Another Italian Guy wrote:

Anybody can ask for anything; it doesn't mean they need it.

Entities based outside of the UK may ask for one through force of habit but the need for a model release arises only if a model has any rights to "release". In the UK this is simply not the case so a model "release" per-se is entirely nugatory.

Some UK photographers who shoot for stock like to get a release signed anyway to avoid not having one if asked, but technically they are not required and can actually compromise the photographer's inherent legal rights if badly written.




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Mmmm - I would think the legalities surrounding the requirement for a model release would be based on the location of the publishing entity (or the location of the published distribution?), rather than the originating location of the photographer or model.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Mmmm - I would think the legalities surrounding the requirement for a model release would be based on the location of the publishing entity (or the location of the published distribution?), rather than the originating location of the photographer or model.

Really?

Does using an image in the US somehow bestow the model with some rights she never had in UK law to start with?




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

BlueMoonPics wrote:

Teehee. Mine too.

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Really?

Does using an image in the US somehow bestow the model with some rights she never had in UK law to start with?




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Yeah, I really don't know - I've always been centered in the US, so all the pictures I take and the models I work with are residing in the US at time of exposure. So, I don't have any experience with this as a non-US photographer taking images for publication in the US.

MB Jen B wrote:

I have had lots of good experiences come from MM yet I shared an experience with Jupiter just a few posts up about a bad one where the guy was slimy and she expressed that she thought he was when I told her about him.

Did that help?

Jen

Not really

Vito wrote:

I was going to reply to the original with a long thing explaining piece by piece why s/he was wrong, but your response was perfect.

That's cool.

The lawyers at the legal dept at the marketing division I worked for disagree with you -- and if you've ever argued statute in court everything is open for interpretation as well

but if you put in a release for valuable consideration received and nothing was received it could be argued the release is invalid.

Since I am not in the business of screwing people it's a moot point to me.

Anyone can write a contract, whether or not a contract is enforceable in a court of law is a different matter entirely.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/contract








"contract 1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date). A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday). Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law. 2) v. to enter into an agreement. (See: consideration, contract of adhesion, unilateral contract, bilateral contract, oral contract)"

So if you read the first lines of a standard model release where it says in return for valuable consideration received

That is in fact a form of contract

Gennaver Jen B wrote:

Sure, as a model who shoots nudes, (https://www.modelmayhem.com/2196584 ) I've generally signed the releases after the shoot. I've had someone take a picture of my ID before the shoot and also others after the shoot, sometimes the release is signed after or if we forget, emailed, signed and a picture taken to email back.

As of yet, I haven't had anyone I shoot sign a release but, I will start.

Jen

I take care of the paperwork after the shoot.

angel   emily wrote:

Not even for top tier... No commercial release I've ever been asked to sign that was pre-negotiated through my agency looked like some of the forms I've seen thrown around this site.  Releases are signed after negotiation and an agreement has been reached, not before.

For stock work, I've always signed at end of shoot.  For TV and most commercial work, they try to get the releases signed and out of the way first so no-one forgets.

when I shot stock we did paperwork first because I needed id and other papework but I was shooting for a media company and that was there SOP.

KungPaoChic wrote:
That's cool.

The lawyers at the legal dept at the marketing division I worked for disagree with you -- and if you've ever argued statute in court everything is open for interpretation as well

but if you put in a release for valuable consideration received and nothing was received it could be argued the release is invalid.

Since I am not in the business of screwing people it's a moot point to me.

Anyone can write a contract, whether or not a contract is enforceable in a court of law is a different matter entirely.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/contract








"contract 1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date). A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday). Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law. 2) v. to enter into an agreement. (See: consideration, contract of adhesion, unilateral contract, bilateral contract, oral contract)"

So if you read the first lines of a standard model release where it says in return for valuable consideration received

That is in fact a form of contract

Maybe, and I'm just hypotheticalizing (is that even a word? ); a fundamental question would be, if waiving a person's rights constitutes performance. Because that's what the consideration is for, not for the modeling itself.

Cherrystone wrote:

Meaning the model plays games, finds an "excuse" to leave which is utter BS, oh I'm sorry I forgot to bring my DL (though they drove to the shoot) or model is just garden variety batshit crazy.

Burned means I just shot 2-4 hours, without a signed release.

