Model
Urheartdesires
Posts: 2853
I understand some photographers ask models to sign release if they plan on using the models images, or just following protocol.
When a photographer doesn't ask a model to sign a release does this mean he does not plan on using images?
If he gives her a model release and she refuses to sign at the moment does this still allow him to use the images any way he wants too?
Hypothetically speaking Examples: Alter, Sell, put on craig's list etc.....
Photographer
Jason McKendricks
Posts: 6025
Chico, California, US
As I understand it, the photog is always free to use the images in a portfolio. Commercial use of the images requires a release.
Photographer
CLT
Posts: 12979
Winchester, Virginia, US
Look, a fresh thread on releases.
Model
Urheartdesires
Posts: 2853
Jason McKendricks wrote:
As I understand it, the photog is always free to use the images in a portfolio. Commercial use of the images requires a release. I am aware of this, but have disagree with something. Photographers can use images any way they want without release. This includes selling, altering, and etc...
How true is it?
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
urheartsdesire2 wrote:
[I am aware of this, but have disagree with something. Photographers can use images any way they want without release. This includes selling, altering, and etc...
How true is it? Nope, it goes to the right to publicity. Many states, like California, have specific statues and remedies for the commercial use of a photo without a release. Most states have a common law remedy as well.
Beyond that, depending on the state, there may or may not be restrictions on what can be done with an image published on a non-commercial basis.
Absent a release, there will definitely be limitations on how a photographer can use a model's likeness without her consent.
Photographer
Miles Chandler
Posts: 647
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
There are huge long threads on this topic.. roughly speaking, if I take pictures of you and don't have a release:
a) I CAN DO anything I want. If you don't like it, you'll have to sue me. Remember that. It's up to you to make trouble for me at your own expense. Unless you looked underage, the police couldn't care less if I abide by any agreeent or contract. If we had a restrictive verbal agreement or contract, you'll have to prove it. The fact you posed for the pics implies concent to their usage.
b) I can put the pics in my portfolio, on my website, in a gallery, sell prints, make posters of them to advertise my own work, etc. I can sell those posters. That's all normal self-promotional usage, and trying to argue that you posed for professional photos without considering that I might do these things is unlikely to work:-)
BUT It would be risky for me to use them in ways that either earned money from a client (such as Calvin Klein ads) because those would represent earnings that you could claim you should share with me- and I couldn't prove that you had signed away your right to expect that. So then you're suing for money owed you.
It would also be risky for me to use identifiable images of you in a way that might be considered slanderous- such as selling a pic of you for a AIDS awareness campaign, or Photoshopping you into a beastiality picture, because you could sue for damage to your reputation: essentially, libel. You have some control over how your likeness is used. If your face isn't identifiable in the pic, you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell though.
Does that help? Essentially, if you want control over images, settle it before shooting. And NEVER model for a picture you don't want the public to see. It's safer that way:-)
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Short form answer: it depends on the state.
In at least one state the photographer seems to be able to do anything at all with the pictures. In at least one other, arguably he can't even show them to anyone else.
Anybody who tells you what the answer is without specifying the jurisdiction it applies to is wrong, and their advice should be disregarded.
Photographer
askthegeek
Posts: 36
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Miles Chandler wrote:
b) I can put the pics in my portfolio, on my website, in a gallery, sell prints, make posters of them to advertise my own work, etc. I can sell those posters. That's all normal self-promotional usage, and trying to argue that you posed for professional photos without considering that I might do these things is unlikely to work:-) i've had the following happen:
model comes to shoot unprepared with all kinds of restrictions to me (such as 'you only have 1 hours to shoot me'), model release does not get signed, but agreed to sign later via email.
model flakes out for the next 6 months, i give up on getting a release signed anytime this decade, i use photos in my personal website. model knew about this and approved every shot i was using.
a year later, model contacts me asking to remove all the images except for the 2-3 i felt were the weakest.
out of courtesy, i did so, however it was against my better judgement. i just felt she was the kind of girl who could cause mad trouble for me (in fact, rumours were spread regardless of my continued politeness to her insane requests).
now, whether or not we signed a release, as the photographer, you're saying i have the right to use these as i see fit, considering i wasn't selling or altering the pics in a demeaning way? if i had stood my ground, could the model have legally forced me to remove the photos? her grounds were supposedly that she'd changed her outlook on how she wants to be portrayed in photos (and no, there was no nudity if anyone thought that was the issue).
Model
NC17
Posts: 1739
Baltimore, Maryland, US
Whatever you do, just be sure that you actually read the release thoroughly so you know what you are signing. And obtain a copy for your own records
Model
Lee Frederic
Posts: 295
Chicago, Illinois, US
What I don't get is everytime I've signed a release its not to my immediate benefit its to theirs. So a release is to protect THEM not you as a model. They could throw your shit up in a thousand billboards but you only get that one check the agency sent you. (after they take their cut..) :-/
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25784
Newark, California, US
Lee Frederic wrote:
What I don't get is everytime I've signed a release its not to my immediate benefit its to theirs. So a release is to protect THEM not you as a model. They could throw your shit up in a thousand billboards but you only get that one check the agency sent you. (after they take their cut..) :-/ It's called paying your dues.
