Dan K Studio wrote:
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?

It's a great way to tell the difference from a pro and an amateur. A pro knows better and gets a model release for every shoot. It takes literally 30 seconds. Why would you not just do it?

Jessie Shannon wrote:
\

DanK Photography wrote:
yes if you have a commercial use for the images you should get a release. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. As for the future why should the model give you rights for a usage that you can't explain when you do the shoot? Makes no sense to me.

I know I wouldn't do it. I doubt most togs would either. make a thread asking would you sell an image with an unknown future unlimited use. I have no doubts what the answers would be.

You should make that thread it would be interesting

Anyone who shoots or poses for stock is doing just that. With stock there is no way to predict how the images will be used. A release for stock images must be general for an "unknown future unlimited use".

Jessie Shannon wrote:
I have the suspicion that many here are using blanket releases for trade for portfolio work, but then turning around and selling to stock for example.  Whats wrong with wording that it may be transferred to a stock company or other specific uses and if the model agrees that trade is enough payment for that fine.....what is wrong with that, there is no need for blanket releases in these situations and models should not be signing them in all of these instances.

Maybe you need to get out more often. Here is the key releasing language from a typical TV production house for a "NO FEE" [UNPAID] contribution to a program. This one is nearly identical to those also used for conventional motion pictures.:

Dear [participant]

We write to confirm our agreement that, in consideration of our arranging to film and record the contribution to be given by you ("the contribution").

1.    You agree to the recording and/or broadcasting and/or live relay of the contribution and hereby grant to us all consents necessary to enable us to make the fullest use of the contribution throughout the universe in perpetuity by any and all means in any and all media, whether now known or hereafter developed or discovered, without liability (save as specifically hereinafter provided) or acknowledgement to you.

You hereby grant us the right to issue publicity concerning the contribution and any programme in which it may be included and for such purpose to use and reproduce your name and photograph and recordings and/or copies of any description of the contribution.

2.    In recognition of the needs of film and television production, we shall be entitled to edit, copy, add to, take from, adapt or translate the contribution as we see fit and, in respect of the contribution, you irrevocably waive the benefits of and agree not to assert any provision of law known as "moral rights" or any similar laws of any jurisdiction.  We do not undertake to broadcast, exhibit and/or otherwise exploit the contribution. ...

How is this any different from an all-singing-all-dancing release to a stills photographer you are objecting to? In substance, and even in much of the actual language used, it isn't! But according to you, you wouldn't agree to it.

This is standard off-the-shelf stuff, just like the releases most of the photographers are using, except that stills photographers usually do not need rights "throughout the universe" but are generally satisfied for rights on a "worldwide" basis.  LOL.

Like the Godfather might say: We're going to make you an offer you can't refuse" [ = sign the paper or don't work]

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Jessie Shannon wrote:
I have the suspicion that many here are using blanket releases for trade for portfolio work, but then turning around and selling to stock for example.  Whats wrong with wording that it may be transferred to a stock company or other specific uses and if the model agrees that trade is enough payment for that fine.....what is wrong with that, there is no need for blanket releases in these situations and models should not be signing them in all of these instances.

Maybe you need to get out more often. Here is the key releasing language from a typical TV production house for a "NO FEE" [UNPAID] contribution to a program. This one is nearly identical to those also used for conventional motion pictures.:


How is this any different from an all-singing-all-dancing release to a stills photographer you are objecting to? In substance, and even in much of the actual language used, it isn't! But according to you, you wouldn't agree to it.

This is standard off-the-shelf stuff, just like the releases most of the photographers are using, except that stills photographers usually do not need rights "throughout the universe" but are generally satisfied for rights on a "worldwide" basis.  LOL.

