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.

You're missing my point. If your get a release for a specific use, it doesn't give you a release for all uses. In other words it can protect a model by being limited.

David Kirk wrote:

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?

Exactly, I don't get why so many people feel the type of consideration is such a determining factor.  Whether considertation comes in the form of images or cash doesn't necessarily determine the value, and it most certainly is not the determining factor for needing a release.   The need for a release is determined by the nature of the image and it's use, not the amount or type of consideration.

Digitoxin wrote:

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.

Long time pros and my situation are quite different. If you are a pro you should have a release as you will use the images for commercial purposes. That is not my case and no one long time pro or not has given a good reason other then far fetched what ifs that would be relevant here.  Nor does the evolving nature of privacy as that has nothing to do with the photos I take today. Of course there are some far fetched what ifs that you may want to place here.

Nothing more to tell me?? Are you crazy? I never asked for you to tell me anything. I already asked you once, why you think I want you to tell me anything?  This has nothing to do with the original Post or anything I wrote after it.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:

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

The post I responded to used copyright as a verb, which it's not. Therefore we really have no idea what's being discussed. He could mean register, hold, or something entirely different.

Three are no mixed concepts in my post. You cannot copyright photos. There is no such action as copyright.

David Kirk wrote:

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?

What you need to pay or barter is up to you and the model. As long as you both agree to it that is fine.

I never said otherwise.

Doug Lester wrote:
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.

What do you think would have happened if you said no, and you didn't have a model release? Assuming of course you didn't use her photo for commercial purposes?

DanK Photography wrote:

Long time pros and my situation are quite different. If you are a pro you should have a release as you will use the images for commercial purposes. That is not my case and no one long time pro or not has given a good reason other then far fetched what ifs that would be relevant here.  Nor does the evolving nature of privacy as that has nothing to do with the photos I take today. Of course there are some far fetched what ifs that you may want to place here.

Nothing more to tell me?? Are you crazy? I never asked for you to tell me anything. I already asked you once, why you think I want you to tell me anything?  This has nothing to do with the original Post or anything I wrote after it.

Talk about not understanding......IMHO his post pretty well pwnd your subsequent posts after the OP.

Your personal attacks, no matter how subtle you think they are both to him and myself, will sooner or later not fare well for you.

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?

Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't ... it depends on whom I am shooting and what the purpose or use will be of the photos.   If it's someone really young looking, or nudes, then I have them sign a 2257 and shoot a pic of them holding their id.  However since much of my photography is often times for testing, tfp or of friends, I am not hardcore about getting signed releases.  In the future, I think I will need to be more strict about it though.

Cherrystone wrote:
Talk about not understanding......IMHO his post pretty well pwnd your subsequent posts after the OP.

Your personal attacks, no matter how subtle you think they are both to him and myself, will sooner or later not fare well for you.

Like before you got nothing. Which is why you didn't even reply to my last post to you. Try and grab on to the coattails of another. Even if his posts don't have anything to do with what I wrote.

DanK Photography wrote:
... It is surprising that more TF models don't have restrictions on what a photographer can do with  TF photos.

TF models sign a release for the same reason paid models do - to recieve consideration.  The fact the consideration comes in the form of images instead of pay doesn't fundamentailly change anything.  If I can't use a model's images for my intended purpose, then there's really no difference between him/her and a paying client.  There's no incentive to do the trade shoot.  Most models who need to build their portfolios via trade work quickly figure their shoot opporunities will be very limited if they are not willing to sign the photographer's release.

DanK Photography wrote:

What you need to pay or barter is up to you and the model. As long as you both agree to it that is fine.

I never said otherwise.

What you said was this (quoted in my reply)

DanK Photography wrote:
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.

Perhaps I jumped to conclusions about what you were trying to express.  Why does it surprise you that more TF models don't have restrictions on what a photographer can do with TF photos?

MC Grain wrote:
In all the release threads I've seen on here, there's one concept I've never seen discussed - transferability. I've got two releases. One I wrote, which is very simple and very clear and one my lawyer wrote. I don't recall seeing anything that allows me to transfer the rights given to me in the release to a third party. I gave no idea if that is a right automatically granted by state law, but all these release discussions are based on assumptions of the speculated use being properly addressed in the release. You could diligently get a release signed for every shoot and still not have the rights you think you have. Theres a difference between you having a release that allows you to use the model's likeness anyway you see fit and you having the right to transfer that permission to someone else, which is the real value in a release.

Most of the common releases I've seen are not limited to just the photographer's use of an image.  It's very common for photographers to provide images to a third party for their use and provide the release with it.  It's the fundamental of how stock photography works for example.

David Kirk wrote:
What you said was this (quoted in my reply)


Perhaps I jumped to conclusions about what you were trying to express.  Why does it surprise you that more TF models don't have restrictions on what a photographer can do with TF photos?

Because they can if they wanted to. I was pretty much just agreeing with 291. There likeness has value just like a photographers copyright has value. Togs place many restrictions on what a model can do with there copyrighted works while Models typically do not place restrictions on what a tog can do with her likeness. Of course some do but that is not typical from what I understand.

