Luminos wrote:
The OP has given a general reference.  What's your problem?

Filled in above.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
AGAIN, you are trying to put this into an area where a model has signed over her rights on a model release.  Not the same issue what-so-ever. 
Please learn what you are doing before you attempt to dish out law to the rest of us.  The world is a warehouse of misinformation that comes from people like you.

LISTEN YOU GET OFF ME!!! I recommended the book people can read it and learn something like that " It is common for a photographer to use a standard release form; hovewer,this form should be used intellegently and modified as needed.Each release should specifically,if briefly,describe the subject matter and the use the photographer plans to make of the picture." Leonard D. Duboff Attorney-At-Law. That means person who signs a release to be in a swimsuit magazine should not end up on a porn site ok.And I would not stand for this type of tone or insults! You should go RELAX!

inese wrote:
LISTEN YOU GET OFF ME!!! I recommended the book people can read it and learn something like that " It is common for a photographer to use a standard release form; hovewer,this form should be used intellegently and modified as needed.Each release should specifically,if briefly,describe the subject matter and the use the photographer plans to make of the picture." Leonard D. Duboff Attorney-At-Law. That means person who signs a release to be in a swimsuit magazine should not end up on a porn site ok.And I would not stand for this type of tone or insults! You should go RELAX!

Yea!  No need to waste anymore time with someone like you.
As you have no idea what that last thread was really about, I doubt you would understand anything about what I have said here.

Iona Lynn wrote:
Especialy if they are wearing a shirt that says star fucker on the front...

Iona, I don't know you, yet, but you seem to make more sense than anyone else I have met on this site.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
...even if they signed a release saying the company can do what ever they want with the images.

And one wonders where all the confusion comes from.....

you respond as though a model release is a panacea for any and all uses of a person's likeness.  sounds like the referenced book would be perfect reading for you.

--face reality

Shadowscape Studio wrote:

Filled in above.

The OP made a very broad statement.  She cited a reference.  The post had no other baggage on which to hang your objection.

You seem to want to carry on a fight with her wherever she appears, simply on the basis of a conviction she carries but is not evident in this post.

So, basically, you are bullying her.

FaceReality wrote:

you respond as though a model release is a panacea for any and all uses of a person's likeness.  sounds like the referenced book would be perfect reading for you.

--face reality

ADULT   RELEASE

Name______________________
                        (Print)

    In consideration of my engagement as a model, and for other good and valuable consideration herein acknowledged as received, I hereby grant DAVID SWANSON (photographer), his heirs, legal representatives and assigns, those for whom photographer is acting, and those acting with in his own name or otherwise, and use, re-use, publish, and re-publish photographic portraits or pictures of me or 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, or reproductions thereof in color or otherwise, made through any medium as his studio or elsewhere, and in any and all media now or hereafter known for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever.  I also consent to the use of any printed matter in conjunction therewith.

    I 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 therewith or the use of which it may be applied.

    I hereby release, discharge and agree to save harmless photographer, his heirs. Legal representatives and assigns, and all persons acting under his permission or authority or those for whom he 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 said picture or in any subsequent processing thereof, as well as any publication thereof, including without limitation any claims for libel or invasion of 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 said agreement, prior to the execution, and I am fully familiar with the contents thereof.  This release shall be binding upon me and my heirs, legal representatives, and assigns.


SIGNATURE_______________________________________
DATE______________
WITNESS__________________________________________

This is the standard release used by the industry for professional models.
Appearently you have never seen one.
Read it, carefully.
Then rethink what you just wrote.
It's ok, I do not expect a retraction.  I was young and inexperienced once myself.

Luminos wrote:

The OP made a very broad statement.  She cited a reference.  The post had no other baggage on which to hang your objection.

You seem to want to carry on a fight with her wherever she appears, simply on the basis of a conviction she carries but is not evident in this post.

So, basically, you are bullying her.

Thank you, he was rude to me in another thread too. I just gave a reference not even advice.

inese wrote:
Someone stole my images last month so I just wanted to help that's all.They took my images off this site and used them thanks to one fellow MUA who was kind a nuf to let me know I setteled this problem. I don't like when people are mean to me specially when my intent was to help. And book is about Photo Law for Photographers protection thank you very much!

No, you wanted to get your point across from the post that was taken down.  A point that was misleading and guiding models in the wrong direction in terms of the law.

Am I rude?  Yes!  This OP needs to butt out of something she has no business giving information about. 
For someone coming into this thread that was not familiar with the last one, I understand.  It would seem like I was bulling her
It boils down to READ YOUR MODEL RELEASE!  If you sign away your rights to the images, don't listen to people who say go see a lawyer and sue them.  Or people who want to post misinformation about what you can do.