Also, heaven forbid, a model could have a serious true emergency at home, collapses on the set, etc. which means they are leaving immediately. Whatever work was done before that goes south.

If storming out for reasons of safety or such, yeah leave.
In your circumstance, depends on your definition of douche. I worked for many douche bags over the years....but I still had a job to do.

Bottom line, that's the way I'm going to work, based on doing hundreds, perhaps a thousand shoots in the last 14 yrs. You would probably find a few folks who would go your way, I'd suspect you'd find more that wouldn't

I have forgotton to have a model sign a release a few times but she signed it later.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I've almost always signed them at the end, but would have no problem signing them at the beginning because I only work with photographers I trust.

+1

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Maybe, and I'm just hypotheticalizing (is that even a word? ); a fundamental question would be, if waiving a person's rights constitutes performance. Because that's what the consideration is for, not for the modeling itself.

lol

http://asmp.org/tutorials/adults-model- … zB4zYWihVI

"In consideration of my engagement as a model, and for other good and valuable consideration herein acknowledged as received, I hereby grant the following rights and permissions to Joe Photographer ("Photographer"), his/her heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, those for whom Photographer is acting, and those acting with his/her authority and permission. They have the irrevocable, perpetual and unrestricted right and permission to take, use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included, in whole or in part, or composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or alterations, in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproductions thereof in color or otherwise, made through any medium at his/her studios or elsewhere, and in any and all media now or hereafter known, specifically including but not limited to print media and distribution over the internet for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever. I specifically consent to the digital compositing or distortion of the portraits or pictures, including without restriction any changes or alterations as to color, size, shape, perspective, context, foreground or background. I also consent to the use of any published matter in conjunction with such photographs. I hereby waive any right that I may have to inspect or approve the finished product or products and the advertising copy or other matter that may be used in connection with them or the use to which they may be applied. I understand that the images of me may be used in public-service advertisements to promote AIDS awareness. Knowing that such uses may intentionally or unintentionally give rise to the impression that I suffer from this disease, I nevertheless consent to this use. I hereby release, discharge, and agree to hold harmless Photographer, his/her heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, and all persons acting under his/her permission or authority or those for whom he/she is acting, from any liability by virtue of any blurring, distortion, alteration, optical illusion, or use in composite form, whether intentional or otherwise, that may occur or be produced in the taking of such photographs or in any subsequent processing of them, as well as any publication of them, including without limitation any claims for libel or violation of any right of publicity or privacy. I hereby warrant that I am of full age and have the right to contract in my own name. I have read the above authorization, release, and agreement, prior to its execution, and I am fully familiar with the contents of this document. This document shall be binding upon me and my heirs, legal representatives, and assigns.


X    

SIGNATURE
    (SEAL)

     

NAME
    
     

ADDRESS (Line 1)
    
     

ADDRESS (Line 2)
    
     

DATE
    
X    

WITNESS
    

     

ADDRESS (Line 1)
    
     

ADDRESS (Line 2)"
    


Interesting to read the vebiage

"I am of full age and able to CONTRACT in my own name . . . "  because the person is on fact signing a contract, a legally binding agreement."

Cherrystone wrote:

How can someone get pink, if it isn't displayed?
Pose within your limits, you won't have a problem.
Do you have a problem "checking references"?

Some models deliberately show pink.

KungPaoChic wrote:
Interesting to read the vebiage

"I am of full age and able to CONTRACT in my own name . . . "  because the person is on fact signing a contract, a legally binding agreement."

Ok. I understand how you infer that from the verbiage and that could definitely be a basis for argument. However, I'd have to point out that it doesn't actually say what you are implying it does.
What one could argue (I'm not an attorney so I'm not arguing this, just pointing it out), is that the model is stating that she/he's of age to contract on their own behalf and therefore her signature on a document (whether a formal contract or not), is valid.

P.S. I also have to say that I really don't much care if my model release qualifies technically as a contract or not. It's a standard model release and serves its purpose to release certain model rights to restrict my use of the images.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Haha - the drama!

In the UK, we don't need a release at all, even for commercial use.

That means every shot I take is mine and mine alone, no questions asked, nothing to sign - I just own it all!

