Photographer
Sarkiko
Posts: 40
Fort Lee, New Jersey, US
This has never come up before but I was just curious...
Most model release forms I've seen have a space for model to provide her address and phone number.
Since a lot of models do this somewhat anonymously and under psuedonyms I would think that privacy is a concern.
Is it required for a model to provide that information? Can they just lave real name and other contact information?
Can't seem to find anything searching.
Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 20621
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Sarkiko wrote:
Is it required for a model to provide that information (address and phone number)? No
Sarkiko wrote:
Can they just lave real name... Yes
Sarkiko wrote:
...and other contact information? optional
Photographer
DanninTO
Posts: 106
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Yes it is required. Is a valid one required? that is up to you
Photographer
Don Garrett
Posts: 4984
Escondido, California, US
Well, we've got one "yes" and one "no". Has this been helpful to anyone sofar ?
-Don
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 13564
Washington, Utah, US
"Required" depends on your intended use and the issues that may arise. Micro stock companies for example often require a model's contract information, so if you intend to submit photos to micro stock or somewhere else that requires contract information, then it's required. If someone claims they are the model and an image is being used unreleased, having the contact information on the release of the person's likeness, can help verify whether they are truly the person represented or not.
Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 20621
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Don Garrett wrote:
Well, we've got one "yes" and one "no". Has this been helpful to anyone sofar ?
-Don There are very few legal documents or contracts where an address is legally required to be divulged, and those documents typically have to do when the public safety is involved (ie: hazardous materials permits, day care licenses, probation/parole agreements)
Contact information on a model release (or practically any other document) is simply for convenience of all parties involved to contact each other in case the document needs to be verified or amended, and possibly a few other reasons which may or may not have to do with modeling or the photo at all. That's why the contact information technically is optional.
In the past I've even signed real estate deals without divulging my address (for legitimate reasons). The person on the other side of the deal wasn't going to continue because they thought it was required. I told them all that's necessary is that they can verify that I'm a real person and that I'm the person that's entering into the agreement and signing my name to the contract.
They called their legal counsel (an attorney) and the next day the contract was accepted.
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 11726
Olney, Maryland, US
DanninTO wrote:
Yes it is required. Is a valid one required? that is up to you So something is required but it doesn't have to be a real address?
Photographer
Sarkiko
Posts: 40
Fort Lee, New Jersey, US
Thank you SayCheez and Abbit, those were very helpful posts.
Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 20621
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Abbitt Photography wrote:
"Required" depends on your intended use and the issues that may arise..
...so if you intend to submit photos to micro stock or somewhere else that requires contract information, then it's required... Please note, the contact information may be required by the micro stock company but it's not a requirement for the release to be legally binding.
Model
MatureModelMM
Posts: 2843
Detroit, Michigan, US
I agree with the earlier reply that the address and phone number are only intended for convenience in locating the model in the future if there is a need to do that. Sometimes the photographer or artist in a trade arrangement later has the opportunity to sell the photos or artwork, or wants to enter them into a gallery display which was not originally agreed to. There could be many other valid reasons why they would need to contact the model months or years after a release or contract was signed.
When I do nude modelling, it's not uncommon for the photographer or artist I am working with to take a photo of me holding my driver's license, sometimes I do that with my finger blocking out the DL number but still showing my real name, address and age. I believe they do this to cover themselves under rule 2257 regarding nude photography. I think if you are doing anything involving nudity, you need to have enough information available to prove who the person actually is and a way to get in touch with them.
This has happened more often than not, and even when registering to model for art classes at colleges, they require a photocopy of the model's driver's license and their release forms include the model's address and phone number.
I have done quite a bit of modelling one on one for college students both on and off campus, and they usually have a standard release form provided by their school which they are required to use with every model they submit photos or artwork of for credit in their classes. I believe they require the model's address and phone number in case those in charge of the department need to contact the model directly for any reason, or to verify who the model is. A couple of times I have been contacted a few weeks later, by an instructor wanting more details about the creative activity, and basically asking for a review of how the student behaved and conducted themselves while we were working together. Maybe it affects their grade, I don't know. But the students are not allowed to work with a model who doesn't fully fill out the release forms. Obviously this is different from working with a photographer or artist who isn't a student enrolled in classes for credit.
Many models work under assumed names, but you do have to give your legal name on a contract.
