Jessie Shannon wrote:

If I ended up on a sex hotline website when I thought it was for port/mag pub or whatever Id sue=D.

But seriously we should take a poll of how many people have actually been taken to court, over model release/or lack of release, how many people actually file copyright etc etc

Not very many.  I get asked about suing because a photo was used by another photographer claiming it was his work.  There is just usually no money in pursuing the suit so the photographer has to have a very litigious nature and a deep pocket to want to pursue such claims.

Art of the nude wrote:

This is a different matter, and one of the most frustrating things I see around here on an ongoing basis.

Trust is, to me, an essential part of the artistic process.  I don't publish (in any sense) images the model isn't comfortable with.  To follow the bolded policy above would make shooting nudes, or even implied nudes a problem, since "accidents happen."  For that matter, I've had "unscheduled appearances" in fully clothed shoots. 

Something like this (18+) can easily happen, and if the model isn't comfortable with it being used, they should certainly be able to trust that it won't be:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 3#19468943

Similarly, this model didn't want nude (topless) images published, but she was comfortable with "nude on set" which allowed for a much more relaxed and productive shoot:

Very well put and great point

Merlinpix wrote:
Do what makes you happy.
I do what makes me feel safe.

I'm a bit tired of giving up rights and simplicity in the name of being safe.

Michael Oberman wrote:
TF or Paid I always get a release...but the release on a TF also authorizes the model to use any of the session photos for their own marketing and portfolio.  It also specifies things that I can't use the photos for...i.e. pornography, etc.  To me a release is a contract that gives both parties rights.

The licensing of the photos may be a very important aspect of the bilateral contract, it adds real valuable consideration to the exchange and may make a contract enforceable where it otherwise may not have been.

I have a few different levels of release from "I can use any picture of you I ever take for anything," to more evenly distributed rights.

Art of the nude wrote:

This is a different matter, and one of the most frustrating things I see around here on an ongoing basis.

Trust is, to me, an essential part of the artistic process.  I don't publish (in any sense) images the model isn't comfortable with.  To follow the bolded policy above would make shooting nudes, or even implied nudes a problem, since "accidents happen."  For that matter, I've had "unscheduled appearances" in fully clothed shoots. 

Something like this (18+) can easily happen, and if the model isn't comfortable with it being used, they should certainly be able to trust that it won't be:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 3#19468943

Similarly, this model didn't want nude (topless) images published, but she was comfortable with "nude on set" which allowed for a much more relaxed and productive shoot:

You may be trustworthy.  But others are not and the model should protect herself.  My release specifically states, in legal terms, that if nips/lips show the image can not be used by me. 

And you own the copyright.  That is a property right that can be attached by creditors, sold or transferred as part of your estate.  What if your heirs get the shots you did not intend to be used because they showed too much and sell the shots. 

Trust is great.  Putting it in writing is the only thing that protects the model.

AtomicPenguin wrote:

The licensing of the photos may be a very important aspect of the bilateral contract, it adds real valuable consideration to the exchange and may make a contract enforceable where it otherwise may not have been.

I have a few different levels of release from "I can use any picture of you I ever take for anything," to more evenly distributed rights.

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?

Jessie Shannon wrote:
If the purpose of the shoot is for publication in a commercial sense and it happens to be trade?? The release should be worded that way, to whom/for what, not unlimited.  If its paid and agreed that the pay is worth unlimited, no problem.

Im not going to pose tf for portfolio work just to end up on a porn website or dvd cover because I signed it all away for a couple of pictures

Jessie,
A properly worded release will cover what you wrote. In my model release, it states the images will not be used in a manner which will cause the model ridicule and/or scorn. What that means is, that I would not license your images, say, for a herpes or HIV ad.

Any decent and professional photographer will have that statement written into the Model Release.

As for the DVD cover, it's getting used.

-Koa-

joephotonyc wrote:
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.

You have been in "many court cases and grand juries" that relate to your ownership of photos and right to use them?

-Koa- wrote:

Jessie,
A properly worded release will cover what you wrote. In my model release, it states the images will not be used in a manner which will cause the model ridicule and/or scorn. What that means is, that I would not license your images, say, for a herpes or HIV ad.

Any decent and professional photographer will have that statement written into the Model Release.

As for the DVD cover, it's getting used.

