The Myth of the Model Release?

[Tee]

DGM-

There are many nuances to the model release as mentioned above. Remember, the release is the model granting YOU permission to display her likeness under the conditions outlined in the release. Don't confuse that with copyright and usage/ license. In all likelihood if you're just doing a fun shoot, you're probably fine. BUT, say you butcher the images and the model asks you not to post them on Facebook? What if they are so embarrassing she threatens legal action? What kind of hard copy proof do you have? Additionally, your verbiage on your website is making you sound like you are pursuing more than hobby photography. If you have aspirations of one day being a paid professional, it's never too early to start conducting yourself like one.

Or...save yourself time in the long run and see a lawyer. I paid $150 to have a lawyer review mine and make corrections. May seem like a lot but knowing I'm covered is nice to know. Lastly, you can get pre-formatted releases for your smart phone (I use Top Model Release and inserted my custom release). They're kinda catch-all but at least you have something and don't have to carry paper around.

 

[KmH]

Call it a hunch, but it probably wasn't the photographer that backed out of the transaction due to the missing release. Almost all purchasers of images are publishers or in the media business in some way, and they have burrocratic rules to follow that are set by some of the least creative people in the media industry, and on the corporate lawyer side, maybe on the planet.

The last thing you're going to get a media house to do is bend a rule set by their bosses and lawyers when it comes to releases and rights.

Was the buyer likely well informed? of course not. But would it have likely made it difference if they were? of course not.

Welcome to cya corporate thinking.

Publishers routinely use un-released images.

Those that do know they are taking a risk, but deem the risk as low relative to the expected gains.

Occasionally, they get caught, wind up in court, and wind up paying a price for taking the risk.
I wish I had a file with all the court cases I have seen reported on the Internet.

 

[texkam]

my friend kinda freaked out

...and that's why you should cya if you're doing any type of "photo work". You never know what might happen in the future.

 

[Vautrin]

my friend kinda freaked out

...and that's why you should cya if you're doing any type of "photo work". You never know what might happen in the future.

Exactly. What if you thought the photo was great, posted it on the 'net, and THEN she freaked out?

It's far better to spell out ahead of time... What you will do with the images... If you will sell them... etc...

 

[rexbobcat]

Seems funny how paparazzi gets away with taking tons of photos and sells them to magazines with no release?

Because it's photojournalism, albeit a very tasteless form of it, and it's usually done in a public space where people don't generally expect a lot of privacy anyways. It's when the paparazzi begin "invading" the privacy of celebrities' property and other place where some level of privacy is expected that it becomes an issue.

The issue that I'm most wary of is one of the privacy torts stating:

Appropriation -- Use of a person's name, likeness or identity for trade or advertising purposes without consent.

That means that technically, any image you are using on your website/brochure/business card/commercial/whatever to promote your business should have some sort of model release if the image is of a person not including yourself. The chances of someone ACTUALLY suing over that is slim, but it's still there and the lawsuit would be legitimate regardless of how trivial it would seem.

I'm sure there are other reason to have a model release but this is the most obvious, I think.

If you are using an image commercially it is generally understood that you probably need some sort of contract between you and the model giving you consent to monetize and spread their image. However...if you are displaying a photo in an art gallery...The rules are different. You don't technically need a release for that (I think, don't quote me on that) but it's probably a good idea to have one.

 

[skieur]

The Client is responsible for hair-styling, make-up, and clothing choices.

I am surprised by this statement in your contract, considering that poor choices in this area can lead to an unflattering, poor portrait.

skieur

 

[tirediron]

The Client is responsible for hair-styling, make-up, and clothing choices.

I am surprised by this statement in your contract, considering that poor choices in this area can lead to an unflattering, poor portrait.

skieur

This particular document is for a TFP shoot with a minor - we discuss all of this before-hand, and I provide recommendations based on our mutual intent for the shoot, but the actual purpose of that line is to ensure that they are aware I am not providing those services, and that if they choose clothing/make-up that is different than what I've recommended, the results may not be what they were expecting.

 

[Vautrin]

I was reading a photographer a while back who took a picture of a homeless man while doing street photography and could never sell it because he didn't have a model release. How is that any different?

It sounds like the photographer was short on legal knowledge and/or salesmanship.

A famous case (from a legal perspective) -Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is some info from a models perspective - About Model Releases

The interesting thing about Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia is the photographer was sued after publishing a book and selling 10 prints of the person in question, at $20k each

Legal action is all about money. If you have it, they can get it from you. If you're a starving artist with 0 assets, nothing really that can be done...

 

[Mully]

Stock agencies want houses to have a release from owners.

 

[480sparky39 38]

I prefer landscapes. Trees and flowers and rivers can't sue the pants off me.

 

[rexbobcat]

I prefer landscapes. Trees and flowers and rivers can't sue the pants off me.

What if they're somebody ELSE'S trees and flowers and rivers? O.O

 

[480sparky39 38]

What if they're somebody ELSE'S trees and flowers and rivers? O.O

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of 'em are. But I doubt any of 'em have the scratch to cough up a lawyer's retainer.

 

[skieur]

The Client is responsible for hair-styling, make-up, and clothing choices.

I am surprised by this statement in your contract, considering that poor choices in this area can lead to an unflattering, poor portrait.

skieur

This particular document is for a TFP shoot with a minor - we discuss all of this before-hand, and I provide recommendations based on our mutual intent for the shoot, but the actual purpose of that line is to ensure that they are aware I am not providing those services, and that if they choose clothing/make-up that is different than what I've recommended, the results may not be what they were expecting.

Yes, good point. Sometimes no matter what you recommend, they can totally shock you with the clothes/make-up that they appear in.

skieur

 

[vintagesnaps]

You can find information about photo releases as well as sample forms on websites of professional photographers organizations like ASMP. I think that a release is usually needed for retail or commercial use but not necessarily for editorial use.

For Facebook or other social networking websites a photographer might want to read the Terms of Service to know how photos could be used by the site.

 

[manaheim]

Unnecessarily rude remarks from a grumpy pre-coffee commuter train rider removed. :/