Thomas 2345 wrote:
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.

If you had copyrighted the photos what could she do ? not much

joephotonyc wrote:

If you had copyrighted the photos what could she do ? not much

Copyright and usage are not the same thing.

78 Studios  wrote:
I disagree most releases have usage clauses and that always benefits a model.

Any "Usage License" is fine and a good idea to receive as a model.   I sign and give a separate Usage License to the model (or client) for each shoot.  But, this thread is about "model releases", not usage licenses.

Oh, and unless you have actually viewed "most" model releases, it is not a good idea to suggest that "most" of them contain Usage Licenses for the model.  Many of the more common ones (ASMP and several of the major Stock Houses) do not contain any kind of Usage Licenses for the model and neither does the one drafted by my attorney.  The one my friend uses also does not have a UL in it nor a handful of my other friends.  "most"?  Really?  Prove it.

joephotonyc wrote:

If you had copyrighted the photos what could she do ? not much

You are really going to get spanked in court one day if you don't understand that what you are saying is non-sensical.

Cherrystone wrote:

My ma always said, live and learn.

MAKE you sign???

Yes, make.. You think I would sign a release if I didn't have to..?

Digitoxin 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?

I can see that day.  Will it occur?  Unknown.  But, why not get the release now anyway?

Umm I can self publish a book anytime I own registered copyright to the shot I can use it.
If the laws changed tomorrow its not going to be applies to actions prior to that date of law being signed.

You can have all the releases in the world but if it comes to court case , you would need to have the model in court to corroborate . How would you track down a model you shot 20 years ago who is on another country and married ?

A release helps protect the models / publishers interests NOT the photographer.

Even so publishing on the Internet is still not clear in the US.

Publishers have to sweat because there is no argument of commercial use for them.

Google does not seem to care

I give any model who shoots with me  joint copyright as we both contributed equally to the art work.
Thats what a model gets and deserves as far as I am concerned.

Yeah I know a bunch of you will get your panties in a twist about this, however take the models out of your shots what do you have?

Oh I don't photoshop either so every image is true representation.
Maybe a model release can be a problem to as you have tied your hands when you modify an image as they could come back and say that the shot is not how they ( model) intended it to be and YOU the photographer has breached the agreement.

Digitoxin wrote:

You are really going to get spanked in court one day if you don't understand that what you are saying is non-sensical.

Usage is a publisher thing, as long as I use in  a fair and reasonable way, I have nothing to fear.

joephotonyc wrote:
Umm I can self publish a book anytime I own registered copyright to the shot I can use it.
If the laws changed tomorrow its not going to be applies to actions prior to that date of law being signed.

You can have all the releases in the world but if it comes to court case , you would need to have the model in court to corroborate . How would you track down a model you shot 20 years ago who is on another country and married ?

A release helps protect the models / publishers interests NOT the photographer.

Even so publishing on the Internet is still not clear in the US.

Publishers have to sweat because there is no argument of commercial use for them.

Google does not seem to care

I give any model who shoots with me  joint copyright as we both contributed equally to the art work.
Thats what a model gets and deserves as far as I am concerned.

Yeah I know a bunch of you will get your panties in a twist about this, however take the models out of your shots what do you have?

Oh I don't photoshop either so every image is true representation.
Maybe a model release can be a problem to as you have tied your hands when you modify an image as they could come back and say that the shot is not how they ( model) intended it to be and YOU the photographer has breached the agreement.

I have rarely read a post that showed, point by point, a complete and utter lack of understanding of the law.  I have no desire to point by point tell you how you are wrong.  Others may have the stamina.  I don't.

There are a bunch of threads on this site that can help you understand.  I suggest you read them.

Nedah Oyin wrote:

Yes, make.. You think I would sign a release if I didn't have to..?

You made a choice. No one made you do anthing.

Cherrystone wrote:

You made a choice. No one made you do anthing.

To be able to do my job, I have to sign releases for TF.. Otherwise my portfolio will become stagnant and I'll stop being hired..

Smfh..

joephotonyc wrote:

Usage is a publisher thing, as long as I use in  a fair and reasonable way, I have nothing to fear.

