Dan K Studio wrote:

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.

And why is that?

Dan K Studio wrote:

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.

Do you know what he shoots?

Presuming I'm correct, there is no way he will get a release.

T-D-L wrote:

And why is that?

Because unlike most people on this thread if you said you were a professional fashion photographer I would believe it.

Cherrystone wrote:
Do you know what he shoots?

Presuming I'm correct, there is no way he will get a release.

I don't. That is why I asked.

Dan K Studio wrote:
I don't bother with them as I don't plan to do any commercial usage out of them.

+1

Michele Belle wrote:
Wait, I'm confused here. Can't you tailor the release to fit the original purpose of the shoot? I've done that before with photogs and vice-versa...

Of course you can. You can do almost anything you and the tog agree to.

Michele Belle wrote:
Wait, I'm confused here. Can't you tailor the release to fit the original purpose of the shoot? I've done that before with photogs and vice-versa...

Yes, but many find it much easier, less confusing, more flexible, and less liability prone to use a single, time tested release that will cover all their potential uses rather than reinvent the wheel every shoot.

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".

291 wrote:
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.

I agree with your point, in principle, but I would change the statement slightly:

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 being used in any manner whcih required her consent, without consent being granted by her.

I changed your statement in two ways.  First, unless the release, specifically prohibits all other use, rather than merely granting permission for certain use, the photographer might not be prohibitted from all uses.  As an example, if an image effectively illustrated a newsworthy article, the model's consent might not be required, notwithstanding the limited release.  Of course, the language of the release could cover that, but many releases do not.

Second, I don't think it has to do with compensations.  I think it has to do with consent.  As a condition of granting consent, the model may, or may not, demand more compensation.  On the other hand, I do agree with you.  The limited release would protect

Please don't take it as knitpicking.  I actually agree with your post.  I just wanted to articulate, what I thought you were saying better.

DanK Photography wrote:

I don't. That is why I asked.

Cherry hit it on the nose; for tests I'm either:

A) shooting for portfolio usage, in which case a release is not necessary (and the agency isn't going to give one anyway)

B) shooting a paid test for a model, in which case I still don't need a release because it's either a model I don't want to shoot for my book, or it's set up through the agency and it's still ok to use w/o release.

If it were a client it'd be handled on their end and I wouldn't be using the photos either.

So....as of now (dunno what the future holds) I don't have a need for them

joephotonyc wrote:
If both the model and I register a catalog of works in the US Copyright office.

and, assuming the shots were done in the US, tell us exactly what the model is going to register with the US Copyright office...

Unless the copyright was transferred to her in writing, the model HAS no copyright.

joephotonyc wrote:
If both the model and I register a catalog of works in the US Copyright office.
Aside from the model and I, there is no actionable third party and we can self publish as much as we want.

The model or I could try suing each other but that could happen either way, with or without copyright registration .

If the model were to enforce any usage stuff he or she would be in essence trying to enforce copyright breech upon themselves. I doubt any competent attorney would consider their case.

People agree to all kinds of releases /agreements every day . parking the car, going to a movie , flying on airplane etc etc etc. Most if not all don't have much case law history.

All have caveats etc but at the end of the day any agreement is as only a strong as the legal capacity to defend it or enforce it.

I prefer to work within the confines of the copyright act as it been proven and has a good case law history.

Just because publishers have a bug in their ass about something, it does not make it legal and or bound by statute.
I would take  bet for a slice of pizza that it probably all started from some insurance company laying down their "law" after a big payout in an error and omissions claim.

And for the person who asked do I get car insurance the answer is yes as its a legal requirement.

This post has so many problems.

joephotonyc wrote:

You have so much to learn! Here are a few tips from an old retired pro photographer who has pretty much seen it all.

"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 have the photos copyright protected, but you still copyright the book itself.  That's because it is a new creation. That's under today's laws.

"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 ?"
Signed documents stand on their own in court.  There is absolutely no need for confirmation from the model. Her signing the release is her confirmation.  Besides, no one other than the model would have standing to sue you regarding a published photo. An exception could be photos of a child, but then the parents signed the release, so what I said still stands..