-Koa-

that clause is so vague there is no way it would hold up in court.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Basically nobody is gonna shoot me for free and then have unlimited neverending rights to sell or use my image for anything they want to....USUALLY for trade it would be limited to self promotion in a portfolio, online or print. And thats all....of course it really depends on the exact purpose of the shoot. 

Didnt mean to quote myself, lol

I don't shoot anyone "for free."  If a model thinks my images and efforts aren't worth the release, I'm not interested.  If they want my images and don't want to sign my release, they're welcome to pay me.

-Koa- wrote:

Jessie,
A properly worded release will cover what you wrote. In my model release, it states the images will not be used in a manner which will cause the model ridicule and/or scorn. What that means is, that I would not license your images, say, for a herpes or HIV ad.

Any decent and professional photographer will have that statement written into the Model Release.

As for the DVD cover, it's getting used.

-Koa-

Lol I meant porn dvd cover:). And yes many state specifics in the wording, but you would be surprised how many ask for the generic "I can use or sell photographs of your likeness as I see fit to who I decide for any purpose at anytime anywhere without your knowledge once you sign this", release forms

Jessie Shannon wrote:
I think people really just want a blanket release in case of all the "in case ofs" in the future. Without that necessarily being the initial intent of the shoot or maybe the implied intent of the shoot.  Not cool in my book, but that seems to be the general idea in all the threads on this topic.  And a lot of people seem to want all that TF too.  Lets be clear everyone, majority of the releases here for MM use are for portfolio work and should be used and worded as such, and at the very least protects the photographers from a model going nuts down the road and trying to make you remove pictures of them so they should be used, but used correctly:)

Why in the world "should" releases be written to limit the potential value of images?

I want to make money for myself and for the models; I'm not the least interested in putting that much effort into a shoot when the model's goal is to limit the potential benefits.

-Koa- wrote:
2) Liability Release Form - This is always a big one. My work is in the mountains/jungles. Last thing I need is a model to bust their ass (already happened several times) and then sue me later. The liability form they sign states  they have medical insurance and that they hold me harmless for anything that happens to the shoot, from the shoot and during the shoot.

I thought most of those could easily be nullified if need be.

joephotonyc wrote:
Umm I can self publish a book anytime I own registered copyright to the shot I can use it.

Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
If the laws changed tomorrow its not going to be applies to actions prior to that date of law being signed.

Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
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 .

Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
How would you track down a model you shot 20 years ago who is on another country and married ?

Irrelevant if you do it right now

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

Wrong

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

Irrelevant

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

Backwards?? or just Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
Google does not seem to care

Wrong, Irrelevant . . . (take your pick)

joephotonyc wrote:
I give any model who shoots with me  joint copyright as we both contributed equally to the art work.

Very nice/generous of you BUT, totally inconsistent with the first sentence you wrote AND totally inconsistent with the custom and practice of virtually every photographer in this country.

joephotonyc wrote:
Thats what a model gets and deserves as far as I am concerned.

Irrelevant

joephotonyc wrote:
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?

Silly

joephotonyc wrote:
Oh I don't photoshop either so every image is true representation.

Totally irrelevant to every point raised in this thread.

joephotonyc wrote:
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.

Wrong


It's so helpful when people come in here and post long explanations of what the law is (or, in this case, a total misrepresentation and distortion of the actual law.)

Jessie Shannon
Basically nobody is gonna shoot me for free and then have unlimited neverending rights to sell or use my image for anything they want to....USUALLY for trade it would be limited to self promotion in a portfolio, online or print. And thats all....of course it really depends on the exact purpose of the shoot. 

Didnt mean to quote myself, lol[/quote wrote:

Art of the nude wrote:
I don't shoot anyone "for free."  If a model thinks my images and efforts aren't worth the release, I'm not interested.  If they want my images and don't want to sign my release, they're welcome to pay me.

That was not meant to start the good ol tf* war.....what I meant was, IF its true tf, for our ports or otherwise specifically stated purpose fine, but If you plan on selling the images to stock, etc AND have unlimited never ending do what you want when you want release, I want more than a couple pictures......never said time or print is not valuable, but if my likeness makes you mire $$ than the few tf pics I get in return, its not fair trade and at that point should be paid.

Art of the nude wrote:
This is a different matter, and one of the most frustrating things I see around here on an ongoing basis.

