|
Forums >
General Industry >
Who else doesn't bother with model releases?
I don't bother with them as I don't plan to do any commercial usage out of them. I notice many who are in my position do anyways. models do most of the togs make you sign? Oct 29 11 07:03 am Link I remember one very knowledgeable photographer on here who felt he knew all the nuances of law related to release well enough and knew his intended purpose well enough to know exactly when he did and did not need releases, and did not obtain then when not necessary. Me - I find it much easier to just always get a release. For most shoots I know at least some of the photos will require a release and even if that's not my plan, simply getting a release covers me in the event my plans change, the law changes or I misunderstand the law. In some states, using a photo in a portfolio that promotes your business might be considered commercial use and require a release - For me, rather than reliably trying to keep track of and understand all that, it's easier to just get a release. Oct 29 11 07:06 am Link Dan K Studio wrote: The truth is that the law - including privacy law - continues to change. If you don't have a release, can you envision a day 20 years from now when you wold like to publish a book of collected works but, without a release from each model, you can't? Oct 29 11 07:08 am Link Some do. Some don't. Most professionals do.... Its smart and can cover both model and photographer's ass...es... Oct 29 11 07:08 am Link Do what makes you happy. I do what makes me feel safe. Oct 29 11 07:08 am Link probably its better to be safe then sorry. But this is not a discussion thread on the merits of it. I am asking if there are many like me. If they wish to say why that is fine to. I do feel safe. I can't imagine how I wouldn't' be. Oct 29 11 07:10 am Link Abbitt Photography wrote: +1 Oct 29 11 07:12 am Link A release and 2257 form completed for EVERY shoot. If I worked with the model on a TFP basis, there's a TFP Contract. If it was a location shoot, Nondisclosure Agreement and Liability Waiver forms as well. Oct 29 11 07:17 am Link I don't bother unless for some reason a client specifies they need them. Frankly, on a test for example, I have a hard time putting this piece of paper in front of a model that pretty much says, "I can do whatever the f' I want with these images including make me some money and what you get in return is my "valuable consideration"". Now, when you're paying the model, or it's for advertising/ editorial work, it's a different story. But with agency models the terms are basically included in their paperwork anyway. And you think after I shoot some CEO or investment banker I'm going to put some scrappy "model release" in front of them to sign? Not. Oct 29 11 07:21 am Link Phil Neff Photography wrote: Wait, what..? How do you ever get anyone to work with you..? You must pay extremely well.. Oct 29 11 07:21 am Link Bella la Bell wrote: Bella: a release does NOTHING for a model. It does not cover her ass. In fact, it does just the opposite.... It grants additional usages beyond those already possessed by the Photograpgher. Oct 29 11 07:22 am Link Ah, just what we needed for a nice quiet Saturday afternoon. A release thread. Studio36 Oct 29 11 07:39 am Link Unless it's an agency test where they are not allowed to sign anything I get a release. For my customers it's a contract with a privacy clause and if I shot more adult content a 2257. It's not like running a business isn't full of paperwork, what is a little more Oct 29 11 07:47 am Link Dan K Studio wrote: That's exactly how I felt even when I was paying models and then one day I wanted to use a photo and the model wouldn't sign a release. From that point on I get a release every time. Oct 29 11 07:52 am Link Digitoxin wrote: No infact I had a release cover my ass once. Someone tryed to accuse me of theft on the same day I spend the entire day at a photoshoot. If I didn't have that sign release and several witnesses stating where I was at what time with whom doing what I would possiblely be in court fighting this one. So yah it saved my ass. Oct 29 11 07:56 am Link A couple of years ago I shot a TFP with a young woman without a release and made some really good shots. She later sent me a FB friend request, which I denied (I keep a small FB list) and she threw a temper tantrum with several emails to me stating she did not sign a release and refused to let me use the photos on my website. Im not going to get into a pissing match over a few photos and decided not to use them. Anyway, now I always "try" to get a signed release. It just spells out your usuage rights. And I did say "try" because many of the people I shoot are not models and the idea of signing a release makes them uncomfortable. Oct 29 11 08:02 am Link Digitoxin wrote: Forgive me if I'm not as experienced, but wouldn't a changed law only apply to NEW works? Oct 29 11 08:03 am Link I get a release for any shoot I doing which I am not being paid for as a private commission. It's true there are some uses which might not legally require a release. But there can other considerations involved. Several years ago I was drinking a beer with an art gallery curator who had spent the past few hours with me, going through my prints and making selections for prints for a two person exhibition in his art gallery. As we opened a beer, he asked if I had signed releases for the images. I replied that I did for all of the images. He was very pleased, saying he forgot to ask earlier and had feared he might have wasted several hours. In other words, no releases, no exhibition. That was his gallery rule to avoid possible civil liability problems. On another occasion I received a letter from an attorney, demanding that I take down images of a model I had paid. In addition, he demanded that I open my accounting books so that he could see how many prints of her I had sold, much money I had made from