|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Model Protection
Hello!! I'm just starting out as a model and I'm wanting to build my portfolio. I've been talking to photographers, and they want me to sign Model Release forms. I know that these are to protect the photographer, but what about protecting the model? I don't mind what photographers do with my pictures, but I don't want my pictures edited, sold, promoted, etc. in a pornographic manner. What can I do, to legally protect myself from photographers super imposing my head on a nude body for porn sites (just an example)? I want to give photographer's artistic freedom but I do not want to have my innocent picture edited and sold and end up on porn sites. It's beyond trust for me, I want to make sure it is never an option unless I decide it to be that way. Any advice, tips, information,and suggestions are welcome! Aug 26 15 05:47 pm Link IntestineBuffet wrote: I used to get this question way back in the day & (in my opinion anyways) its as silly then as it is now. Aug 26 15 06:08 pm Link If you don't trust the photographer don't work with him/her. Aug 26 15 06:10 pm Link What you're seeking is a Limited Model Release. They're fairly common, especially when working with PR people. For instance, with a limited release a performer can restrict usage not only in the manner that you've just mentioned, but also when and where the images can be used. For instance, a performer coming out with a new music album may do a shoot, but may not want the photos displayed until the day their new album comes out. Aug 26 15 06:11 pm Link Isis22 wrote: +1 Aug 26 15 06:17 pm Link IntestineBuffet wrote: You cannot stop this from happening. No one can. A little story..........I worked with a model a few years ago. Striking red head with perfect curves and drop dead gorgeous eyes. One of the shots I had with her........fully clothed nut she was showing a pretty fair amount of cleavage.........had thousands of views on another website. Well, the image thieves stopped by the website and stole the image. Nothing I could do about it, and nothing the model could do about it. Eventually the image thieves had that shot on all sorts of dating and unsavory sites. She contacted me and wanted to know why I had sold the image to all of these people without her permission. I told her I knew nothing about it. She threatened a lawsuit and called me all sorts of names and put bad reviews for all to see of me on facebook. Aug 26 15 06:21 pm Link Thank you guys for your insight! Aug 26 15 06:30 pm Link SayCheeZ! wrote: Thank you for your help Aug 26 15 06:32 pm Link OP, You want to discuss a limited release. Mine already excludes "pornographic" usage. Since the Supreme Court can't define that term, it would be interesting to see what happened of it was ever litigated. But, since I have no intention of ever putting my images on a porno site, I asked my attorney to include that exception. Releases are tricky business and many photographers may not be willing to change the release they use to address your concerns. That does not mean that they have bad intentions, it only means that they don't want to pay a fee to their attorney to address your concerns. I am going to go out on a limb here. ...... My guess is that if you signed a general release for a shoot in which you were fully clothed and drinking a cup of coffee on the sofa (lifestyle shot) and the photographer used photoshop to put your head on a naked, spread legged body of someone else and then licensed that image to a site featuring adult content, you would WIN a lawsuit (regardless of the language of the typical general release --- likely under a concept of "defamation"). Note: General releases DO NOT cover "defamatory" uses. With a general release, I CANNOT take a picture of you put the words: "this woman has AIDs because she Sleeps around" on it and put on a billboard. You would sue me and you would win (unless what I said was proven true). I can't rely on the general release for a use that is otherwise defamatory. You would have had to sign a specific release for that use. You would need to consent, in advance, and in writing, for me linking a disease and sexual promiscuity to you........ Does that all make some sense? The more real concern is not the photographer..... Or the release..... It's the Internet....... And image theft..... I had an image of a male model swiped years ago..... The model was in a buttoned up check dress shirt, hard hat, and construction plans in hand. A great lifestyle image of an "engineer" or "architect". Unfortunately, someone also thought it would be a terrific image to use for some gay dating site and others........ I spent a year filing DMCA takedowns on that image. Aug 26 15 07:31 pm Link There is really nothing you can do about it. Once the photos are on the internet, neither you or the photographer can control where they end up. What's to stop somebody from copy/pasting a photo from here and adding it to any site he wishes? Not a thing. Best thing you can do is to not take photos that you would be devastated if they got out. Because they're going to. I recently was notified by a concerned photographer that an escort agency was using my photos and advertising as if I was one of their girls. I actually thought this was hilarious, and showed all my friends. Made sure they knew that my 'company' was $500 per hour. We had a good laugh, and they have since been removed (although they were up for about a year). In another instance, I got my best friend into modeling, and she did a couple nude shoots on her own. It was all fun and games until she got a divorce (unrelated), and needed a professional job. She did a quick google search and discovered that the photographer posted the ENTIRE shoot (100+ photos) on smugmug under her legal name (she has a cute name, so he thought it was a pseudonym). It took a couple frantic days for her to reach the