I never meant to imply that both can't do whatever they want as long as they both agree to it.

MC Grain wrote:

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

Actually, use it is a verb. To copyright: to acquire written proof you own the photo.

And yes, you CAN copyright something. If you couldn't, there would be no descriptor of what it is you did to it.

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?

laws are almost never retroactive! You know that.

DanK Photography wrote:
There likeness has value just like a photographers copyright has value.

The value of their likeness is dependent on how the image can be used.   While releases are designed to protect photographers and end users of an image against litigation from the model, signing releases often benefits both models and photographers specifically by increasing the marketability and thus the value of the image.   Photographers have less incentive to work with a model if the model devalues the resulting images by restricting their use.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
The value of their likeness is dependent on how the image can be used.   While releases are designed to protect photographers and end users of an image against litigation from the model, signing releases often benefits both models and photographers specifically by increasing the marketability and thus the value of the image.   Photographers have less incentive to work with a model if the model devalues the resulting images by restricting their use.

Yes, the value is dependent on how the image can be used. that is exactly the point. Of course that value is only to the benefit of the photographer. the release is not to protect from litigation. It is to allow you to use her likeness in the manner you both chose.

It serves as written proof that you did agree to those uses.

Litigation is if you use it in a manner you didn't agree to.

As for the rest. Yup. It would be less incentive as they get less for it. Just as a restriction on models use on your copyright is less of an incentive for her.

MC Grain wrote:
Copyright is a noun not a verb. You cannot copyright photos.

LMAO! It' can be used as a Noun, Verb or Adjective. Let me guess... you don't know English.(because you surely don't know US Copyright)

DanK Photography wrote:

Yes, the value is dependent on how the image can be used. that is exactly the point. Of course that value is only to the benefit of the photographer. the release is not to protect from litigation. It is to allow you to use her likeness in the manner you both chose.

It serves as written proof that you did agree to those uses.

Litigation is if you use it in a manner you didn't agree to.

As for the rest. Yup. It would be less incentive as they get less for it. Just as a restriction on models use on your copyright is less of an incentive for her.

The difference is that the nature of the market is such that it is not common practice for a photographer to give a model full usage rights, so by not giving full usage rights a photographer is not setting himself apart from other photographers.  A model who refuses to sign a release in contrast likely limits herself, because most other models will sign a release.

Signing a release is typically part of the service a model offers as a model.   Providing a model images along with full license to those images is not typically a part of the consideration a photographer provides a model. Typically models who have advanced beyond typical trade, receive pay for compensation, not full usage rights.

Bearz Images wrote:
Use a release. Fool.

The name calling is uncalled for.
There are instances where professionals understand that a model release is inappropriate (such as agency tests) or would cost more money and therefore not reasonable or in the best interest, based on intended usage.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:

Actually, use it is a verb. To copyright: to acquire written proof you own the photo.

And yes, you CAN copyright something. If you couldn't, there would be no descriptor of what it is you did to it.

How do you acquire written proof that you own the photo?

How do you copyright something?

Please explain.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Most of the common releases I've seen are not limited to just the photographer's use of an image.  It's very common for photographers to provide images to a third party for their use and provide the release with it.  It's the fundamental of how stock photography works for example.

That may be common, but that doesn't make it legal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I know this part of the law.

Every time I've been commissioned to shoot something it's never been an option to use my release, it's always the publisher or both releases.

In the case of stock photography, I was under the impression that most stock agencies require using their release.

I'm sure that any full time stock photographer who uses their own release has the right to transfer it written in. My main point, is that with all of the details written about  in these forums, this is one that I've never seen discussed. I'm not saying that it's not logistically possible.

Rebel Photo wrote:

LMAO! It' can be used as a Noun, Verb or Adjective. Let me guess... you don't know English.(because you surely don't know US Copyright)

Give me an accurate example of it's use as a verb.

MC Grain wrote:

Give me an accurate example of it's use as a verb.

Damn!  This became an English lesson? 

MC Grain wrote:
Give me an accurate example of it's use as a verb.

People verb nouns all the time. Like I just did. "I will copyright my pictures when I edit them."

I'm struggling not to say this. But I must. The correct form in your sentence is "its."


Oh, and I usually have a release form printed, but it's rarely signed. The model generally doesn't care, as long as she gets her pictures. I generally don't care, either. I'll just use the pictures.

MC Grain wrote:

You're missing my point. If your get a release for a specific use, it doesn't give you a release for all uses. In other words it can protect a model by being limited.

I get your point.  You commented on my original point that NO RELEASE "protects" the model.  It is designed ONLY to GRANT ADDITIONAL USAGE RIGHTS to the photographer that he does not already have.

How is the grant of ANYTHING ADDITIONAL a "protection"?  Hint: it isn't.   Can we agree that a model is far better served by never having to sign release since, without one and in the US, the usages of the images are fairly narrow?  If we can agree to that then it follows that ANY release granting ANY additional rights is not a "protection"..... Giving away more does not equal "protection".