Am I rude?  Yes!  For someone coming into this thread and not aware of the one that was taken down it would seem like I am giving her a hard time.  And I am.  She has given information on that last thread about this that was foolish and uneducated.  And she wants to continue her foolish ideas here. 

Go for it.  If you want to listen to crap from someone who knows not what she is talking about, continue.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
This is the standard release used by the industry for professional models.
Appearently you have never seen one.
Read it, carefully.
Then rethink what you just wrote.
It's ok, I do not expect a retraction.  I was young and inexperienced once myself.

i certainly don't need to review a standard release, nor rethink what i wrote.  the point you obviously missed is a release does not allow for fraudulent use, misrepresentation of claims made upon signature or acts of character defamation.

i can think of multiple instances where a release will not stand up, including yours.  if you can't, then again i would strongly recommend some pertinent reading on the subject.  that is, if you aren't too old to have the arrogance of age get in your way.

--face reality

FaceReality wrote:

i certainly don't need to review a standard release, nor rethink what i wrote.  the point you obviously missed is a release does not allow for fraudulent use, misrepresentation of claims made upon signature or acts of character defamation.

i can think of multiple instances where a release will not stand up, including yours.  if you can't, then again i would strongly recommend some pertinent reading on the subject.  that is, if you aren't too old to have the arrogance of age get in your way.
Thank you!!!
--face reality

inese wrote:

Thank You!!!

FaceReality wrote:
i certainly don't need to review a standard release, nor rethink what i wrote.  the point you obviously missed is a release does not allow for fraudulent use, misrepresentation of claims made upon signature or acts of character defamation.

i can think of multiple instances where a release will not stand up, including yours.  if you can't, then again i would strongly recommend some pertinent reading on the subject.  that is, if you aren't too old to have the arrogance of age get in your way.

--face reality

Another one who has never been in the real world. 
And we wonder why a model has no idea what they are doing when they go to work for an agency.
And yes, you do need to review a model release, because you don't understand one either.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Another one who has never been in the real world.

actually, i was once a division head for an agency.  dealt with releases, models, talent, celebrity and clients on a daily basis.  the fact you dispute what i wrote says more about your real-world experiences than mine.

--face reality

FaceReality wrote:
you respond as though a model release is a panacea for any and all uses of a person's likeness...

FaceReality couldn't have said it better.  A release isn't a 'cure all' for every situation.

The funny thing about contracts is if they're too vague, many of the actions will be unenforcable, therefore people tend to include every conceivable minute detail into a contract... and when that happens, they're bound to leave something out.  It's not only important to read and understand what a contract says... but it's just as important to know what it doesn't say.

In the case that was mentioned in the 'other' thread, the contract between model and photographer had very little to do with the situation, as most of the violations were in breach of the website's Terms of Service. 

The contract that Shadowcraft displayed is full of holes and could easily be shot down by a rookie attorney in court.  If you can't figure out how it could be done, maybe you should read a basic book about Law.  I dunno, but if ya don't know which law book to get, I'm sure someone around here might be able to recommend one.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
Yea, and that's why you are here on an internet site.
Good qualifications. 
I'm impressed!
You are the one who contributes to the mess models are in.  "I don't have to review it, I know."  Yep, you guys know everthing.
I did too when I was your age.
Know it alls that have not a clue.

You really, really need to think very hard about this argument before you make it again.

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
This is a contract release written by attorney in that field and is the standard contract relese used by the industry.

Ahhh... it's a 'standard' off the shelf contract that could be purchased from any stationary store, legal form company, or photo supply house.

Y'know, I just purchased a second home.  The contracts that I signed to obtain it appear to be the same as the contract for my primary residence... but further inspection shows that there are some differences... and in fact, it would be impossible to use the same 'Standard' contract on both homes.

FaceReality did say it best.  "A standard contract isn't a panacea".

Night Owl Photography wrote:
You know what everyone?  It doesn't matter what we think.  The only thing that matters is what the judge (or jury) thinks on the court date when you try to sue someone.

Not only that... but it costs almost nothing to be the plaintiff, while it can cost fortunes to defend yourself!!!

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
ADULT   RELEASE

Name______________________
                        (Print)

    In consideration of my engagement as a model, and for other good and valuable consideration herein acknowledged as received, I hereby grant DAVID SWANSON (photographer), his heirs, legal representatives and assigns, those for whom photographer is acting, and those acting with in his own name or otherwise, and use, re-use, publish, and re-publish photographic portraits or pictures of me or 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, or reproductions thereof in color or otherwise, made through any medium as his studio or elsewhere, and in any and all media now or hereafter known for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever.  I also consent to the use of any printed matter in conjunction therewith.

    I 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 therewith or the use of which it may be applied.