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 11726
Olney, Maryland, US
MatureModelMM wrote:
When I do nude modelling, it's not uncommon for the photographer or artist I am working with to take a photo of me holding my driver's license, sometimes I do that with my finger blocking out the DL number but still showing my real name, address and age. I believe they do this to cover themselves under rule 2257 regarding nude photography. I think if you are doing anything involving nudity, you need to have enough information available to prove who the person actually is and a way to get in touch with them. For 2257 purposes, the DL number, birth date, and effective date of the license are required. The address is not, if I remember correctly.
Photographer
ZP Pliskin
Posts: 17
Brooklyn, New York, US
Mark Salo wrote:
For 2257 purposes, the DL number, birth date, and effective date of the license are required. The address is not, if I remember correctly. Bear in mind this may vary from state to state.
Ask a legal expert!
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 9421
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
2257 is not different from state to state . . . . . . it's federal regulations
A Valid Governemt Issued Photo ID is required, almost all contain a current address.
The address of the model is only a convenience in the case where a photo sells and the photographer needs to get in touch with the model to issue payment.
Being that many models are young and move around a lot, I have a place on the model release form for them to write in the contact information for someone that can always get in touch with them. It's proven to be very helpful on numerous occasions.
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3562
Kerhonkson, New York, US
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3562
Kerhonkson, New York, US
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 3562
Kerhonkson, New York, US
SayCheeZ! wrote:
Sarkiko wrote:
Is it required for a model to provide that information (address and phone number)? No
Sarkiko wrote:
Can they just lave real name...
Yes
Sarkiko wrote:
...and other contact information?
optional Interesting that YOU say no and organizations like iStock or Shutterstock says yes.
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
Dan Howell wrote:
SayCheeZ! wrote:
Sarkiko wrote:
Is it required for a model to provide that information (address and phone number)? No
Sarkiko wrote:
Can they just lave real name...
Yes
Sarkiko wrote:
...and other contact information?
optional Interesting that YOU say no and organizations like iStock or Shutterstock says yes. There is a difference between 'legal need' and 'avoiding hassle.' For instance, no release is needed for non incriminating photos taken in public with no expectation of privacy - but many publishers request it nonetheless.
I always though address and/or phone number was meant to identify the person - so they couldn't say someone else with the same name signed the release.
There may be two thousand Jennifer Smiths in Boston, but not too many Jennifer Smiths lived at 1250 Elm Street, apartment 3 in the last several years, and fewer still had the same phone number.
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
SayCheeZ! wrote:
I told them all that's necessary is that they can verify that I'm a real person and that I'm the person that's entering into the agreement and signing my name to the contract. Question: how does one verify that the other party is a real person and that this individual in front of you is that person who is entering into & signing the contract?
Photographer
WisconsinArt
Posts: 612
Nashotah, Wisconsin, US
The agency I work with requires a copy of a driver license or passport for nudes. Others have stated this as well in the thread.
It's to ensure they're at least 18.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Looknsee Photography wrote:
Question: how does one verify that the other party is a real person and that this individual in front of you is that person who is entering into & signing the contract? Photo ID such as driver's license.
Photographer
Michael Fryd
Posts: 5231
Miami Beach, Florida, US
WisconsinArt wrote:
The agency I work with requires a copy of a driver license or passport for nudes. Others have stated this as well in the thread.
It's to ensure they're at least 18. US Passports do not show the person's address.
Photographer
WisconsinArt
Posts: 612
Nashotah, Wisconsin, US
Michael Fryd wrote:
US Passports do not show the person's address. It's an official document that verifies age. What works for one agency may not work for another.
Photographer
Michael Fryd
Posts: 5231
Miami Beach, Florida, US
WisconsinArt wrote:
It's an official document that verifies age. What works for one agency may not work for another. If you are shooting anything that is pornographic, then the federal 2257 rules apply.
I am not aware of widespread US laws prohibiting non-pornographic nude images of a minor. Trivial examples include a photo of a naked newborn baby, or nude images of a 12 year old Brooke Shields portraying a prostitute in the movie Pretty Baby.
On the other hand, many companies have policies against nude photos of minors. satisfying their requirements is a business matter not a legal requirement.
While shooting nudes of a minor may be a Public Relations problem, if it is not pornographic, it is not automatically illegal.
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
Michael Fryd wrote:
If you are shooting anything that is pornographic, then the federal 2257 rules apply.
I am not aware of widespread US laws prohibiting non-pornographic nude images of a minor. Trivial examples include a photo of a naked newborn baby, or nude images of a 12 year old Brooke Shields portraying a prostitute in the movie Pretty Baby.