Like the Godfather might say: We're going to make you an offer you can't refuse" [ = sign the paper or don't work]

Studio36

Really this is the same to you?  Maybe your right maybe I should get out more and start signing blanket contracts for unlimited usage throughout the universe....or I could snap back to reality.  Dont work?  If I was hired for a shoot and I agreed to the contract great, but still...port shoot on trade does not equal commercial blanket release....period

Envy Studio wrote:
It's a great way to tell the difference from a pro and an amateur. A pro knows better and gets a model release for every shoot. It takes literally 30 seconds. Why would you not just do it?

best quote of the day!
Because I have seen some cases where amateurs shoot as good as if not better then pros I would rephrase that by saying no matter who you are you owe it to yourself to get a signed release even if it takes literally more then 30 seconds

Envy Studio wrote:
It's a great way to tell the difference from a pro and an amateur. A pro knows better and gets a model release for every shoot. It takes literally 30 seconds. Why would you not just do it?

There are published professional photographers on this thread that stated they do not get releases as they have no use for it.  So I doubt what you said has any value.

though I did pose this more towards the amateurs.

Doug Lester wrote:

Jessie Shannon wrote:
\

DanK Photography wrote:
yes if you have a commercial use for the images you should get a release. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. As for the future why should the model give you rights for a usage that you can't explain when you do the shoot? Makes no sense to me.

I know I wouldn't do it. I doubt most togs would either. make a thread asking would you sell an image with an unknown future unlimited use. I have no doubts what the answers would be.

You should make that thread it would be interesting

Anyone who shoots or poses for stock is doing just that. With stock there is no way to predict how the images will be used. A release for stock images must be general for an "unknown future unlimited use".

great point. But I still think most non stock togs would have  problem with it.

Envy Studio wrote:
It's a great way to tell the difference from a pro and an amateur. A pro knows better and gets a model release for every shoot. It takes literally 30 seconds. Why would you not just do it?

By your standards, I'm not a pro since I've never once used a model release.  You make the erroneous assumption that getting a model release is merely a matter of the time it takes to sign a piece of paper.  It is not.

When I shoot, it is under two conditions:  A paid assignment that has everyone contracted individually with the client; or a creative where everyone is shooting for portfolio development, or just for fun.

For the former, the client arranges all the paperwork.  For the latter, portfolio development (or shooting for fun) is not for immediate financial gain.  On the rare occasion that images from a creative do get used commercially, agencies (artist, stylist and model) must be contacted and the client again negotiates the fee.  As a matter of course, model agencies will not have their models sign anything themselves.

The problem with this thread is that many people are making blanket statements such as yours, as if every photographer, every model and every shoot should follow the same rule book.  As with all things related to photography, whether or not you use a model release is entirely dependent on the conditions of the shoot.

I never use a release, but I would never question anyone who does, nor assume that the way I do things is the way everyone should do things.

291 wrote:

there's no need.  if one is reassigning a photograph it would go to owning that property to do so.  the release only acts as having approval to use the likeness within the property.

I'm talking about reassigning the rights granted by the release. If I shoot a smiling model and have permission to use it in an ad, I'd need to be able to reassign those rights if I wanted to be able to sell the photo to Coke for one of their ads. Or they'd have to get a release from the model for their use.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Do you often use the "I can use any picture of you I ever take for anything,"  release???  If so, what for?  And how many models are okay with signing that?

I think that most models decide whether they want to be compensated for anything beyond the time they're putting in in the shoot or not. And they also consider the odds of a photo being licensed and then decide the money being offered at the shoot is adequate and don't worry that much about the details.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Oops left this out:

I hereby grant the following rights and permissions to Joe Photographer ("Photographer"), his/her heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, those for whom Photographer is acting, and [those acting with his/her authority and permission]

This is listed as a standard release.  The last part I think gives the right to assign

What is the default if there is no wording like this?

Cherrystone wrote:

Guess you figure your work has no value.

Do you have another profile on MM?

Or no market, which is not the same thing.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

I understand model releases fully.  And trust me I know how to vette a photographer.  But I just cant see an instance where one would ever need an unlimited usage release.  You understand that, you have wording in there against that.  Its vague, but its there.

