Forums >
General Industry >
In Texas if a photog. forgets to have a
Aug 16 12 07:24 am Link Yes, they can. Photographers own the images. The only time a model release is actually needed is when the photograph is going to be used commercially or is using them for profit purposes. If he's just putting them up on his website, etc, he does not need a model release for that as far as I know. Aug 16 12 07:33 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: Generally speaking this is true. The photog owns the images, but cannot use them for most purposes without a release from the model. Neither can the model without permission from the photog On the other hand, a legal challenge would be expensive and highly unlikely. Aug 16 12 07:33 am Link Jouissance Images wrote: Define "most purposes"? Aug 16 12 07:36 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: Aug 16 12 07:39 am Link Aug 16 12 07:42 am Link Aug 16 12 07:42 am Link If you don't sign a model release and the photographer uses them in a way you don't like what can you do about it.. It becomes a he said she said. My model release is more of an agreement on a TF shoot saying we will only use the in our ports and not for profit. I can't sell them nor can the model. I won't shoot a model with out a sign a model release. Why would you shoot with a photographer with out one. L2 Aug 16 12 07:48 am Link P O T T S wrote: good job with that link!! Aug 16 12 07:58 am Link Yeah, they certainly can. For a lot of uses. Aug 16 12 08:02 am Link Jouissance Images wrote: For me, I can use photos taken for almost all purposes, without a release. Aug 16 12 08:04 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: a release is simply having consent to use likeness. it can be written on a napkin. not accepting a fax is rather silly as there is often a transmission tag on the header or footer and within the internal log showing from where it was received. as well, electronic transmissions have become commonplace as being valid. Aug 16 12 08:14 am Link Aug 16 12 08:35 am Link Aug 16 12 08:37 am Link Aug 16 12 08:39 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: That is terrible advice. It is to your benefit to not sign a model release. It may not be much of a benifit in the vast majority of cases but signing a release does not help the model in any way. Aug 16 12 08:41 am Link I'm wondering if the photographer simply doesn't want to use the images for some reason and is using that as an excuse. Seems if he really wanted to use them he would figure out a way to get a release. And, as has been mentioned, a release is not always needed anyway. Aug 16 12 08:57 am Link Greg Kolack wrote: This is what I am thinking. There has to be more to this story. Aug 16 12 09:02 am Link L2Photography net wrote: I didn't know a release allowed the model to sell them? Aug 16 12 09:03 am Link Do you mean that he feels he can't use them without said release and so therefore you can't have the files either? Well first off, he can use them for lots of things without a release. In fact he can sell them for EVERYTHING without a release. Only the publisher needs one for commercial usage. The photographer can sell them all day long for commercial, or any usage, as long as he's not the publisher. He doesn't need a release to sell them; only to use them commercially. He doesn't need any release to use them for editorial or artistic purposes. But as for your situation: releases can be signed years after the shoot took place. It doesn't have to be that day or nothing. If he's worried that you didn't really sign it since you're not right there in front of him, and it's not possible to go back and sign it in his presence, then sign it in front of a notary and send it off to him. But Dan is right. A release only benefits the photographer so unless he's holding back the files due to the model's not signing one, there's no point in reminding photographers who forget. Aug 16 12 09:04 am Link Blue Ash Film Group wrote: Or he could be like me who doesn't bother with releases as they have no need for one. Aug 16 12 09:04 am Link Mnemosyne Photography wrote: ? what? model sell photos Aug 16 12 09:06 am Link Blue Ash Film Group wrote: I'm curious what the use is for. Commercial? If its just portfolio, he probably simply doesn't want to use the. Perhaps the OP contacted him asking why her images were not in his portfolio, and using the release excuse is the gentle way out. Aug 16 12 09:06 am Link L2Photography net wrote: I'm not sure I understand what you're typing. But it doesn't matter, you said the models can't sell the photos, and a release has nothing to do with the model selling the photo, as far as I know. Aug 16 12 09:07 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: Model signs release yes of course the photographer can use the images. He probably just doesnt want to. Aug 16 12 09:09 am Link Dan K Photography wrote: it does if they want to be taken seriously as a model. maybe you should focus less on other people's terrible advice and more on your own. Aug 16 12 09:21 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: His loss then. Faxed signatures (or these days scanned emailed and printed) is just as good. Aug 16 12 09:22 am Link Michael Broughton wrote: You're Canadian - research this one. No release in Canada means that for many TF shoots the unless the model signs a release then she owns the copyright to the pictures!. Aug 16 12 09:24 am Link I'm another one of those art photographers who, due to my location and usage, really doesn't need a release for any legal reason. I usually get one because it clarifies situations for the models and because sometimes sponsoring organizations like to see them. If I were dealing with a model who seemed prone to confusion or needed great clarity in explanations I would be doubly certain to insist on releases to save myself the time and effort of explaining things multiple times in the future. Aug 16 12 09:28 am Link Michael Broughton wrote: Terrible advice? Everything I wrote is 100% accurate. The vast majority of MM photographers have no real need to have a model release. They do so because they want to pretend they do. Oh you never know the model may get famous and you can hit the jackpot with your images. lol. Aug 16 12 09:30 am Link Michael Broughton wrote: How is relinquishing the rights a model would have otherwise a mark of seriousness? Aug 16 12 09:31 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: Sure, no problem, but only if said photographer is willing to risk getting sued into bankruptcy for invasion of the model's privacy. All it takes is making said model angry, the reason is irrelevant, and the sweetest of innocent young things can take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Aug 16 12 09:33 am Link Greg Kolack wrote: I was wondering the same thing about the fax issue. A faxed release would certainly be better than no release at all. I've bought homes using signed documents that got faxed to the bank or title company. Aug 16 12 09:41 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: The only true answer to this is to research what the laws of your state are with regard to this issue. Any other "advice" given here is pure speculation as to what your rights are, as well as the photographer's. Aug 16 12 09:41 am Link Michael Broughton wrote: That makes no sense at all, though perhaps its different in Canada than in the US. Aug 16 12 09:50 am Link Mnemosyne Photography wrote: My model release is more of an agreement on a TF shoot saying we will only use the in our ports and not for profit. I can't sell them nor can the model. Aug 16 12 09:53 am Link Virtual Studio wrote: i suggest you go research the difference between tf and a commissioned work. Aug 16 12 10:01 am Link Blue Ash Film Group wrote: +10000000000000000000000000000000 Aug 16 12 10:02 am Link L2Photography net wrote: Youre mixing model releases and image useage agreements into the same document. Aug 16 12 10:17 am Link Michael Broughton wrote: It's a shame that the court didn't do similar research before making the binding case law which means that in many TF cases the model owns the copyright. Aug 16 12 10:19 am Link |