No one is questioning ownership; it's privacy and publicity that are the subject of model releases.  I don't believe the UK has publicity rights, but you do not, by default, own all privacy rights in regard to every photo you take.

For example, if you took a photo of Naomi Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and published it in the Daily Sun, that might be a violation of the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act, and you might owe her damages of £3,500.

I'm amazed anybody ever works with me

No comment. 

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Ok. I understand how you infer that from the verbiage and that could definitely be a basis for argument. However, I'd have to point out that it doesn't actually say what you are implying it does.
What one could argue (I'm not an attorney so I'm not arguing this, just pointing it out), is that the model is stating that she/he's of age to contract on their own behalf and therefore her signature on a document (whether a formal contract or not), is valid.

P.S. I also have to say that I really don't much care if my model release qualifies technically as a contract or not. It's a standard model release and serves its purpose to release certain model rights to restrict my use of the images.

right

If it is not a contract it is not legally binding so your release would be worthless if anyone actually challenged the validity of your release in a court of law.

For the stock agencies they have very strict guidelines as to how the releases are worded ( I always use their particular release in addition to following whatever paperwork they require to be attached to each image).

Honestly I don't much care what anyone does but I just wanted to point out what the definition of a contract is.

Take from that what you will.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Some models deliberately show pink.

Really? I wouldn't have guessed that.

KungPaoChic wrote:
If it is not a contract it is not legally binding so your release would be worthless if anyone actually challenged the validity of your release in a court of law.

That is utter bullshit.

In the legal industry, there is opinion on both sides of the fence. Some experts in the field suggest contract mode, some experts in the field suggest otherwise and make some very valid arguments against a release being a contract. Key word here....experts in that field. Not a corp atty....not a general atty...not a real estate atty....not a divorce atty.

Thing is about attorneys in my experience, is that they are loathe to admit they don't know something. But they are NOT loathe to accept payment from anyone. Would you go to an attorney who specializes in real estate when getting a divorce?

You've been speaking of releases that you've gotten from other entities. Do you think those entities have YOUR best interests at heart? Hell no, they have their best interests at heart.

Have you ever consulted with an attorney who specializes in IP/copyright law personally, and had them draw up agreements that specifically have your best interests at heart, and paid them for their services?

After doing a lot of research, consulting with 3 IP/copyright attorneys over the years, I became part of the camp who feels that releases are best served that are not a contract. So those are who I paid.

To suggest one of those camps is wrong, is ludicrous.

John Jebbia wrote:
The most simple solution for me as a photographer is to inform the model ahead of time that my intentions are to sell the shit out of whatever we shoot.

Would that need a commercial release?
Are they different from regular release forms, or am I mistaken?
I recall over-hearing a model saying she charged extra for commercial releases?
So complicated ugh

Jupiter Red  wrote:
Would that need a commercial release?
Are they different from regular release forms, or am I mistaken?
I recall over-hearing a model saying she charged extra for commercial releases?
So complicated ugh

My release is 6 pages long and basically gives me the right to do whatever I want with them. It covers everything from what I can do with the photos to what name should be assigned when using them.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I have forgotton to have a model sign a release a few times but she signed it later.

So have I, and so have they. I just did it recently, I'll be getting it via the mail very shortly.

But the point being, it's going to depend on the specific model. Some I would have few worries, other times I'd want to kick puppies if I forgot.

CHAD ALAN wrote:
Skipped around a bit in this thread so I'm sure I missed a tangent or three.

I don't have a preference with test shoots, I get forgetful so I think before the shoot would suit me also, but at the end is fine too.

Never had a problem with models wanting to check all the images before signing a release.

It's based on trust and photographer's honor, not to post anything that is beyond a model's comfort level (unintentional wardrobe malfunctions, etc.).

I do offer to send releases before the shoot, but so far no one has taken me up on it.

Truthfully it isn't that big a deal,
And does have a lot to do with trust
But, in the cases where people are saying "Sign before the shoot, or get the hell out"
Or as Laura presented, have clauses saying the model wasn't forced into anything, everything is consensual..
That hardcore attitude is weird to me,
And I'd be hesitant to shoot with that person,  like what are you planning?

Jupiter Red  wrote:
But, in the cases where people are saying "Sign before the shoot, or get the hell out"
Or as Laura presented, have clauses saying the model wasn't forced into anything, everything is consensual..
That hardcore attitude is weird to me,
And I'd be hesitant to shoot with that person,  like what are you planning?