If they have no idea what they're doing, a blanket release protects them from their own ignorance.

291 wrote:

actually, jessie has been spot on in her position.  i'm thinking more models aren't responding because they simply don't care, meaning they are too stupid to understand their likeness is an asset.  and the truth is, a model release is not just for the photographer, it is equally a component for model compensation.

a photographer shooting tf* thinking images will be used commercially "years from now" as you stated is pure speculation.  that speculation comes with a cost, and it's much more than, "here's some nice pictures for you to use for the next six-months."  to think otherwise is really missing the point of a model release from both sides of the equity coin.

Are you sure there are any models responding?

DanK Photography wrote:

How would a release have helped me here? As I mentioned even without a release I could legally have put them up if I wanted to. As a person who claims not to be a fauxtographers should know this.

Completely did not understand the sentiment.

If you are still going on about whether or not a release would have helped you when you have had two people ask to take down work done with yourself then you really do not understand the sentiment.

I would say that from what I have read of your back and forward sentiments with people you really are quite a world class troll.

1) You do not listen to the knowledge and advice of others.
2) You do not like admitting or even discussing things outside of your well worn knowledge.
3) You can not ever discuss anything in full content.
4) You will pick out whatever you can in a statement to try and be belligerent.
5) You bait people.

On all of those contexts I am just going to put it down to being very lonely, or very bored.

Now why do you not go and show everyone what a fine and professional photographer you are as you have claimed and actually go take some photographs instead of deciding to fight and make snide remarks to every single photographer on here that has anything valid to say to yourself?

That would be what any other professional photographer would be doing right now. Why? Because they do not have the time to worry about hailing down every single damn comment for the last 11 pages.

Pure Visions Photograph wrote:
Completely did not understand the sentiment.

If you are still going on about whether or not a release would have helped you when you have had two people ask to take down work done with yourself then you really do not understand the sentiment.

I would say that from what I have read of your back and forward sentiments with people you really are quite a world class troll.

1) You do not listen to the knowledge and advice of others.
2) You do not like admitting or even discussing things outside of your well worn knowledge.
3) You can not ever discuss anything in full content.
4) You will pick out whatever you can in a statement to try and be belligerent.
5) You bait people.

On all of those contexts I am just going to put it down to being very lonely, or very bored.

Now why do you not go and show everyone what a fine and professional photographer you are as you have claimed and actually go take some photographs instead of deciding to fight and make snide remarks to every single photographer on here that has anything valid to say to yourself?

That would be what any other professional photographer would be doing right now. Why? Because they do not have the time to worry about hailing down every single damn comment for the last 11 pages.

Love it a troll who calls others a troll. you have nothing to say and you do that well. you came in guns blazing calling people fauxtographers. You have no reply other then insults when your ideas are challenged and torn asunder. Unlike you I do not pretend to be a professional photographer when I am not.

Classic.

DanK Photography wrote:
Love it a troll who calls others a troll. you have nothing to say and you do that well. you came in guns blazing calling people fauxtographers. You have no reply other then insults when your ideas are challenged and torn asunder. Unlike you I do not pretend to be a professional photographer when I am not.

Classic.

"ahh the old straw man argument. I already had 2 models ask me to take down a photo. I did it no problem. I didn't have to even without a release. I had a model do a terrible retouch on my photo. I didn't care.

I use the word togs as I feel it is a perfectly valid shortcut. That it bothers you is a reflection on your pettiness and not me.

fear of the far fetched possibilities is not going to drive me to do something.

professional? My profession? Did you not look at my work?.

Oct 29 11 06:57 pm "

Halfway down on page five.

End subject.

Edit: I also stated quote "You can always tell a fauxtographer from a photographer from a person that does not realise the business side of what they are doing. "

I never called YOU a fauxtographer nor any other person.

That's on page nine in case you are looking for it.