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
Lee Frederic wrote:
What I don't get is everytime I've signed a release its not to my immediate benefit its to theirs. So a release is to protect THEM not you as a model. They could throw your shit up in a thousand billboards but you only get that one check the agency sent you. (after they take their cut..) :-/ Try working for a multi-billion dollar company like Walmart or McDonalds sometime, and see how THEY treat you. They get billions, you get minimum wage. Go figure.
It's the nature of the employer/employee relationship. If you want every business deal you are part of to be perfectly balanced in terms of costs and benefits, my guess is you're not going to be doing much business in this world.
Stop looking at the money on the other guy's table. It's not your table.
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6065
Columbia, Maryland, US
The advice you get here will be bad. The laws vary by state in the US, and country (and we have a lot of Canadians and UK people here who run under a system very different from the US). There is also a very heavy taint of "this is how I think it should work, so I'm going to tell it that way in hope that the courts will read this and see it my way" getting into the advice.
The next best thing to do is go to the bookstore or library and consult one of the photographer guides regarding releases.
The best thing to do is consult a lawyer in your area.
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
Luminos wrote:
The advice you get here will be bad. Wow. I guess we should just shut down the forums then?
Model
Urheartdesires
Posts: 2853
Thats why its good to have a lawyer. Some take it as a joke, and will try their luck anyway. You play with fire you get burned real quick.
Model
Lee Frederic
Posts: 295
Chicago, Illinois, US
Stop looking at the money on the other guy's table. It's not your table. Damn. I should just "Shut up and Model" I thought this was America. And when I open my own agency I'll keep that in mind..lol
Photographer
Analog Nomad
Posts: 4097
Pattaya, Central, Thailand
Lee Frederic wrote:
Damn. I should just "Shut up and Model" I thought this was America. And when I open my own agency I'll keep that in mind..lol Seriously -- you think that in a business deal, everyone at the table should receive the same compensation? Can you give me some examples of places you can work where this is followed? Even one example?
This has nothing to do with modeling or photography. It's basic economics.
If you think photographers are making a killing, you need to do some research. This has got to be just about the WORST way to make money in the world. If you think we're in just it for the money, you're nuts.
Model
Lee Frederic
Posts: 295
Chicago, Illinois, US
bang bang photo wrote:
Seriously -- you think that in a business deal, everyone at the table should receive the same compensation? Can you give me some examples of places you can work where this is followed? Even one example?
This has nothing to do with modeling or photography. It's basic economics.
If you think photographers are making a killing, you need to do some research. This has got to be just about the WORST way to make money in the world. If you think we're in just it for the money, you're nuts. Money has nothing to do with it. I'm not some big shot model who makes thousands a day. I make the day rate which is 500.00 plus overtime so don't insult my intelligence. I understand economics, too. and modeling IS something I do to make money I know owning your own business is the best plan...
Photographer
Bob Bentley Photography
Posts: 15141
Westcliffe, Colorado, US
NO! YOU DON'T NEED A RELEASE. And you DON'T NEED to wear seat belts either. But somewhere along the line you may wish you had used one. Usually that's when you have made too much money on it's use.
All companies of any size that require pictures for advertising ask the photographer for a release. Those that don't will end up with the Tasters's Choice syndrome. Remember the school teacher that posed for the coffee label? He sued and is living a good retirement now.
Should a model sign a release? Absolutely, but the model SHOULD understand the terms of the release BEFORE SHOOTING!
It's the TFCD (TFP) area that gets muddled. Every model, every photog should have a release with understandable terms. When I do a TFCD I even SHARE the COPYWRITE with the model.
What's so hard about understanding all this?
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6065
Columbia, Maryland, US
bang bang photo wrote:
Wow. I guess we should just shut down the forums then? Since the law is less about opinion and a whole lot more about precident and working knowledge, on this particular subject it wouldn't be a bad idea.
Photographer
Miles Chandler
Posts: 647
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
askthegeek wrote:
i've had the following happen:
model comes to shoot unprepared with all kinds of restrictions to me (such as 'you only have 1 hours to shoot me'), model release does not get signed, but agreed to sign later via email.
model flakes out for the next 6 months, i give up on getting a release signed anytime this decade, i use photos in my personal website. model knew about this and approved every shot i was using.
a year later, model contacts me asking to remove all the images except for the 2-3 i felt were the weakest.
out of courtesy, i did so, however it was against my better judgement. i just felt she was the kind of girl who could cause mad trouble for me (in fact, rumours were spread regardless of my continued politeness to her insane requests).
now, whether or not we signed a release, as the photographer, you're saying i have the right to use these as i see fit, considering i wasn't selling or altering the pics in a demeaning way? if i had stood my ground, could the model have legally forced me to remove the photos? her grounds were supposedly that she'd changed her outlook on how she wants to be portrayed in photos (and no, there was no nudity if anyone thought that was the issue). Legally? In Canada? Absolutely. You own the pictures, and (especially since there's no nudity issue) she wouldn't have a chance.