T-D-L wrote:
I don't have any use for em.  To each his own though

You have no use for a release? seriously? Of all the people in this thread I would think you would have the most likely use of one.

Rebel Photo wrote:

laws are almost never retroactive! You know that.

Yes, I do.

And can you tell me how you know that the first publication of a new book in 2045 10 years after some draconian privacy law change (containing images without releases shot in 2010) will be allowed?

Hint:  the images are fine...I could likely print them and sell them as prints all day long....... The "container" (the book) might not be.

If the book was published before the law, yes, I agree.  After this hypothetical law?  Maybe not.

Already there are book publishers who want releases on images where, under the law, they are not needed.   I was reading a story on it not too long ago.  They are doing so out of an abundance of caution (as are the gallery owners already mentioned in this thread)..... Not the law..  I care too much about my IP to not do what I can to preserve its value where possible.  A release helps (no guarantee) to do that.

Digitoxin wrote:
Already there are book publishers who want releases on images where, under the law, they are not needed.   I was reading a story on it not too long ago.  They are doing so out of an abundance of caution (as are the gallery owners already mentioned in this thread)..... Not the law..  I care too much about my IP to not do what I can to preserve its value where possible.  A release helps (no guarantee) to do that.

They do that for a reason.  Depending on the state, and the specifics of the case, while the original image may be protected, the marketing may not.

As an example, if the gallery wanted to print a fliyer of all the images in a particular show, the image wouild clearly be a protected work.  How about the advertisement?  There is one New York case, which found it was not commercial.  As far as I can tell, that is unique.  No other appellate court has ruled the same way.

My guess is that those gallery owners who are requiring it, want to be sure that they are safe; and don't have their hands tied.  They want the freedom to market however they want, even if they might not need a release.  They simply don't want to take the risk of litigation.

MC Grain wrote:
In all the release threads I've seen on here, there's one concept I've never seen discussed - transferability. I've got two releases. One I wrote, which is very simple and very clear and one my lawyer wrote. I don't recall seeing anything that allows me to transfer the rights given to me in the release to a third party. I gave no idea if that is a right automatically granted by state law, but all these release discussions are based on assumptions of the speculated use being properly addressed in the release. You could diligently get a release signed for every shoot and still not have the rights you think you have. Theres a difference between you having a release that allows you to use the model's likeness anyway you see fit and you having the right to transfer that permission to someone else, which is the real value in a release.

State laws would only serve to clarify or prohibit this practice. In common law (feel free to correct me studio32uk) everything is legal unless expressly prohibited - or if the consequences from case law look unfavorable. If it isn't covered, then it is legal, if you are unsure how courts would look at you if there is a disagreement between the parties, then you get it in writing, binding the legal actions.

All my releases are made between the talent and my business entity, which uses it for any legal purpose.

Digitoxin wrote:
Can we agree that a model is far better served by never having to sign release since, without one and in the US, the usages of the images are fairly narrow?  If we can agree to that then it follows that ANY release granting ANY additional rights is not a "protection"..... Giving away more does not equal "protection".

to the first question, yes.  but the statement that follows isn't true.

if the model is commissioned to be photographed for "red lobster" and the release specifies that client, then that specificity protects the model against the same image not appearing elsewhere without due compensation.

R A V E N D R I V E wrote:
State laws would only serve to clarify or prohibit this practice. In common law ... everything is legal unless expressly prohibited - or if the consequences from case law look unfavorable. If it isn't covered, then it is legal.

All my releases are made between the talent and my business entity, which uses it for any legal purpose.

In general, everything is legal unless it is prohibitted.  You don't have to be told "yes" in the.  The law simply defines what you cannot do (with a few limited exceptions).

Your definition of "common law," however. really isn't close.

E. B. Williams Library / Legal Research Definitions wrote:
Common law:  A system of law that is derived from judges' decisions (which arise from the judicial branch of government), rather than statutes or constitutions (which are derived from the legislative branch of government).

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/ … n_law.html

MC Grain wrote:
That may be common, but that doesn't make it legal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I know this part of the law.

Every time I've been commissioned to shoot something it's never been an option to use my release, it's always the publisher or both releases.

In the case of stock photography, I was under the impression that most stock agencies require using their release.

I'm sure that any full time stock photographer who uses their own release has the right to transfer it written in. My main point, is that with all of the details written about  in these forums, this is one that I've never seen discussed. I'm not saying that it's not logistically possible.

The release I use for stock is not provided by any particular stock company.  (I use Yuri Arcurs release).  The problem with one written for a particular company, is that many other companies understanably won't accept it.   I believe the release I use does not really transfer anything.   It's written so as to not be exclusive to the photographer in the first place, so no transfer is necessary.

(The terms of the release allow anyone to use the model's likeness, not just me.   Not just anyone can use it for anything however, because not everyone has copyright or usage rights.)