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

What on earth in a standard release protects a model? I suspect you are confusing releases with useage licenses. Two separate documents hich should never be combined. Other than the self written releases sometimes shown on the internet, which are likely to be worthless in a court, there is nothing in a rstandard release to protect a model in any way. In its most basic form, a signed release is simply the model's writen consent for the photographer to show and othrwise use the images.

"Even so publishing on the Internet is still not clear in the US."
In what way is it not clear? Look up the word publish and see if you can find any exceptions for the internet. Publishing is publishing.

"Publishers have to sweat because there is no argument of commercial use for them."
Publishers don't have to sweat didley squat. Have you had any books commercially published, I have. Many years ago I had a photography text book commercially published. I had to sign a statement for the publisher, as part ofthe publishing contract,  to the effect that I relieved them of any and all liability concerning the phots included, "including right to privacy law suits".

"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."
That's the sad thing. I doubt very much that you in fact give the model  joint copyright. The US Copyright Office will accept joint copyright, but it has to be in writting and submitted to the Copyright Office. A verbal statement will not be accepted. Even if successful, are you aware that 15 years down the road if the photo editor of a major magazine called you and wanted to publish one of your photos,you would have to track down the model to get her written signature before allowing the sale? Way back when I was just starting out and learning the business, I once failed to get a release. A major magazine did in fact contact me wanting use to a photo. I explained to the photo editor that I needed to contact the model to get her consent. It took me about 45 minutes to do just that. When I called back, I learned from an assistant to the editor that he had gone with a different photo due to the "complications" I presented.

"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?"
A beautifu scenic shot, maybe close ups of flowers or any of the other subjects I photographed for 30 years, before going commercial.

" I don't photoshop either so every image is true representation."
Maybe you should consider using P'shop.There is a reason every professional photographer and every publication in existance uses P"shop.

"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."
Have you ever actually read a professional release? A goodly percentage of the release covers just that  point.

Some more positive advice. If you are going to give specific advice on a forum, try to know a bit aboput what you are talking about.

Justin wrote:

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.

Sorry - iPad autocorrect.

People say that all the time, but that's not a correct use of the word. More importantly it indicates a lack of understanding what filling out the paperwork at uspto.gov means.

Digitoxin wrote:

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".

If the release allows the use of the images for web advertising only, it protects the model against an unpaid use in print or billboards.

Protection comes from specificity. The release specifies how the images can be used.

Vito wrote:
Always should get a release.
It is always a possibility that sometime in the future (next year, 10 years, 20 years) that displaying an image even here on MM in your portfolio may be considered publishing and a commercial endeavor (to entice future business for you). Then you will not be able to post any images you don't have a release for.
Don't think this is an impossibility. One federal court decision can turn all the tables.

it is also a possibility that they decide that all model releases are also voided. What will you do then?

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".

291 wrote:
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.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I agree with your point, in principle, but I would change the statement slightly:

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 being used in any manner whcih required her consent, without consent being granted by her.

I changed your statement in two ways.  First, unless the release, specifically prohibits all other use, rather than merely granting permission for certain use, the photographer might not be prohibitted from all uses.  As an example, if an image effectively illustrated a newsworthy article, the model's consent might not be required, notwithstanding the limited release.  Of course, the language of the release could cover that, but many releases do not.

Second, I don't think it has to do with compensations.  I think it has to do with consent.  As a condition of granting consent, the model may, or may not, demand more compensation.  On the other hand, I do agree with you.  The limited release would protect

Please don't take it as knitpicking.  I actually agree with your post.  I just wanted to articulate, what I thought you were saying better.

ok.  however news is not in consideration as a release isn't required.  that "red lobster" photo could appear in the local news under the headline "local model lands starring role in spielberg's new epic cleopatra."

as for compensation, no need for any modification to what i wrote.  a release at its core is consent.  it is also used for determining compensation.  if asked down the road could the model give consent without compensation?  sure, but that goes against the core business model of the release beyond just giving consent, that being compensated for the use of likeness.

what becomes very evident in these discussions is how photographers view releases as a form of their compensation, yet have little regard for the release as a compensation component for the model.  what is also evident is how many/few have an understanding of releases outside the 'net.  that goes to both models and photographers.