the sales, where I had exhibited the prints of the model and how many had sold and for how much. I sent a letter back simply saying "No" and enclosed a copy of the signed release. I never heard from him again. I later learned he was a new law school graduate and her new fiance. That's why unless I am being paid for a private session, I get a signed release. Oct 29 11 08:28 am Link Mnemosyne Photography wrote: It might well not be retroactive regarding a newly published book. Oct 29 11 08:30 am Link Doug Lester wrote: Pow.. Oct 29 11 08:30 am Link for trade shoots i'm more concerned about getting a picture of their driver's license. when i'm paying the model i do have them sign the istockphoto release. but for trade shoots i usually don't bother with a release. if they get upset about the pictures i'll just take them down to keep the peace. i've considered having the trade models sign the istockphoto release as well but some of these models are just dabbling in nudes and they wouldn't want to see themselves on istockphoto. that's more for the ones who do it full-time. Oct 29 11 08:32 am Link Digitoxin wrote: thats why my release is included in a contract with a severability clause Oct 29 11 08:34 am Link i dont typically have a need for them... i did have a gallery tell me they needed a model release before they would show my work, i informed them for artisitic/exhibition purposes, no release was needed...they said "it's our gallery, it's our rules".. Oct 29 11 08:34 am Link Doug Lester wrote: Yes, but wouldn't the photos be bound by the law at the time they were taken? Oct 29 11 09:04 am Link Mnemosyne Photography wrote: The PUBLICATION would be new (and potentially fully subject to this hypothetical new law) despite the fact that the images are old. Oct 29 11 09:04 am Link Mnemosyne Photography wrote: Yes, but not the "container" that they are in (the newly published book). Oct 29 11 09:05 am Link Digitoxin wrote: Gotcha. Oct 29 11 09:15 am Link Like most every one posting here, I get a release for all images I shoot that uses models. I don't bother when shooting street events, band shoots in performance and the sports events that my grandkids are participating in: the usage there is on their Mom's FB pages where they brag on the kids. Oct 29 11 09:44 am Link I always get one. Last week was a perfect example of why. A major network was filming a reality show in my studio. Since I had releases on all the photos on the walls, they won't be blurred out. You never know what you might do with a photo later, so I would rather have one than not. Oct 29 11 09:49 am Link You never know how a photograph will be used and what will be required to use it. Get the darn release. I get the release signed before the first exposure. It reminds the model that if she shouldn't show the photographer anything she doesn't want photographed. Oct 29 11 10:02 am Link Mnemosyne Photography wrote: I have photos which date back into the 1970s, all of which have releases and I can use formost anything which is not intentionally defamatory toward the model. However while it might be legally arguabe, if they were not released, a book or calendar could represent a new creation and subject to the new law. Even under curent laws I have some old photos which I dearly love but which are not released. I would not include them in any new creation such as a book. Oct 29 11 10:04 am Link Use a release. Fool. Oct 29 11 10:08 am Link Would you purchase an item from a store and not ask for a reciept? You pretty much give up all your rights to anything. Food for thought. Right now you are buying as is, no refund, no return or exchange. Oct 29 11 10:13 am Link Digitoxin wrote: I disagree most releases have usage clauses and that always benefits a model. Oct 29 11 10:17 am Link some releases do say things like "non-defamatory and non-pornographic use" which could protect the model although to my mind all this legal stuff protects you more *after* the fact (i.e., you can't necessarily prevent something bad from happening but you might be able to sue if it does). as far as releases, there are different types. some use "self-promotion only" releases (we've used these on trade shoots in the past) whereas others use releases that allow them to profit from the images. i think models would do well to understand the differences as far as what the photographer can legally do with the images without needing to contact the model for permission. and i'm not sure if some trade models would be willing to sign a full release. 78 Studios wrote: Oct 29 11 10:20 am Link Bearz Images wrote: this^^^ Oct 29 11 10:21 am Link I guess my problem with model releases is that the law should be specific and uniform on this. I've never understood why I can shoot a stranger on the corner and have more freedom in using that image than a model who comes to my studio. You think Robert Capa was running around Normandy getting model releases? "Here, sign this before you die." It's just legal bs keeping lawyers employed. Ultimately if someone takes you to court and has a better lawyer your precious model release is worthless anyway. "But, but, buh, judge... I had her sign this model release. Sa-ee here. Says here I can do whatever the f' I want. I even f-found it online." So, why not get one just to cover your back? Because personally I find that it erodes the psychological dynamic I hope to achieve with the model. Also, if I were a model and not getting paid, I wouldn't sign one. Oct 29 11 10:26 am Link S W I N S K E Y wrote: And what does THAT suggest to you? Oct 29 11 10:27 am Link Dan K Studio wrote: My ma always said, live and learn. Oct 29 11 10:34 am Link Cherrystone wrote: Suggests to me that nobody knows wtf is going on. You think a war photographer that does a show gets requested to see his or her model releases? But a model willingly comes to my studio or a location and suddenly I have to have one? It's ridiculous. Oct 29 11 10:38 am Link |