    I hereby release, discharge and agree to save harmless photographer, his heirs. Legal representatives and assigns, and all persons acting under his permission or authority or those for whom he 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 said picture or in any subsequent processing thereof, as well as any publication thereof, including without limitation any claims for libel or invasion of 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 said agreement, prior to the execution, and I am fully familiar with the contents thereof.  This release shall be binding upon me and my heirs, legal representatives, and assigns.


SIGNATURE_______________________________________
DATE______________
WITNESS__________________________________________

This is the standard release used by the industry for professional models.

No, this is a modified version of the release form published and distributed by ASMP.  Here is the original.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/gregprice … lease.html

Among other things, it has had the final paragraph added, which was not in the original.  Whether it was good or bad to make the changes isn't the point, hte point is that this release has been modified and is not the standard one distributed by ASMP.

But the real point is more of a question.  Why has this thread turned into a fight?  All the OP did was suggest a book to read.  So there was another thread.  Does this mean that we have to flame each other?

Why don't we all try to get along, and if we disagree, disagree like the community of friends that we are.

Night Owl Photography wrote:
You know what everyone?  It doesn't matter what we think.  The only thing that matters is what the judge (or jury) thinks on the court date when you try to sue someone.

Besdies, are any of us lawyers or judges?  What do we know?

I am - I'm an intellectual property attorney. Gunfitr is a very experienced litigator. There are several others here.

I recently did a lot of very expensive research on this topic and am reasonably sure I have a good handle on it. While I won't give specific legal advice, I will say that the release as quoted above would almost certainly stand up in Illinois, New York, and California, the "Big Three" IP states. Would it protect against all uses? No. *No* release will do that, because there are some rights that cannot be waived in advance.

Doesn't mean that you couldn't be sued on it, it means you probably wouldn't lose. Which is all you can hope for.

M

SayCheeZ! wrote:
The contract that Shadowcraft displayed is full of holes and could easily be shot down by a rookie attorney in court.  If you can't figure out how it could be done, maybe you should read a basic book about Law.  I dunno, but if ya don't know which law book to get, I'm sure someone around here might be able to recommend one.

An interesting assertion. Could you point out some of these problems and indicate which jurisdiction would find them of sufficient gravity to invalidate the release? Incidentally, a release is not necessarily a contract.

M

inese wrote:
Someone stole my images last month so I just wanted to help that's all.They took my images off this site and used them thanks to one fellow MUA who was kind a nuf to let me know I setteled this problem. I don't like when people are mean to me specially when my intent was to help. And book is about Photo Law for Photographers protection thank you very much!

Sounds like a book I might pick up. Thanks!

Sorry to hear someone stole your images. The amount of stolen images from this site is the main reason I don't update my port here/post new photos as much as I'd like to.

TXPhotog wrote:
Now that StMarc is in the conversation I won't take on a lot of the points that could be made.  But I will say this:

There is no such thing as an "industry standard" release.  The ASMP release, or a variant of it, is widely used by photographers, but rarely to never used in commercial client modeling jobs or by advertising agencies.  They all have their own, which can be as simple as a single paragraph, or several pages long.

ya know, in the multitude of site discussions on releases, very few focus on where the release begins and where it can possibly end.  many photographers have either spent money on legal advice to have their individual release drafted, or they rely on those from associations.  with each, many feel they are good to go without further thought to just how far the release extends the rights of each party.

the problem, and what i tried to point out (apparently to no avail to one person in this thread) is that a release is in itself a very simple document (or can be complex as pointed out, tx) that simply allows for use of likeness. 

regardless, whether the release is highly specific or very general, they go to the swinging fist theory.  the release allows for swinging until the chin gets walloped, hence the "release is not a panacea" statement.  when the release does not provide specificity (written wide in scope as per the earlier example) there are still rights retained by the likeness provider that must be adhered to.

the responder that gave point of contention may have misunderstood my position.  i did not advocate a disregard for the use of releases. i did however, state that just because someone signs their likeness over in broad-sweeping terms it does not provide full protection against any and all forms of use of that likeness. 

what i tried to explain is it is dangerous to think in those terms.  others, obviously don't feel the same.

--face reality

Shadowscape Studio wrote:
No, you wanted to get your point across from the post that was taken down.  A point that was misleading and guiding models in the wrong direction in terms of the law.

Am I rude?  Yes!  This OP needs to butt out of something she has no business giving information about. 
For someone coming into this thread that was not familiar with the last one, I understand.  It would seem like I was bulling her
It boils down to READ YOUR MODEL RELEASE!  If you sign away your rights to the images, don't listen to people who say go see a lawyer and sue them.  Or people who want to post misinformation about what you can do.

Am I rude?  Yes!  For someone coming into this thread and not aware of the one that was taken down it would seem like I am giving her a hard time.  And I am.  She has given information on that last thread about this that was foolish and uneducated.  And she wants to continue her foolish ideas here. 

Go for it.  If you want to listen to crap from someone who knows not what she is talking about, continue.