I do tend to agree with this. I would read some of this and think "so - are you planning to rape me? - or do something that I am likely to interpret as coercive sexual conduct?"

But I also have to say, based on my 8+ years on MM forums, that a lot of models forgo commonsense avoidance due to dollar signs in their eyes. They virtually specifically market to this kind of individual. This basically sets them up for this sort of photographer. Just work for reputable photographers and you are substantially less likely to even encounter this kind of nonsense and inherent risk.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Some models read the release before signing and some don't.

...which is why I do a walkthrough of the release before they sign. I want the model to be fully aware of what he or she is signing.

It scares me that some of them will sign sight-unseen whatever piece of paper I slap down on the table.

Jupiter Red  wrote:
Before a single photo is taken. PERIOD.  Then there are no questions or problems.
Why do you find that necessary?

HUH? A release is necessary for all shoots so there are no questions or problems. If a model has a problem with the release they should make it know BEFORE the shoot. Don't want to sign my release, no problem, we cannot shoot. But there is no way I am going to waste my time shooting anything only to then have a model not sign my release. This is a business not a hobby, a release is a contract just like any other.

Brian Diaz wrote:
You do not, by default, own all privacy rights in regard to every photo you take.

For example, if you took a photo of Naomi Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and published it in the Daily Sun, that might be a violation of the Human Rights Act.

There is really no such concept as "privacy rights" in the UK - there is a "right to privacy" with regard to one's personal life and I assume that's what you're quoting.

However, that only applies where there is a "reasonable expectation" of privacy, which is clearly not the case with a photo shoot where the model posed for the pictures.


Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Cherrystone wrote:

Really? I wouldn't have guessed that.

You work with a lot of models.  I'm sure that you found that out.   

Another Italian Guy wrote:
There is really no such concept as "privacy rights" in the UK - there is a "right to privacy" with regard to one's personal life and I assume that's what you're quoting.

However, that only applies where there is a "reasonable expectation" of privacy, which is clearly not the case with a photo shoot where the model posed for the pictures.


Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Wow - the right to privacy is SO fundamental in the US. It's the basis for such things as the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for instance.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

You work with a lot of models.  I'm sure that you found that out.   

I wouldn't know off hand, not my style, with the exception of the second wife.
Of course, no release was needed.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Wow - the right to privacy is SO fundamental in the US. It's the basis for such things as the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure for instance.

You're talking about a different kind of "privacy rights".

Of course we have prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure etc. - lol! What do you take us for: savages?




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
I have done almost everything as far as types of work and I have rarely if ever, caused a release to be signed.

Clients sign the model's voucher and or provide the pre-agreed to contracts to be signed.  We witness it though I even avoid doing that.

I have my own releases with the client.

For personal work on either side, the intention is that everyone is happy with the work and then we use it for the obvious intended purposes.  Releases are needed only if the work exceeds the scope of portfolio or self representation.  If the work is for books or posters or sale, that can be a one line addendum.  Nothing huge or complex.

Some years ago someone wanted to run a bunch of photos that had not been published before, in a book. They had to go back to the model to get permission, there was no problem.  If you are using releases as a form of insurance for bad work or dishonest people, you will end up unhappy, nothing can fix those things.  Respect is the only road forward, or money.

I have to say though... I had always enjoyed the premise that I liked testing with agency girls vs. independents, because if in the future I wanted commercial usage, that I had the solid agency accessible to facilitate that (negotiate compensation, get the release).
However a few years back I ran into this with an image from a major agency test in the 90s that I wanted to use commercially. I contacted the agency and they weren't able to facilitate it because the model was no longer accessible to them and she hadn't been with them for over 10 years. So I learned it wasn't an absolute - still probably easier than an arbitrary independent.

Another Italian Guy wrote:

You're talking about a different kind of "privacy rights".

Of course we have prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure etc. - lol! What do you take us for: savages?




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Of course not I figured it must be enforced under a different premise. But over here it's all so entrenched in the right of privacy.

Cherrystone wrote:

I wouldn't know off hand, not my style, with the exception of the second wife.
Of course, no release was needed.

I have never requested a model to pose that way but some have.