MC Grain wrote:
If the release allows the use of the images for web advertising only, it protects the model against an unpaid use in print or billboards.

Protection comes from specificity. The release specifies how the images can be used.

that specificity typically doesn't go to that level, rather, the specificity goes more to the entity.  while it can be negotiated toward form of use, it most often isn't at the client level.

Dan K Studio wrote:

it is also a possibility that they decide that all model releases are also voided. What will you do then?

They can't do that. They would be grandfathered in.
They can't just void millions of releases signed before their ruling.

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.

This pretty much sums up everything up nicely.   Its a good idea for a photographer to have one signed in many instances for obvious reasons....its also a good idea for models to read and understand the specific release they are signing before they shoot.  And if its TF*  its a great idea to limit where our likeness can be used and/or for what purpose.  If its paid work to a model it should still be clear where it will be used and for what purpose, but will probably have less bearing.

Vito wrote:

They can't do that. They would be grandfathered in.
They can't just void millions of releases signed before their ruling.

That's right, now keep that same logic going and reread what you originally wrote.

joephotonyc wrote:
The authors of a joint work are co­owners of the copyright of the
the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

An author of a copyrighted work can use a pseudonym or pen name. A work is pseudonymous if the author is identified on copies or phonorecords of the work by a fictitious name. Nicknames and other diminutive forms of legal names are not considered fictitious. Copyright does not protect pseudonyms or other names.

http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formco2d.pdf read the form here.
A MM pseudonym is OK

A photo is not a joint work. A photo is the work of the photographer, no matter who else is involved. There are exceptions in work for hire situations, etc, which is usually spelled out before the shoot.

A model being in the shoot does not make her an author of the joint work. The only was that will happen is if you grant her copyright in writing.

Doug Lester wrote:
Some more positive advice. If you are going to give specific advice on a forum, try to know a bit about what you are talking about.

Dude I am talking about me and my situation in NY.
And how I deal with it.

I can still publish anything I  created (co-created) with other authors and myself and register it for copyright. I don't need anything else. If I were to sell the registered works then I may end up with a civil case with co author I guess but as I never sell anything its not an issue.

I have been in many court cases in courts and grand juries and every time I got asked did I take these photos etc and it did not matter what what documents were there to support the photographs.Just like a Medical Examiner has to testify about an autopsy they performed.

As if you read the complete thread many morph model releases with usage agreements also.

I also understand that photographers prefer to sign their ass away and get/ try to get the models to do the same and play the paranoid game, I am not one of them.

joephotonyc wrote:
The authors of a joint work are co­owners of the copyright of the
the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

An author of a copyrighted work can use a pseudonym or pen name. A work is pseudonymous if the author is identified on copies or phonorecords of the work by a fictitious name. Nicknames and other diminutive forms of legal names are not considered fictitious. Copyright does not protect pseudonyms or other names.

http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formco2d.pdf read the form here.
A MM pseudonym is OK

All the rubbish about pseudonyms and all the rest changes nothing........ And has zero bearing on the discussion.

Under US law, unless working under very well defined exceptions, it is extremely rare for there to be "shared" copyright. A model and a photographer, "collaborating" will still generally leave only the photographer as copyright owner.

There are exceptions to every rule, but barring SPECIFIC paper work, changing the default laws on copyright, the photographer is going to be the copyright holder.

It is pretty obvious that you are not going to be swayed by a forum discussion. You need to seriously invest some time with a knowledgeable IP attorney from your legal jurisdiction, because your flawed understanding of copyright law has serious potential implications for your business.

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".

291 wrote:
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.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I agree with your point, in principle, but I would change the statement slightly:

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 being used in any manner whcih required her consent, without consent being granted by her.

I changed your statement in two ways.  First, unless the release, specifically prohibits all other use, rather than merely granting permission for certain use, the photographer might not be prohibitted from all uses.  As an example, if an image effectively illustrated a newsworthy article, the model's consent might not be required, notwithstanding the limited release.  Of course, the language of the release could cover that, but many releases do not.