Ah, so your legal reasoning has moved from "copyright" to "reasonableness of usage"

Good luck with that.

"your honor, my usages of this image were 'reasonable' "

Good luck!

Cherrystone wrote:

You made a choice. No one made you do anthing.

Make as in required before a shoot will commence. Not as in forced to in fear of retribution. But then again no one else in this thread can read or understand so you fit right in.

Digitoxin wrote:
Ah, so your legal reasoning has moved from "copyright" to "reasonableness of usage"

Good luck with that.

"your honor, my usages of this image were 'reasonable' "

Good luck!

What does your honor have to do with it. It will never come to court. The worst most of us will get is asked to remove a picture from our port. I would do so even with a release.

Fear mongering and silly what ifs are not helpful. I have read many of the "should I have a release" and no one has given me any reason other then "why not" that would convince me that one is needed by me.

Not that this thread was supposed to be one of those threads. but this is MM.

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?

From 1954 on I have all sign releases..  I missed one in 1955  and now I can't include it in a book that I would very much love to have it  included..  very special photo and lady..

Abbitt Photography wrote:
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.

Even though all I do is TFCD, I do paperwork with everyone. My lawyer told me a long time ago that in legal situations, he with the paperwork/records often wins. coming from a medical background, I believe that 100%. business school teaches you that if it wasn't written down or otherwise recorded, it didn't happen.I use the forms and an image editing worksheet as my 'file' on each model.OK, I'm somewhat OCD--does that explain it? [grins].

Dan K Studio wrote:

What does your honor have to do with it. It will never come to court. The worst most of us will get is asked to remove a picture from our port. I would do so even with a release.

Fear mongering and silly what ifs are not helpful. I have read many of the "should I have a release" and no one has given me any reason other then "why not" that would convince me that one is needed by me.

Not that this thread was supposed to be one of those threads. but this is MM.

Terrific!

Then you have your answer!  Don't use a release.

I know that the time that I received a letter from some attorney with all sorts of legal threats of legal actions, I was very glad I had one as it ended the discussion right there.

You are absolutely free to not use one though.

Digitoxin wrote:

Terrific!

Then you have your answer!  Don't use a release.

I know that the time that I received a letter from some attorney with all sorts of legal threats of legal actions, I was very glad I had one as it ended the discussion right there.

You are absolutely free to not use one though.

How do I have an answer? What question did I ask that "Don't use a release" answered?

Dan K Studio wrote:

Make as in required before a shoot will commence. Not as in forced to in fear of retribution. But then again no one else in this thread can read or understand so you fit right in.

And that ain't a choice?

Got an employer? Oh those dirty bastards expect me to show up to get a check.
Dear Lord, they even want me to show up on time! Those nervy SOB's.

Got a mortgage? Oh those dirty bastards expect me to make my house payment or their gonna take my house away.

I understand perfectly.....although you may not.

Cherrystone wrote:
And that ain't a choice?

Got an employer? Oh those dirty bastards expect me to show up to get a check.
Dear Lord, they even want me to show up on time! Those nervy SOB's.

Got a mortgage? Oh those dirty bastards expect me to make my house payment or their gonna take my house away.

I understand perfectly.....although you may not.

Of course it is a choice. nowhere did I even imply that it wasn't.

Nowhere did I mention it was this godawful thing to do so either.

An employer may make or require me to be there at 9. it is still a choice. Of course failure to do so would mean not working with him. If you can point out where I said otherwise please do so.

I am fairly certain you did not understand.

Dan K Studio wrote:
models do most of the togs make you sign?

a question for models and it becomes all about the photographers.

ever wonder why so few models get involved in "model release" discussions?  i suspect many don't feel likeness is a tangible asset but nothing is further from the truth.

for every dozen or so "no release - no shoot" responses made by photographers there is rarely a model that chimes in and says, "make your release specific to who and where my likeness is being released and i'll sign it.  don't and you should go look for someone else." 

imagine if every model had the understanding and stance in protecting their asset (likeness rights)...equally as strong as photographers wish to protect their copyrights.

model releases are an integral part of the business.  so is understanding how, why and when to properly supply them for signature.