Trust is, to me, an essential part of the artistic process.  I don't publish (in any sense) images the model isn't comfortable with.  To follow the bolded policy above would make shooting nudes, or even implied nudes a problem, since "accidents happen."  For that matter, I've had "unscheduled appearances" in fully clothed shoots. 

Something like this (18+) can easily happen, and if the model isn't comfortable with it being used, they should certainly be able to trust that it won't be:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 3#19468943

Similarly, this model didn't want nude (topless) images published, but she was comfortable with "nude on set" which allowed for a much more relaxed and productive shoot:

HOTTIE SHOTS wrote:
You may be trustworthy.  But others are not and the model should protect herself.  My release specifically states, in legal terms, that if nips/lips show the image can not be used by me. 

And you own the copyright.  That is a property right that can be attached by creditors, sold or transferred as part of your estate.  What if your heirs get the shots you did not intend to be used because they showed too much and sell the shots. 

Trust is great.  Putting it in writing is the only thing that protects the model.

You misunderstand, although it's my fault. 

My release DOES spell out what is, and is not, included in terms of nudity.  But, my point was that the model OUGHT to be able to trust a photographer to do what was agreed upon.

Typically, if I'm shooting nudes with a model, before we start I show them a wide range of my images, including some that are quite explicit.  Then I point out that, as they can see, I don't need to "sneak" anything.  Whatever I want to shoot, someone is willing / eager to do.

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?

All of them.

Stephen Markman wrote:
It's so helpful when people come in here and post long explanations of what the law is (or, in this case, a total misrepresentation and distortion of the actual law.)

I'm waiting with baited breath for his response.

AtomicPenguin wrote:
The licensing of the photos may be a very important aspect of the bilateral contract, it adds real valuable consideration to the exchange and may make a contract enforceable where it otherwise may not have been.

I have a few different levels of release from "I can use any picture of you I ever take for anything," to more evenly distributed rights.

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 do.

Because *I don't know* what potential uses an image might have, and I consider this a business.  I'd LOVE to be generating more revenue and sharing a portion with the models; it would be great for business in multiple ways.

"How many are OK with signing?"  So far, 159 out of 160; and the other one was trying to change a TF shoot to her being paid at the last minute; the release complaint was one of many that appeared at the end of six weeks of planning, after I drove 300 miles to the site, and after she'd had the release for a week.

Cherrystone wrote:

All of them.

Thats crazy

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 do.

I have it just in case of many of the instances that have been mentioned in this thread.

I have never had a model turn down signing it, and most of them were TF shoots.

Earlier this year I shot TF with 2 models from Europe who have done many international Playboy and Penthouse shoots, and they didn't hesitate to sign it.

Art of the nude wrote:
Why in the world "should" releases be written to limit the potential value of images?

I want to make money for myself and for the models; I'm not the least interested in putting that much effort into a shoot when the model's goal is to limit the potential benefits.

Not even remotely to limit potential benefits.  To limit potential benefits to a photographer while potentially harming a model...

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Thats crazy

not sure why you are surprised. Seems most MM models don't think there likeness has any value outside of a couple of photos they can't do anything with.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
That was not meant to start the good ol tf* war.....what I meant was, IF its true tf, for our ports or otherwise specifically stated purpose fine, but If you plan on selling the images to stock, etc AND have unlimited never ending do what you want when you want release, I want more than a couple pictures......never said time or print is not valuable, but if my likeness makes you mire $$ than the few tf pics I get in return, its not fair trade and at that point should be paid.

Well, usually I give more than "a couple" pictures.  But, more to the point, my images have made WAY more "$" for the models than they have for me, in various senses.  Should they pay me, retroactively?

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Thats crazy

No, not at all. 11 years. Hundreds.

Ok....something just popped into my head. All but one.

Art of the nude wrote:

Well, usually I give more than "a couple" pictures.  But, more to the point, my images have made WAY more "$" for the models than they have for me, in various senses.  Should they pay me, retroactively?

how so?

Art of the nude wrote:
Why in the world "should" releases be written to limit the potential value of images?

I want to make money for myself and for the models; I'm not the least interested in putting that much effort into a shoot when the model's goal is to limit the potential benefits.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Not even remotely to limit potential benefits.  To limit pitential benefits to a photographer while potentially harming a model...

If I can't potentially sell the images, they aren't worth anything to me.  Now, so far, I have very rarely been able to do so, but that's a different matter.

