command attention and recognition, allowing for commercial use, he/she must now pursue model(s) to obtain permission to sell or use images for whatever purpose/opportunity that comes along. No signed release does not afford him/her the best negotiati..... know what ? Some things are not to be discussed publicly.  It simply defies logic to be in a public forum disclosing business practices of the profession by which you hope to achieve profits.

This is the reason people go to school - to gain knowledge. If you didn't pay attention during classes, now you expect to obtain information pertinent to your benefit (not directed to oldguysrule)....

Lapis wrote:
This thread is an example of why I don't try to get work from this site.

Then how come you are on here as a model, MUA, stylist and photographer?

Your model bio makes it sound like you are interested in finding others to work with:

"I am mainly on this site to network. I only work with people I consider to be artists. Paid work is given first consideration, but ongoing correspondance is encouraged if you have real interest in working with me.

For photographers interested in doing testing, I consider it on a case by case basis, however, be advised that if you cannot meet my requirements for images and prints I will not work with you. Open to negotiation for film artists. Don't need raw files, but do need copy of ALL images."

In your photographer bio:

"Right now I am looking to work with all different kinds of models, I have several projects I am interested in, and am open to model input for collaborations."

In your stylist bio:

"I love collaborating and can do limited location scouting as well. Basically, you can hire me as a wardrobe stylist, makeup artist, artistic director, etc.

I will consider testing for projects that fascinate me with photographers whose work I admire. Since I do a significant amount of editing as well, I require full sized files of everything we do in all testing situations, and ask for a few edits on paid shoots for promotion purposes only."

Your MUA bio:

"My rates are very reasonable as I am starting out, though I have been told I do makeup better than many who have done it longer. Whatever, all I want to do is further explore the artistry of makeup. I am here to learn, and here to interact with people in the photographic industry in another than the ones I have been doing previously."

I apologize if I am misinterpreting this as well.  Maybe you understand why I can get mixed signals from people?

If compensation with my final images is not adequate for someone on a collaborative basis, it's just as well that I don't work with those people. We agreed to the same usage, it's just that I wanted it in writing. The release spells out the compensation with images as well as usage. I prefer things in writing and will continue to get things in writing. Other fish in the sea.

Peace.

Luminos wrote:

'Fraid not.  Talk to a lawyer.

LMAO... For 40 years I've been doing business this way. I've spoken with myriad lawyers. You just don't know wtf you are talking about. But, hey, this is the net... misinformation is king. So... nevermind you know everything anyway.

*returns to his success... bored with the slumming

Vito wrote:

Maybe in Maryland, but here in America, "any public display" is not publishing.
Gallery showings are protected under some art exception (I'm not going to look it up now, you can feel free to).

And what about the Hassidic man who's image was captured by a "sidewalk photographer". The photog published a book of these images, the man sued and LOST! And that was a commercial usage!

Again, the courts recognize a news and illustration exemption.  You must look at the entire context of the photo.

And publishing does include any public display.  Case law mentions that the definition of "publish" is any third party access.  Libel cases have been lost because of writen material "published" on a personal post card between a first and third party.

Luminos wrote:

Self-promotion is called advertising, which is a commercial endevour.

I didn't say the photographer shouldn't require proof.  But demanding a copy of the driver's license is above and beyond.  Seeing it is fine.  Taking down information opens the model to identity theft.

You procede under the erronoeous assumption that self promotion = advertising. It does in a way but not under usage laws. You can post an image (without a release) on your website to show your work, but you can't post it on a pay site. You can display it in a gallery AND you can use the image on a gallery brochure to promote the show. You really should check into this stuff before saying things that you think are fact.

And what information do you get from a model you're paying? I hope you're getting her social security number!

oldguysrule wrote:

LMAO... For 40 years I've been doing business this way. I've spoken with myriad lawyers. You just don't know wtf you are talking about. But, hey, this is the net... misinformation is king. So... nevermind you know everything anyway.

*returns to his success... bored with the slumming

You mean you've been getting away with it.

As for talking to lawyers, my guess is you've been talking at them, not listening.

My advice came from lawyers hired by Gannett, Maybelline, and Plough Inc.  Since they had seen their fair share of court time on this subject, I suspect they knew their business.

Vito wrote:

You procede under the erronoeous assumption that self promotion = advertising. It does in a way but not under usage laws. You can post an image (without a release) on your website to show your work, but you can't post it on a pay site. You can display it in a gallery AND you can use the image on a gallery brochure to promote the show. You really should check into this stuff before saying things that you think are fact.

And what information do you get from a model you're paying? I hope you're getting her social security number!

Call a good lawyer.  I suspect you will eventually need one running under this misconception.

Luminos wrote:

And publishing does include any public display.  Case law mentions that the definition of "publish" is any third party access.  Libel cases have been lost because of writen material "published" on a personal post card between a first and third party.

