The Myth of the Model Release?

[Vautrin]

What's the difference?

Well, as a photographer you're providing a service to clients. You're sort of a craftsman.

And if you walk into a craftsmans shop, before buying, you'll want to see evidence he can do quality work before buying. At least a smart buyer would.

So, if I went to find a tailor I'd like to see what kind of suits he's stitched.

If I wanted someone to lay tile in my kitchen, I'd want to see what kind of floors he's laid before.

Because that's going to really tell me about the quality of the work.

So, it's really not surprising that as a craftsman (photog) you're going to want to show off your best wedding work. So, you leave something in your contract for weddings, whatever, that if you'd doing self promotion you may use the images without permission. As, if you take a TERRIFIC shot of the bride and groom, and show it to other engaged couples, you might get more business.

That's why, every photographers studio you pass by will have LOADS of pictures on the wall, and in the window.

This, is normal. And if, for instance, the bride and groom are quite private and won't want their pictures shared, you might ask for more money, as part of the money you make from shooting involves the money you make from referrals, after people see your shots.

Make sense?

In NO WAY are you making money directly off the people. You might allow family and friends to order wedding products from you as well, but it's not like you're putting a picture of the bride and groom on sale. (Although that might be an interesting business "Getting married? Ugly spouse? Buy our wedding photos so people think you can marry a supermodel!")

But a gallery sale, I go to an art gallery, or maybe space with art-for-sale hanging there (like a coffeeshop), and put my pictures up for people to see. And, I attach a price tag somewhere around the photo, so if they want to buy a print, they know how much it costs.

That's a different kind of use. That's NOT what people are doing with wedding pictures. And for that kind of use you need a model release, preferably specifying you'll sell the images.

That's not the same as a model release that says "if your pictures are good I reserve the right to display as part of my portfolio, via marketing, whatever"

On top of that, there's all kind of other ways you might sell photos -- ALL OF WHICH A WEDDING PHOTOG WON'T BE DOING.

Selling to stock agencies, etc.

Now, editorial use is different. There's no model release needed. What is editorial use? That's when a newspaper prints a picture of, say, a riot, and doesn't bother to get a model release from all the rioters

This is because it's reporting the news and it gets a special dispensation.

Can you "sell" your wedding photogs to a newspaper for editorial use? Probably not unless you shot Brad Pitt's wedding, or the wedding of another celebrity.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I'm assistant/second shooter in a studio mainly because I like it (not my career, but is the photographers) - the models sign a release as they walk into the door. The pics WILL be used

I doubt any model that knows what she's doing, has posed before for anyone other than Joe "FB", would balk at signing it - fairly standard

If the model is paying the photographer for his work, she's still expected to sign a release?

dunno, cuz the models we shoot are paid for their work, along with the hair and make-up artists

 

[Vautrin]

I'm assistant/second shooter in a studio mainly because I like it (not my career, but is the photographers) - the models sign a release as they walk into the door. The pics WILL be used

I doubt any model that knows what she's doing, has posed before for anyone other than Joe "FB", would balk at signing it - fairly standard

If the model is paying the photographer for his work, she's still expected to sign a release?

dunno, cuz the models we shoot are paid for their work, along with the hair and make-up artists

TF* (Trade for *) shoots generally involve an arrangement where the model donates her time, and in return, the photog gives her a CD, or prints, or pictures in some form (that's the * in TF*)

In that case the photog may use (or even sell) the photos. He'll typically put that in the contract.

Sometimes experience photogs may charge very inexperienced models (or indeed -- people who shouldn't be models) for photo shoots. But, the photog can still reserve the right to sell the images (again, should be in the release).

What is boils down to is that a photog receives a sort of compensation by being able to display, and / or sell photos.

So it's possible that he charges a lower price if he has this right.

To give you an example, if a model called me up and wanted to do TF*, I might do it for the opportunity (again, because they're my photos).

If the model said, no selling, no displaying the photos, they're MINE...well, what's in the photoshoot for me?

I'd certainly want to charge them money for that... And I very well should

 

[Tee]

On the topic of models not wanting their images being displayed by the photographer, I actually have a customized release/contract for a scenario similar to this, in that the customer/model is compensating me monetarily (in my case gift cards) but doesn't want their images displayed publicly. I have used it a few times for private boudoir shoots. To paraphrase, it basically states that she is willingly allowing me to photograph her with her full permission. I will not be displaying her images knowingly but that I can't be liable should said images become stolen (on mine or her end) and displayed publicly.