William Kious wrote:
The photographer should supply a contract.  In fact, I wouldn't advise working with one who doesn't.  However, I am a big advocate of models bringing their own contracts to a shoot. 

Benefits:

1. You have no legal rights without a contract*.
2. See benefit #1.

* Without a contract stating your rights of usage, the photographer owns any and all images lock, stock and barrel.  Make sure that what you are getting out of the shoot is clearly stated on the contract (pictures, payment, trade, etc.)

Sorry, I disagree with you in this. Generally speaking, in most cases, a photographer owns the copy right to an image as soon as he snaps it, that, however, does not give him absolute control over an image.  The classical example is the need for a photographer to have a release for many kinds of publication, particulary the need for a release to sell the image for commercial purposes.

Sometimes, the best thing for a model to do is to sign **NOTHING**.  She may well have no rights to use the images for self-promotion herself, but it also effectively blocks the use of images she doesn't like by the photographer.

A good example would be an implied nude photoshoot.  Take the situation where the photographer has promised her "implied" images but she knows that he has been snapping more.  She reads the release that the photographer provides and it is all inclusive.  He says the more revealing shots were inadvertant, but promises not to use them.  He, however, refuses to put language to that effect in the release form or go through is memory cards and delete the offensive images (and "yes" I know images can be undeleted).  A model's best course of action might be to sign nothing at all.

In that case, she may get nothing, but she also prevents the offensive images from being published.

Be careful about what you sign and what you don't sign.   This is a business.   And also remember that agreements do not have to be in writing (except of course to transfer a copyright).  The problem with oral agreements though is that they are too easily disputed.

Just my thoughts.

Alan

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
...
Sometimes, the best thing for a model to do is to sign **NOTHING**.  She may well have no rights to use the images for self-promotion herself, but it also effectively blocks the use of images she doesn't like by the photographer.
...
Alan

Not signing a model release does not protect from usage. The photographer can still use the image for just about everything except directly endorsing a product.
Unless it causes you "ridicule, scandal, reproach, scorn or indignity" or something like that.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Sorry, I disagree with you in this. Generally speaking, in most cases, a photographer owns the copy right to an image as soon as he snaps it, that, however, does not give him absolute control over an image.  The classical example is the need for a photographer to have a release for many kinds of publication, particulary the need for a release to sell the image for commercial purposes.

I could get into a long debate about this, but I disagree.  If I see you out on the street and I take your picture, I don't have to compensate you in any way if said image is published somewhere.  If a model willingly volunteers to have her picture taken, she surrenders her expectation to privacy (unless something else is spelled out in contract.)  You might be thinking of privacy issues - not image ownership issues.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Sometimes, the best thing for a model to do is to sign **NOTHING**.  She may well have no rights to use the images for self-promotion herself, but it also effectively blocks the use of images she doesn't like by the photographer.

By sitting for a session, the model is giving up her expectation to privacy.  I encourage you to change my mind with case law.   

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
A good example would be an implied nude photoshoot.  Take the situation where the photographer has promised her "implied" images but she knows that he has been snapping more.  She reads the release that the photographer provides and it is all inclusive.  He says the more revealing shots were inadvertant, but promises not to use them.  He, however, refuses to put language to that effect in the release form or go through is memory cards and delete the offensive images (and "yes" I know images can be undeleted).  A model's best course of action might be to sign nothing at all.

That doesn't make ANY sense at all.  First, a verbal agreement has been struck.  Granted, without a witness, disputes over verbal agreements deteriorate into "he said/she said" situations (in other words, verbal agreements are useless, unreliable and bad business.)  If the model has nothing on paper, there's no concrete proof of any agreement specifics - nothing to support her position in a dispute. 

Models (AND photographers) need to be careful about signing releases and contracts.  Don't sign the document until you're 100% sure that all of the rights and responsibilities of both parties are on paper.  Don't shoot with a photographer until the contract is signed.

Nicole Desjardins wrote:
I have no idea how to make one, can anyone give me a template or an example of one that i can use? Thanks! and also please list the benefits of using one

Now that you have been through somewhat of a debate as to what rights you have with or with out paper between you and the photographer, lets get to the paper.