When you mix apples and oranges you get an unusable mess. Or a new Snapple flavor

Vito wrote:
WRONG. Gallery showings (and subsequent sales) are covered (and protected) under art. With your "if the subject is recognizable" you also wouldn't be able to sell editorial photos without a release too. You see there are exceptions. Gallery shows and editorial are among them as far as releases go.

where do you find this protected under art thing of which you speak?  editorial, yes.  art carries with it no such inclusion regarding invasion of privacy (essentially what a model release protects).  if you can show specifics to that protection for art i would welcome seeing them.

you may wish to consult with the photographer's market publication.  it provides guidelines (including the limitation on art) as well as resource to over 2,000 publications.  it would seem they would know but perhaps you could correct them.

--face reality

Luminos wrote:

You mean you've been getting away with it.

As for talking to lawyers, my guess is you've been talking at them, not listening.

My advice came from lawyers hired by Gannett, Maybelline, and Plough Inc.  Since they had seen their fair share of court time on this subject, I suspect they knew their business.

All companies that are major commercial ventures. They would require model releases (and would want them even if they didn't require them). All three of are in the world of advertising, not art, so what they say pertains to their expertise. If their lawyers were representing artists and gallerys, then it may have more weight to it.

Tony Culture Photoz wrote:

In all honesty, shots obtained from TFP shoots, may very well be marketable. It isn't a good business practice (on the part of the photographer), to let him/herself fall in a rut (by not requiring the model(s) to sign a release. After shooting and showcasing images, which command attention and recognition, allowing for commercial use, he/she must now pursue model(s) to obtain permission to sell or use images for whatever purpose/opportunity that comes along. No signed release does not afford him/her the best negotiati..... know what ? Some things are not to be discussed publicly.  It simply defies logic to be in a public forum disclosing business practices of the profession by which you hope to achieve profits.

This is the reason people go to school - to gain knowledge. If you didn't pay attention during classes, now you expect to obtain information pertinent to your benefit (not directed to oldguysrule)....

Tony notes that the value of the release here is the possibility that there may be some commercial value to the images and the photographer should get a release in order to make this possible should the opportunity arrise. This is precisely the rational for agencies refusing to allow their models to sign releases for this kind of shoot, and the model in the OP refusing to sign the release as well.

This is a whole other ball of wax however. The OP says the release is limited to promotional and non-commercial use (btw this makes NO freaking sense... but whatever).

Lapis wrote:
notice who is saying releases are necessary for 'TFP' or testing and who is saying they aren't....everyone who says they aren't has much more experience in the commercial photography world. Just sayin......

For the record, I don't say they're necessary for TFP, but....in internet land, you'd be safer and smarter to get them.

FaceReality wrote:

where do you find this protected under art thing of which you speak?  editorial, yes.  art carries with it no such inclusion regarding invasion of privacy (essentially what a model release protects).  if you can show specifics to that protection for art i would welcome seeing them.

you may wish to consult with the photographer's market publication.  it provides guidelines (including the limitation on art) as well as resource to over 2,000 publications.  it would seem they would know but perhaps you could correct them.

--face reality

I agree, but differ in the details.

There is no "art" exception.  There is an exception regarding non-commercial use of images where the person captured had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

However, the "no reasonable expectation of privacy" has limits.  Exposure to public ridicule is an example.  That is why the various incarnations of "candid camera" require agreements from the victims to broadcast the final shows.  Even here, there are exceptions - as in the case of public figures.  (As to what consitutes a public figure, the courts are forever waivering.)

There are too many grey areas.  Get a release.

Vito wrote:

For the record, I don't say they're necessary for TFP, but....in internet land, you'd be safer and smarter to get them.

I guess that I am weird and lucky to be friends with all of my models.

Vito wrote:

All companies that are major commercial ventures. They would require model releases (and would want them even if they didn't require them). All three of are in the world of advertising, not art, so what they say pertains to their expertise. If their lawyers were representing artists and gallerys, then it may have more weight to it.

Gannett is a newpaper chain that used models in the sunday supplement.  We had to have releases on the models in the fashion section shot by the paper of models hired by the paper (or TFP) for the purpose of a fashion story, but not from models shot on the runway in a third-party show and published in a story about fashion.

And the runway shots were allowable in year-end book publications.  But the fashion features, just like at Vogue, had to have releases.

Learn the nuances.  They are many.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Self promotion is not "commercial use."  No release required.  Period.

That said, I won't develop film unless I have a release.  All of my work is subject to sale and while none of has ever sold for "commercial use" (since I quit shooting any advertising) art buyers often either want assurances that it's released (Nerve.Com, Stern.De) or want photocopies of the releases (Reader's Digest).

I only shoot TFCD (TF Scans, actually), but I won't shoot a model who won't assure me of a release.  There's just no point. 

Why bother?

-Don

True dat !

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
Self promotion is not "commercial use."  No release required.  Period.

That said, I won't develop film unless I have a release.  All of my work is subject to sale and while none of has ever sold for "commercial use" (since I quit shooting any advertising) art buyers often either want assurances that it's released (Nerve.Com, Stern.De) or want photocopies of the releases (Reader's Digest).

I only shoot TFCD (TF Scans, actually), but I won't shoot a model who won't assure me of a release.  There's just no point. 

Why bother?

-Don

With your subject matter, it is understandable that a release is needed.