Now, could she throw a fit and slander you all over Hell's half acre? Yes.. so you probably made the right choice.
Photographer
Howard Morton
Posts: 38
CARMEL VALLEY, California, US
urheartsdesire2 wrote:
I am aware of this, but have disagree with something. Photographers can use images any way they want without release. This includes selling, altering, and etc...
How true is it? It may or may not be true, depending on your jurisdiction but it WILL provide grist for some attorney's mill. Any model who knows anything is going to sign a model release as a condition of employment. It's real simple: no signed release, no model fee.
For my TFP/TFCD models, I still ask them to sign releases, but release the image back to them for non-commercial purposes. This seems fair to all concerned, as we can both use the image to further our separate careers.
Just a thought from someone who's spent far too much time in attorney's offices.
Howard
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4025
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US
CLT wrote:
Look, a fresh thread on releases. LMAO!! Just what I was thinking! This subject has to be the one single, most discussed issue in photography, at least on MM.
Photographer
askthegeek
Posts: 36
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Miles Chandler wrote:
could the model have legally forced me to remove the photos? her grounds were supposedly that she'd changed her outlook on how she wants to be portrayed in photos (and no, there was no nudity if anyone thought that was the issue). Legally? In Canada? Absolutely. You own the pictures, and (especially since there's no nudity issue) she wouldn't have a chance.
Now, could she throw a fit and slander you all over Hell's half acre? Yes.. so you probably made the right choice. yes in canada...however i've often wondered how this works if the photographer is canadian but the model is NOT. what if she was just stopping through canada? how can she sign something under canadian law and still validate it in another part of the world? an example that comes to mind is someone getting a parking ticket in another country...most people chuck the ticket without paying it, and risk going back to that country at a later date 
and yes i believe i've made the right choice, however i've started thinking of changing the images in my potfolio website, only using the images that *I* think look good from a photogrpahy standpoint. meaning i would probably remove all the images she allowed, and put back 2 or 3 that she didn't want up. who is she really to even comment on that if it bothers her so much. besides, i don't have any contact with her after what happened, though she knows how to find me through mm if she really wanted to blast me lol.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Lee Frederic wrote:
What I don't get is everytime I've signed a release its not to my immediate benefit its to theirs. So a release is to protect THEM not you as a model. They could throw your shit up in a thousand billboards but you only get that one check the agency sent you. (after they take their cut..) :-/ Bingo, a release is a document designed to protect the photographer.
Photographer
SKPhoto
Posts: 25784
Newark, California, US
Oh, one more thing you can do is to say "pass" on any deals you feel are inequitable. Just like any other deal where there is an exchange of goods or services. Ultimately, when you are hungry enough, you'll stop saying pass.
From the photographers standpoint, I have shot immeasurably more images, than I will ever recoup a dime on individually.
Model
Lee Frederic
Posts: 295
Chicago, Illinois, US
SKPhoto wrote:
Oh, one more thing you can do is to say "pass" on any deals you feel are inequitable. Just like any other deal where there is an exchange of goods or services. Ultimately, when you are hungry enough, you'll stop saying pass.
From the photographers standpoint, I have shot immeasurably more images, than I will ever recoup a dime on individually. That's actually really deep...and true. I never passed because of a release I just sign them and do the job! The Release never stopped me! LOL
Photographer
Graham Walker
Posts: 116
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Miles Chandler wrote:
There are huge long threads on this topic.. roughly speaking, if I take pictures of you and don't have a release:
a) I CAN DO anything I want. If you don't like it, you'll have to sue me. Remember that. It's up to you to make trouble for me at your own expense. Unless you looked underage, the police couldn't care less if I abide by any agreeent or contract. If we had a restrictive verbal agreement or contract, you'll have to prove it. The fact you posed for the pics implies concent to their usage.
b) I can put the pics in my portfolio, on my website, in a gallery, sell prints, make posters of them to advertise my own work, etc. I can sell those posters. That's all normal self-promotional usage, and trying to argue that you posed for professional photos without considering that I might do these things is unlikely to work:-)
BUT It would be risky for me to use them in ways that either earned money from a client (such as Calvin Klein ads) because those would represent earnings that you could claim you should share with me- and I couldn't prove that you had signed away your right to expect that. So then you're suing for money owed you.
It would also be risky for me to use identifiable images of you in a way that might be considered slanderous- such as selling a pic of you for a AIDS awareness campaign, or Photoshopping you into a beastiality picture, because you could sue for damage to your reputation: essentially, libel. You have some control over how your likeness is used. If your face isn't identifiable in the pic, you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell though.
Does that help? Essentially, if you want control over images, settle it before shooting. And NEVER model for a picture you don't want the public to see. It's safer that way:-) You're in Canada and my understanding is that if you don't have a release and you use the photos then you are in BIG TROUBLE! But maybe you can declare yourself a nation or something.
|