photographer and get him to delete them, but she said it wasn't worth the worry. These stories just go to show that once the photos are taken, you have NO control over where they end up and how. Aug 26 15 07:57 pm Link IntestineBuffet wrote: Since there are already plenty explained what you can and cannot do. So I'll go to a different area; unless you are someone famous, celebrity status. No one is going to care or go through the trouble to photoshop your face onto a naked body for porn or otherwise. There are already plenty of women who are willing to do that, be on porn sites and get paid. So your worry is not really a concern unless you project yourself someday to be a very famous person, such as Hillary Clinton, Carly Fiorina. Aug 26 15 08:52 pm Link Oh. I misread the part about the potential of a photographer superimposing your head on porn. That's not going to happen. Aug 26 15 09:23 pm Link Blaire_ wrote: Your other points/information, however, were very worthy/worthwhile. (Y) (Hmmm, Facebook don't work here) Aug 26 15 10:40 pm Link First of all it is unlikely that a photographer would cut off your head and attach it to a nude body. What would that gain them and there are plenty of nude model as pretty or prettier than you who will pose in a manner the porn sites want. And again why are you just worried about nude? Your fear is unfounded. Besides you don't ave to be nude to end up in the advertising for x rated services on a porn site. You can and often are fully clothed. So as others have said if you don't want you images copied, don't be a model... You will have a heck of a time trying to control your image on the inter web Aug 27 15 05:08 am Link Digitoxin wrote: A limited release is not good advice. When I pay a model I demand a full un encumbered release. Models sign my releases I would never sign theirs. Besides the limiting style of release you are suggesting would not help her in the scenario she mentions in the OP Aug 27 15 05:13 am Link But, even anyone with just the most elementary knowledge of any photo editing software can take your head and attach it to other bodies. Dinosaurs or kittens if they want to be funny or porn, for revenge or if their taste in jokes runs that way. They don't have to be a photographer, just save one of your pictures from online and... This isn't the first time I've seen this question and I'm always curious as to why the poster thinks a photographer would want to do this? Or, if the photographer is someone who wants to do such things why they would be deterred by a signed agreement and not just do it anonymously and deny any involvement. Seems common enough though and I've read agreements with what seems to be a sort of standard language prohibiting pornographic usage. I've no idea if the sections are enforceable or just consolatory. Aug 27 15 05:21 am Link You have certain protections afforded to you by laws such as rights of publicity and rights of privacy. Intended use often requires a model to waive these rights in part or in whole, which is what a model release is all about. The first thing to understand is that even without signing a model release, these rights are limited. Even if you don't sign a release, there are ways images of you can be legally used without breaking any of your rights. So, the first thing you should do is read up on what rights of publicity, rights of privacy, fair use, etc. allow and do not allow. Also realize that people steal and use images in violation of rights such as these and copyright, so even a limited release offers no guarantee that someone won't photoshop your head onto someone else's body and post it online. If there are images of you online, it's always possible someone will grab them and use them in ways you do not like. You can choose to only do shoots that do not require a release or a require a limited release but realize this will put a lot of limits on who will shoot with you. You can also give some thought as to whom you shoot with and what kinds of shoots you do, so as to reduce the odds of images of you being used in ways you don't want. If you are terribly concerned about how images of you may be used, you may also want to question whether or not modeling is for you. The best way to protect your likeness is to not have images of yourself available to be used in ways you don't want them to. Aug 27 15 09:46 am Link IntestineBuffet wrote: Everyone that ever posts any picture on the internet is at risk for someone else stealing, editing, or using it for porn. No contract or legal system will actually stop somebody outside the US from doing that. People have stolen and edited photos from me and many of my best models and it may happen to you. A reputable photographer is your best ally to fight unauthorized use-not your enemy. The only protection is to not ever posts photos on the internet. Aug 27 15 11:55 am Link Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: Good for you, that's your perogative. Aug 27 15 12:01 pm Link Abbitt Photography pretty much describes many of the scenarios that have to do with limited releases and some of the repercussions that can happen no matter if a release is signed or not, however it should be noted that a limited release will STILL give you MUCH protection so the 'worry factor' is lessened, albeit not eliminated. For instance, I shoot LOTS of bodypaint events, usually with some of the best and most famous artists around. Some of the releases at events dictate that the photographers may not print or display photos of female models where the breast is exposed but not yet painted (whether a pastie is worn or not). If a photographer doesn't accept this condition they don't get to shoot. Accepting this condition still allows them to shoot the model even if she's topless without paint (exposure tests, a topless model in the background of a shot of a different model as the main subject... etc). In those scenario the photographer