Posted by PhotographerMV: 
ok so why would a photographer who owns the rights to his photography be required (for what reason) to have a signed by the model release. releasing from what?

From her suing your ass when you put her photo next to photos of dead fish and the rear end of motocyclists...

Posted by PhotographerMV: 
thanks for that link. that sheds a lot of light, and dutifully so in light of commertial use. still if i take pictures and post them on my own website or say here for instance, and as noted possibly next to a dead fish (not tom langman holding said fish) , i have the right to use them for my own purpose. to print, copy, duplicate, modify, or sell for profit.

Not exactly. You can copy and duplicate (both, if you can tell me what the difference is). You can modify. You can print.

You cannot publish (again, outsitde of editorial usage).  You cannot use the images commercially (i.e. sell for profit) without serious liability.

Also, depending on how you modify the shot, you can be liable for lible (say that five times fast) if published.

Posted by PhotographerMV: 
ok so why would a photographer who owns the rights to his photography be required (for what reason) to have a signed by the model release. releasing from what?

and how does that affect published candid photography?

Here is somthing else to think about.

If you shoot the model on someone's private property, you
may also need a property release from the property owner, plus the model. The releases are not the same. 

Posted by PhotographerMV: 
now that is just not right. (not saying anything against you or them), the fact is that if you are in public, on publicly accessable property, and not within the confines of a privately owned establishment, you cannot have any expectation to any right to privacy.

No, but you have an expectation that your likeness will not be exploited for commercial gain.

Posted by Andre Knudsen: 
You don't need one for the cat.

Animals fall under property releases.

Posted by PhotographerMV: 
(edit) > in reply to the NY street scene turned poster...

now that is just not right. (not saying anything against you or them), the fact is that if you are in public, on publicly accessable property, and not within the confines of a privately owned establishment, you cannot have any expectation to any right to privacy.

Yes, but you have a right to not being defamed, and if I remember the story correctly, the one person who sued was a standout in the crowd, I believe because she was the only blonde and showed.  And the caption/header was something to the effect of "you never know who's diseased", something that she successfully convinced a jury defamed her.

That's why the release, and the wording itself, has to be so careful.  Another guy successfully sued one of the tobacco companies because a public street scene had his face in it, and his suit was that it made it seem that he was endorsing smoking.  Jury agreed.

If you're just any old photographer without a ton of money, you can probably do whatever you want on your own, as long as you're not blatantly aggressive about something.  But if you have deep pockets or good insurance, you really shouldn't be showing images in public places, other than journalism, without releases.

And about the cat?  Sometimes you do.  I've shot some dog calendars, and you really need to get releases for purebreds, particularly if they're champions, to protect your rights to use the image.  I just lost a sale of a bulldog image I shot while hanging out at the local dog park with my dogs because I couldn't find the owner in time to get a release.  A grand down the tubes because I treated the whole process casually.

And, you want insanity?  Paris, arguably the birthplace of awesome street photography, makes it illegal to photograph people on the street without their permission.  It's up to the person being photographed to complain, but if they do, better re-shoot your souvenir image of Notre Dame.

Posted by sjlotf17: 
Just to add my 2cents worth here. My daughter wanted to get 1 copy of one of her images printed for her portfolio. Nothing else. 1 picture. Without a signed photographer's release, no one would print it, not even the local grocery/drugstore, & definitely not a pro camera place.

As it should be.  The first source for printing should always be the photographer.  It is in their best interest to maintain quality and standard of service for those wishing prints.

Posted by sjlotf17: 
Just to add my 2cents worth here. Without a signed photographer's release, no one would print it, not even the local grocery/drugstore, & definitely not a pro camera place.
Nancy (Sabrina's Mom)

the images must have been blatantly marked by the photographer, somthing i need to work on myself for my own imagery.
This is why i do all my own printwork, so nobody can get there hands on the origionals. i produce nearly perfectly accurate images from what i have onscreen, i have spent a long time learning how to work the 'mechanics' so to speak encompasing capture>editing>hardware-profiling>proofing, being lucky enough to have a brother in the high end printing industry and 4months vacation being a professional gardener. (yes i have lots of flower pics, LOL).

I do find this curious when the printwork i did for the big fishing derby had no problem whatsoever of being reproduced without my permission by the local photo lab on Martha's Vineyard when they knew full well i was the photographer. things are sure different in the 'real world'.

im learning, and pushing for more knowledge, thanks to everyone here who helps out with all these stumbling blocks...

sjlotf17 wrote:
Just to add my 2cents worth here. My daughter wanted to get 1 copy of one of her images printed for her portfolio. Nothing else. 1 picture. Without a signed photographer's release, no one would print it, not even the local grocery/drugstore, & definitely not a pro camera place. We know the photogs we shoot with locally very well, & they tend to neglect giving out releases, probably because they don't think that much about it. They think that giving us the images on a CD is enough. However, copyright infringement is a very big deal, as is publishing or using a model's picture without a signed release. It works both ways, & both parties benefit from having those releases.
Nancy (Sabrina's Mom)

Actually it's not a release, it's a (usage) license that a photographer would give to a model to use/reproduce the images.

Curt Burgess wrote:
I've put a lot of model release info and links on a page on my web site.

http://photoworks.ws/model_release.htm

Curt

On the Photographic Model Release for Tom Philo Photography,
you use the phrase:
"hereby release and assign all copyright ownership and"
"assign all copyright ownership" is extraneous and not something the model can do. She/He does not own the copyright, the photographer does, so he/she cannot assign it to someone else. You use the "copyright ownership" again a little down further, again incorrectly.

On some other pages, you say the same thing. It looks like you are under the impression that the model is releasing the copyrights to you. That is not what the release is for (and some smart-ass lawyer could make a case and invalidate all your releases that have this, I say, could, not would or will). The release is so you (the photographer, can use the images for profit, and allows you to alter the images (if that is included in it).

Just FYI

Andre Knudsen wrote:
You don't need one for the cat.

actually you need a property release for the cat