Second, I don't think it has to do with compensations.  I think it has to do with consent.  As a condition of granting consent, the model may, or may not, demand more compensation.  On the other hand, I do agree with you.  The limited release would protect

Please don't take it as knitpicking.  I actually agree with your post.  I just wanted to articulate, what I thought you were saying better.

291 wrote:
ok.  however news is not in consideration as a release isn't required.  that "red lobster" photo could appear in the local news under the headline "local model lands starring role in spielberg's new epic cleopatra."

as for compensation, no need for any modification to what i wrote.  a release at its core is consent.  it is also used for determining compensation.  if asked down the road could the model give consent without compensation?  sure, but that goes against the core business model of the release beyond just giving consent, that being compensated for the use of likeness.

what becomes very evident in these discussions is how photographers view releases as a form of their compensation, yet have little regard for the release as a compensation component for the model.  what is also evident is how many/few have an understanding of releases outside the 'net.  that goes to both models and
As I said, I do agree with you.  I just wanted to make it clear that there could be uses that don't require a release.  By your reply, we agree on that.

Likewise, a release can discuss consideration, but it really isn't the core.  consent for use of the likeness is.  That use may require consideration.

So, as I said before, we are both on the same wavelength.  I just wanted to bring up a couple more issues that come into play.

joephotonyc wrote:
I can still publish anything I  created (co-created) with other authors and myself and register it for copyright. I don't need anything else.

if you are in a co-copyright situation then both parties need to agree to the use of work at the commercial (whether in payment or not) level.

a good way to help you understand this is the creative works of the beatles, where the co-authors of the work are listed as lennon/mccartney.  paul can't do anything with the work unless john's estate agrees to it and vice versa.

for simple collaborations it's pretty foolish to enter into this form of agreement as one becomes beholden to the other party.

Dan K Studio wrote:
Who else doesn't bother with model releases?

I've never used a model release.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

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.)

That makes a lot of sense to word it that way.

I'm curious what happens when a release doesn't have that language.

I'd bet most people don't have wording along those lines in their release.

rfordphotos wrote:

and, assuming the shots were done in the US, tell us exactly what the model is going to register with the US Copyright office...

Unless the copyright was transferred to her in writing, the model HAS no copyright.

It depends on what he means by catalog. If he means "collection" that's a different story. A model can have a copyright to a collection of photos without having the copyright to any of the individual photos.

Glenns Photography wrote:
I just got burned out of an entire photo shoot worth of photos because I didn't have the model sign a model release under the impression that she was a good friend. Turns out she was packing a little more weight then she was comfortable with having shown to the general public. I edited a couple of photos to make her look absolutely beautiful and she still squawked about them being shown. I will never again do a photo shoot with anyone without a signed release.

how would you have used those pictures with a release that you can't now?

joephotonyc wrote:
The authors of a joint work are co­owners of the copyright of the
the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

This is true, except in photography.

291 wrote:

that specificity typically doesn't go to that level, rather, the specificity goes more to the entity.  while it can be negotiated toward form of use, it most often isn't at the client level.

True, "typically". But, this whole tangent came from a model's post about a release potentially protecting a model. Was she referring to a specific release or all releases? Was her knowledge based on her personal experience signing a specific release? What did it say?

We are making generalizations about releases without referencing what's written in them, so anything can be true.

The idea that a release can never offer protection for a model is incorrect.

I've had models write in specifics that were not permitted. That's another way there can be protection - like not selling images to pay porn sites.

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 (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.

Um, ok. So if a model gives me a release to use a photo in an advertisement, can I turn around and allow a third party to use that in their advertisement? I think that's what most people believe a release allows them to do, but I've never seen anything to confirm or deny that.

I mean a release that doesn't contain language to specifically allow that.

MC Grain wrote:

Um, ok. So if a model gives me a release to use a photo in an advertisement, can I turn around and allow a third party to use that in their advertisement? I think that's what most people believe a release allows them to do, but I've never seen anything to confirm or deny that.

I mean a release that doesn't contain language to specifically allow that.

Than you can use it in that advertisement and thats all