Kristen Jeanne wrote:
Would you rather work with photographers who shoot just for the thrill of it?...or because they need the practice?

I'm glad someone said it

TXPhotog wrote:

No, it doesn't.  The release protects the photographer (or photographer and client) ONLY.

TX is right, the release protects the photographer/client, while it is the usage license that protects the model.  I always provide a usage license when getting a model release.

D'Magi Visual Concepts wrote:
I found the article of Wikipedia to be pretty much dead on.

Thanks! I overhauled it awhile back.

Richard Tallent wrote:

Thanks! I overhauled it awhile back.

I knew your name looked familiar from somewhere LOL

Kristen Jeanne wrote:

If someone wishes to sell an image of me, then they can pay me.

i wonder how much money Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan have made from their pictures sold by photographers

Kristen Jeanne wrote:
I would never expect to share copyright. My idea of trade is that all sides are using it for promotional uses. If someone wishes to sell an image of me, then they can pay me.

Kristen, while I see where you are coming from, you should understand that "commercial use" doesn't just mean selling a photo for use in an advertisement.

The definition of commercial use varies from one place to another, but without a release, a model might drag a photographer into court for uses such as:
- the photographer's business card, online, or yellow page ad
- use in an online portfolio or web site (including MM)
- inclusion in or promotion of an art book (a use near to my heart as an unpublished art photographer).
- prints of artwork (ditto)
- submission to an art magazine for a contest

Yes, some of those are clearly "promotional" uses, but others are harder to define. So, the release I use for TFCD is a commercial release. However, I put a number of riders in there to prevent the image from being used on porn sites, erotic pay sites, and advertising of drugs, alcohol, etc.--the things that models generally worry about.

If you were a fashion model signed with an agency, doing regular commercial work, and modeling for test shoots that *look* like stock commercial photography, you would not sign a release.

But for an unsigned model of non-fashion/commercial proportions shooting TFCD portraits and art nudes with local MM photographers, it's really just splitting hairs and you will scare off a few more serious photographers who worry about uses like those I listed above.

But on the subject of TFCD, there is no rule that releases are not signed for TFCD.

Richard Tallent wrote:

Kristen, while I see where you are coming from, you should understand that "commercial use" doesn't just mean selling a photo for use in an advertisement.

The definition of commercial use varies from one place to another, but without a release, a model might drag a photographer into court for uses such as:
- the photographer's business card, online, or yellow page ad
- use in an online portfolio or web site (including MM)
- inclusion in or promotion of an art book (a use near to my heart as an unpublished art photographer).
- prints of artwork (ditto)
- submission to an art magazine for a contest"

Yes, some of those are clearly "promotional" uses, but others are harder to define. So, the release I use for TFCD is a commercial release. However, I put a number of riders in there to prevent the image from being used on porn sites, erotic pay sites, and advertising of drugs, alcohol, etc.--the things that models generally worry about.

If you were a fashion model signed with an agency, doing regular commercial work, and modeling for test shoots that *look* like stock commercial photography, you would not sign a release.

But for an unsigned model of non-fashion/commercial proportions shooting TFCD portraits and art nudes with local MM photographers, it's really just splitting hairs and you will scare off a few more serious photographers who worry about uses like those I listed above.

But on the subject of TFCD, there is no rule that releases are not signed for TFCD.

That was perhaps the best explanation I've seen to describe "commercial".  Thank you for that.

However, your last sentence has me confused.  I'm not certain I caught your meaning.  (Perhaps the double negatives).

D'Magi Visual Concepts wrote:
That was perhaps the best explanation I've seen to describe "commercial".  Thank you for that.

But it's not an explanation of "commercial".

In Texas, where I and Mr. Tallent live, there is no statute which provides for a right of privacy or publicity for living models; the requirement for models releases is derived from common law only.  Under common law IN TEXAS, any use of a model's image "for some advantage, usually of a commercial nature," to the photographer or client requires permission of the model.  That is a very broad construction, and arguably includes all the things listed in Mr. Tallent's post.

However, in a state like New York, which has a very limited statutory right of privacy and no common law right of privacy or publicity, some of the things on his list would not require a release.

As we have to say over and over again, these things are matters of state law, and they vary widely.  NO general statement of release requirements is applicable to all states and jurisdictions.

TXPhotog wrote:

But it's not an explanation of "commercial".

In Texas, where I and Mr. Tallent live, there is no statute which provides for a right of privacy or publicity for living models; the requirement for models releases is derived from common law only.  Under common law IN TEXAS, any use of a model's image "for some advantage, usually of a commercial nature," to the photographer or client requires permission of the model.  That is a very broad construction, and arguably includes all the things listed in Mr. Tallent's post.

However, in a state like New York, which has a very limited statutory right of privacy and no common law right of privacy or publicity, some of the things on his list would not require a release.

As we have to say over and over again, these things are matters of state law, and they vary widely.  NO general statement of release requirements is applicable to all states and jurisdictions.

I agree.  That is why, even in California, I won't shoot a tfcd unless I will receive a signed release.  It is just that cushion of protection.

Let's face it.  The extreme vast majority of tfcd images are not ever going to be used for sale, but the release helps quash any potential litigation (say for using the image on a business card or personal website).

Imajin Studios wrote:

i wonder how much money Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan have made from their pictures sold by photographers

And they didn't even sign a release.

Imajin Studios wrote:
i wonder how much money Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan have made from their pictures sold by photographers

They are (a) celebrities and (b) in public, so different privacy laws apply (at least for now).

Also, those shots *still* can't be used to sell soap, just for "news."

Richard Tallent wrote:

They are (a) celebrities and (b) in public, so different privacy laws apply (at least for now).

Also, those shots *still* can't be used to sell soap, just for "news."

True, but the point is they can be sold without compensation to the subject.

D'Magi Visual Concepts wrote:
There has been many opinions and misunderstanding about the general nature of TFP/CD here on MM and in general.  Some models believe that if they don't get ALL images, they are being cheated.  Others want only retouched images, citing quality over quantity.  Who's responsibility is it to take care of the MUA?  Styist? etc...

I found the article of Wikipedia to be pretty much dead on.  What do you think?  Does anyone disagree?  If so, why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFCD

i have used that link for my non-MM ads for quite a while..