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

If one only wants to have a women in front of the camera and satisfy with it, then there is no need for any release.

DanK Photography wrote:

not sure why you are surprised. Seems most MM models don't think there likeness has any value outside of a couple of photos they can't do anything with.

Guess you figure your work has no value.

Do you have another profile on MM?

Art of the nude wrote:
Well, usually I give more than "a couple" pictures.  But, more to the point, my images have made WAY more "$" for the models than they have for me, in various senses.  Should they pay me, retroactively?

DanK Photography wrote:
how so?

1. Zivity until recently paid models 3X as much as photographers, and it's still almost twice as much, so the models have gotten much more out if it than I have, for a given shoot.

2.  Several models that I know of have started getting paid shoots immediately after our trade shoot.  Like, as soon as they post the images.

rp_photo wrote:
I thought most of those could easily be nullified if need be.

I doubt it. I always have a witness sign both the Model release and Liability forms. I try not to leave anything to chance.

So far, all of my models have been super nice folks. They are not the type to screw people over. I had a model ask that I not use a specific image and I had no problem with that.

Either way, it is always best to have those forms signed than not have them at all. Kind of like medical insurance. You hope you will never need it but you are sure as hell glad to have it if you do.

To the rest who have something to say how I operate, that's fine, it's your opinion. I have been at this for a very long time and considering the subject matter I shoot, I use those forms. My forms are geared to how I work. others may need something different. That's fine. But for me, they have worked out just fine for my business.

If you are a hobbyiest, then you can get away with having nothing. But walk into a hospital or even a clinic and you will be signing forms left and right. they are a business and need to cover themselves. And nobody here can tell me they have never signed multiple forms at hospitals and I even bet you never even read them either.

It's only common sense for a photographer to have a model release.

As I said, I will not have the time to track down a model years from now. Even worse if the model has died. I intende to pass my work down to my son and the primary value of the images includes the Model Release forms. It's going to suck when lot's of these photographers pass on and their images can't be used by family members because there was never a model release form used. And heaven forbid if one of those models becomes a famous actor/actress. Then what?

I am only imparting what I do. That's me. Use it all, partial or none of it, makes no difference to me. It's just information to those who do not have the experience that I do.

By the way, several of my model releases kept me from going to jail several years ago. I had the police involved and I was cleared within day's of presenting my documentation (biz license, tax papers and MODEL RELEASES) of all wrong doing.

In other words, from personal experience, I will be damned if I will do a shoot without a release.

-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com

DanK Photography wrote:

how so?

On the net, most models don't make any consistent $$ with a shit portfolio

Art of the nude wrote:
If I can't potentially sell the images, they aren't worth anything to me.  Now, so far, I have very rarely been able to do so, but that's a different matter.

Your missing the entire core of my point......its not to say they cant be sold, its to limit what they can be sold to.  You may have good intentions, but many, with unlimited release will not have the same good intentions, thats just the way the world is.  To grant that to everyone on trust is...well..crazy

Cherrystone wrote:

On the net, most models don't make any consistent $$ with a shit portfolio

On the net, most photographers dont make any consistent $$ with a shit portfolio.  How does that relate to having a release or not?

Art of the nude wrote:
If I can't potentially sell the images, they aren't worth anything to me.  Now, so far, I have very rarely been able to do so, but that's a different matter.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Your missing the entire core of my point......its not to say they cant be sold, its to limit what they can be sold to.  You may have good intentions, but many, with unlimited release will not have the same good intentions, thats just the way the world is.  To grant that to everyone on trust is...well..crazy

Well; then pretty much everyone in Michigan who models is "crazy."

And, as far as "limiting what they can be sold to", it depends.  If I have a specific purchaser, I probably already got paid, and trade isn't relevant.  If not, I'm hoping to sell the image, and whether I'd agree to limitations depends on what they are.  But "not to be used on a porn site" is a scary one.  To much of the world, MM is a "porn site."

Cherrystone wrote:
On the net, most models don't make any consistent $$ with a shit portfolio

Jessie Shannon wrote:
On the net, most photographers dont make any consistent $$ with a shit portfolio.  How does that relate to having a release or not?

It relates to why models make money from the images they get from shooting with a good, or in my case, decent, photographer.  The images make them more marketable for paid shoots.  And there is, frankly, a LOT more money in being an art nude model than an art nude photographer.