I do believe if the model is not giving up full rights to the Pics, she (or he, sorry guys) should bring her own agreement to the shoot. You should have a few different scenarios as far as ownership and sharing, say maybe, three different contracts. Although in todays legal system any contract can most likely be torn to shreds, it's a good idea to have signatures. It may not prevent someone who is not on the up and up from taking advantage of you and your images or screwing you out of your copies or CDs. It may make some of the problems that could arise never even come into the picture. Sorry again. No pun intended.

I suggest you use the powerful tool at your finger tips, and get busy googling up stuff like model release contract, image and photograph copyrights and whatever else may pertain to your situation. Then write your own very legal sounding copy. The other alternative would be to actually hire someone in the legal proffesion to write some up for you. The latter may be a little pricey, but the value of the paper with you and your work on it is for you to decide.

Good luck. I know your going to run into some schmucks out there, be prepared. I hope you don't, 'cause the amount of idiots out there are destroying the art for the true artists.

William Kious wrote:
I could get into a long debate about this, but I disagree.  If I see you out on the street and I take your picture, I don't have to compensate you in any way if said image is published somewhere.  If a model willingly volunteers to have her picture taken, she surrenders her expectation to privacy (unless something else is spelled out in contract.)  You might be thinking of privacy issues - not image ownership issues.

I have seen a case (famous, recent, not sure what exactly it was - a book or calendar maybe?) where someone sued a photographer for using his image for profit without compensation. From what I understand, even though you aren't per se forbidden to use the image, without a contract someone could sue to get modeling fees after the fact. This is - as I understand - why you include the 'for valuable consideration' and a list of what the model gets in TFP contracts.

Dredful Jaymz wrote:
Although in todays legal system any contract can most likely be torn to shreds, it's a good idea to have signatures. It may not prevent someone who is not on the up and up from taking advantage of you and your images or screwing you out of your copies or CDs. It may make some of the problems that could arise never even come into the picture. Sorry again. No pun intended.

It helps to have a witness, which makes it hard to dispute that both parties signed. A fingerprint (however silly it sounds - I can never get myself to do this) makes a good backup option if you don't have a witness. And always remember, your success is the legal system depends entirely on the size of your wallet vs. theirs

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
1. ...There is, however, NO statute anywhere which specifically authorizes the use of a likeness without consent.

1(cont.). All of the things you refer to here as the "right" to use a photo is not codified anywhere.  Instead you are relying upon interpretations by courts and legislators as to the rights of the model and when you are not infringing upon them.

2. It is true that there are some occassions when you may use an image without a release, but it is a risky business.   You open yourself up, in Court to proving that you have not violated the rights of the model or the subject and those rights are subject to interpretation.  You have nothing to win in Court and everything to lose.

1. Well there are similar laws that state that you may use photos of a person without their consent as long as they are in public (On the street, in a park, etc.) or without reasonable expectation of privacy (such as bathrooms, changing rooms, etc.).

2. If I am taken to court it will be as the defendant... ...In which case I do not have to prove my innocence... The plaintiff has to prove my guilt while I defend myself.
Although most of the time it doesn't work because our legal system has it's good share of flaws...

(Isn't arguing about law fun?) lol

Yuriy wrote:
1. Well there are similar laws that state that you may use photos of a person without their consent as long as they are in public (On the street, in a park, etc.) or without reasonable expectation of privacy (such as bathrooms, changing rooms, etc.).

(Isn't arguing about law fun?) lol

It isn't fun in general, because most people do not understand it and it turns into a display of misinformation. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know it all either - so for me it's 'better safe than sorry'. What I do know is that the right to privacy is only one aspect of releases. The right to publicity is another - important - one.

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

"The right of publicity provides that an individual has the right to control the commercial use of their name, likeness or identity. While the right of privacy protects an individual from the disclosure of embarrassing facts, the right of publicity protects the individual from financial loss from an unauthorized commercial use of their name or likeness. As a general rule the right of privacy will only apply to a living person while the right of publicity may also apply to a deceased person."

Yuriy wrote:
1. Well there are similar laws that state that you may use photos of a person without their consent as long as they are in public (On the street, in a park, etc.) or without reasonable expectation of privacy (such as bathrooms, changing rooms, etc.).

Really, can you show me one?