291 wrote:
a question for models and it becomes all about the photographers.

ever wonder why so few models get involved in "model release" discussions?  i suspect many don't feel likeness is a tangible asset but nothing is further from the truth.

for every dozen or so "no release - no shoot" responses made by photographers there is rarely a model that chimes in and says, "make your release specific to who and where my likeness is being released and i'll sign it.  don't and you should go look for someone else." 

imagine if every model had the understanding and stance in protecting their asset (likeness rights)...equally as strong as photographers wish to protect their copyrights.

model releases are an integral part of the business.  so is understanding how, why and when to properly supply them for signature.

It was meant as a question for both. But models deal with many photographers and would have given better insight over how many of them use releases. A photographer can typically only talk about himself.

Though I agree with what you wrote. It is surprising that more TF models don't have restrictions on what a photographer can do with  TF photos.

Dan K Studio wrote:

How do I have an answer? What question did I ask that "Don't use a release" answered?

Despite the conributions of long-time pros in this thread and being shown in this thread a number of areas where a release has been quite handy (art galleries and unsolicited discussions with attorney's) as well as a discussion on the evolving nature of privacy laws, you said this:

"I have read many of the "should I have a release" and no one has given me any reason other then "why not" that would convince me that one is needed by me. "

I have therefore reached the conclusion that despite the contributions here, you have dismissed them all.  There is nothing more to tell you.  You have much of the rationale as to why one should (or should not) get a release.  If this rationale does not ring true to you, then, it never will.  So, you are set.  Don't get releases and then deal with situations if they come.

I for one want to do my very best to protect the value of my IP now, and in the future.  Since privacy laws continue to evolve, I chose to get a release in an effort to insulate myself from those changes if they occur.   You may legitimately decide to do otherwise.  Good luck.

DanK Photography wrote:
It was meant as a question for both. But models deal with many photographers and would have given better insight over how many of them use releases. A photographer can typically only talk about himself.

Though I agree with what you wrote. It is surprising that more TF models don't have restrictions on what a photographer can do with  TF photos.

So, if you pay a model cash then they should be willing to sign a model release?  How much cash is required for this?

What if the model feels that the photos he/she is receiving as part of a TF shoot is of more value than that same amount of cash?  Should they then be willing to sign a release or should they demand to receive the cash instead (deemed by them to be of lesser value) in order to do so?

Digitoxin 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.

No, it grants what it says it grants. It depends on what's written. It could be a release for a specific use and not a blanket release.

joephotonyc wrote:

If you had copyrighted the photos what could she do ? not much

Copyright is a noun not a verb. You cannot copyright photos.

MC Grain wrote:

No, it grants what it says it grants. It depends on what's written. It could be a release for a specific use and not a blanket release.

A "specific use" IS and "ADDITIONAL USAGE beyond those already possessed by the photographer.... ". If it wasn't, there would be no need to have the release.  The SOLE purpose of a release is to have the model grant usages BEYOND those already possessed by the photographer whether those usages are blanket or specific.

MC Grain wrote:

Copyright is a noun not a verb. You cannot copyright photos.

uh

I think we are mixing concepts here, if you are just talking about the grammar thats one thing


Americans automatically get copyright of photos they create, although they need to register them before publishing to get any statutory protection

Digitoxin wrote:
A "specific use" IS and "ADDITIONAL USAGE beyond those already possessed by the photographer.... ". If it wasn't, there would be no need to have the release.  The SOLE purpose of a release is to have the model grant usages BEYOND those already possessed by the photographer whether those usages are blanket or specific.

my "release" grants me (actually an entity I control all the interests of) the use of image and likeness for any lawful purpose

the next clause details the limited usage license, and for models and anybody part of the production, it allows them use in a portfolio, but thats IT.

whoever is subject to that agreement waives their fair use rights, moral rights if applicable in that jurisdiction, and their right to derivative works. its like, absolutely nothing, unless agreed upon in the future.

everyone I work with knows this on their way to the shoot

and I usually pay for this privilege

in TF shoots I use a separate kind of agreement, usually a more broad usage license

the release is but one clause of a contract