isn't breaking any rules as long as the photos aren't displayed or printed. In the example of topless model being in the background of a photo, the image will be allowed to be displayed if the photographer crops the topless one out of the image. That's a pretty common scenario. It protects the model from being 'seen nude' and keeps the integrity of the bodypainting event of being an artistic display rather than a peep show. Can/will other people steal and photoshop the image to make 'em look naked? Probably, but there's legal channels such as copyright infringement or lack of 2257 documentation that will come into play if someone wanted to go after the violators. What the limited release insures is that the topless photos mentioned in the examples don't get displayed in thefirst place. If they get displayed, the photographer that shot them will be the primary target in any lawsuit because the terms of the limited release are broken. Aug 27 15 12:26 pm Link IntestineBuffet wrote: There is no document/contact magic spell on the planet that can prevent that Aug 27 15 01:25 pm Link Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: 1) did you read my post? My release is ALREADY limited -- it excludes "pornographic" uses. My lawyer wrote my release. Your are free to do as you wish with the release your lawyer wrote for you. Aug 27 15 01:30 pm Link There is no reason to do what you suggest. It takes time and time is money. If you are afraid to sign releases, then you simply can't be a free lance model. You would have to use an agency to reprsent you, and you would have to fit the agency mold to do that. Releases are a fact of life, for models. Aug 27 15 03:17 pm Link Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: Lallure Photographic wrote: My guess is that if/when you guys ever license an image to someone, their rights to use it are unlimited as well? They're allowed to display and print the image wherever and whenever they want??? Aug 27 15 05:41 pm Link paperwork can't always prevent bad things from happening. sometimes it just gives you a way to sue after something bad happens. i think a model is within her rights to request modifications to an agreement. maybe have them write in something about "no porn". when paying a model we use the istockphoto model release which says no porn and no defamation. but in general i would say if you are worried about the use of your likeness your best best is to keep all pictures off the internet! Aug 27 15 05:44 pm Link SayCheeZ! wrote: That's quite true, right! Aug 27 15 07:10 pm Link There's not really much of that going on (unless you're a celebrity) - more of an urban legend. In terms of generally not having your pictures ending up on porn sites - don't work with porn producing photographers and don't pose for images that would fit in upon a porn site. Aug 27 15 09:22 pm Link Peach Jones wrote: +1 Aug 28 15 09:48 pm Link All you can do is ask to read any releases you'll be expected to sign, and do it while you're negotiating the shoot, and not sign any releases that don't specifically exclude pornographic uses. Aug 29 15 03:12 am Link Lallure Photographic wrote: (Pretty much THIS...) Aug 29 15 04:06 am Link IntestineBuffet wrote: Random people from the internet can also superimpose your head onto other peoples bodies. Aug 30 15 10:10 pm Link Blaire_ wrote: Are you kidding? Sep 07 15 02:55 pm Link Chuckarelei wrote: I'm eating as I read this and would like to keep my food down Sep 07 15 03:14 pm Link Isis22 wrote: This. Sep 08 15 03:03 am Link Blaire_ wrote: I once did a shoot that while art figure modeling was a darker topic and I remember talking with the make up artist at the beginning when she asked if she could use my name. I said yes my [model] name. I guess the time that passed between her hearing that and posting it made her forget anything other than the yes. Sep 08 15 03:09 am Link (just doubled checked to see if that one (clothed!) photo of me is still on that pornsite)....Yep. Once they're out there, they're out there. Not like a lot of photographers would want to do this, but it would be nice if they did... Not making your images so readily available to the public helps. People appear to be trolling "general" sites like facebook, tumblr and 500px to steal images while the stuff you put up on personal websites and model-photographer communities seems less prone to this. If you find "yourself" somewhere you don't want to be, you can ask the photographer to issue a "Notice of Infringement." The website's supposed to be legally obligated to take it down if they're violating copyright. This has worked for some people, but not in my case...grrrr By the way, this happens to plenty of non-models too. Jordan Bunniie wrote: Yeah...I figured. I wonder what I'm advertising right now as we speak Sep 08 15 07:56 am Link Not to sounds too harsh but maybe modeling (or acting) isn't for you. The people who would photoshop your image are not concerned about what release may exist when the steal the image. If you are going to put yourself in the public eye you will have to deal with some potential unpleasantness. Sep 08 15 08:08 am Link SayCheeZ! wrote: Correct I will never shoot in those situations. I am an art photographer and have to be able to use my images as I see fit for publication , for exhibitions and for museums. Sep 11 15 12:11 pm Link The way to insure the photographer does not edit or use your image in a way in which you do not want is to hire and pay the photographer and do not sign a modeling release. Sep 15 15 11:41 am Link I agree with most of the posts here. As a photographer, instead of hiring you and putting your face on someone else's body, I'd just find someone else to take the picture with (I don't post on those sites, just saying). There are always models who WANT to be some sites like that, so no need to piss off someone who doesn't. Sep 15 15 02:00 pm Link |
I will look into it!