On the other hand, many companies have policies against nude photos of minors. satisfying their requirements is a business matter not a legal requirement.
While shooting nudes of a minor may be a Public Relations problem, if it is not pornographic, it is not automatically illegal. Unless you are one of the "purity police" who believe that any nudity is pornographic, I believe your statement is incorrect. I have read a number of expert opinions which state that 2257 applies to any nude images, regardless of the models age.
Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 20621
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
SayCheeZ! wrote:
I told them all that's necessary is that they can verify that I'm a real person and that I'm the person that's entering into the agreement and signing my name to the contract. Looknsee Photography wrote:
Question: how does one verify that the other party is a real person and that this individual in front of you is that person who is entering into & signing the contract? Technically speaking, none of that is needed if the person signing the document is a real person and not claiming to be someone else. The problem is that the person may later claim that they weren't the one that signed the document or similar type of excuse (such as not being of legal age when the document was signed).
The BEST way (that I know of) is to have a witness, especially a certified witness such as a notary public, observe the signing of the document. On extremely important legal documents there may even be places for witnesses and a notary to sign (but is still optional).
A copy of a gov't ID is another way to insure that the person signs is the real deal (and is required in certain transactions such as the forementioned 2257).
As I mentioned before, providing an address on a document is usually an option for convenience to be able to contact the person if verification or amendments are needed. There's nothing wrong with the person signing the document and divulging that information if they want to but there's usually no legal requirement for them to do so.
Photographer
Michael Fryd
Posts: 5231
Miami Beach, Florida, US
Light and Lens Studio wrote:
Unless you are one of the "purity police" who believe that any nudity is pornographic, I believe your statement is incorrect. I have read a number of expert opinions which state that 2257 applies to any nude images, regardless of the models age. While a photographer may choose to keep 2257 records, even when needed, 2257 does not apply to all images that contain nudity. 2257 applies to pornography. Nudity is not required in order for the images to be pornographic, and nudity does not automatically make the images pornographic.
2257 mandates specific record keeping requirements in order to prove that the model in the image was over 18 when the image was taken.
If 2257 applied to all nude images, then it would be a serious federal crime to take a photo of a newborn naked baby. The baby is clearly under 18, and therefore is not possible to have legitimate records that prove the baby was over 18 at the time of the shoot.
If the image does not meet 2257's definition of pornography, then you don't need to keep 2257 records. However, this does not prevent a conservative photographer from only shooting models over 18, and keeping 2257 compliant records for all shoots. In that way he does not need to worry about whether or not the image might be classified as pornographic
Photographer
FFantastique
Posts: 2535
Orlando, Florida, US
Let me beg the question and ask, "Is a model release even required at all?"
Retoucher
3869283
Posts: 1464
Sofia, Sofija grad, Bulgaria
Sarkiko wrote:
This has never come up before but I was just curious...
Most model release forms I've seen have a space for model to provide her address and phone number.
Since a lot of models do this somewhat anonymously and under psuedonyms I would think that privacy is a concern.
Is it required for a model to provide that information? Can they just lave real name and other contact information?
Can't seem to find anything searching. I have worked with many of the major stock sites. None will accept a (semi)incognito model release. Some even require ID scan for nudes or when the model age is not obvious from the shot. MRs are legal documents, so you cannot be someone else on them.
Photographer
Michael Fryd
Posts: 5231
Miami Beach, Florida, US
FFantastique wrote:
Let me beg the question and ask, "Is a model release even required at all?" Model releases are generally required in situations where a person's likeness will be used to promote goods and/or services. In some states the release will also be required if the model's likeness will be used on a product (i.e. an image in a swimsuit calendar). The exact specifics vary from state to state, as these are generally state laws, not federal laws.
Some states require the release to be written. Some states allow oral or implied releases.
The courts have not yet provided clear guidance as to differentiate online portfolio use (which may be viewed as an example of the photographer's work, and may not require a release) from an online advertisement (which does require a release). Conservative photographers may choose to get a release before using an image online to promote their business.
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
Michael Fryd wrote:
While a photographer may choose to keep 2257 records, even when needed, 2257 does not apply to all images that contain nudity. 2257 applies to pornography. Nudity is not required in order for the images to be pornographic, and nudity does not automatically make the images pornographic.
2257 mandates specific record keeping requirements in order to prove that the model in the image was over 18 when the image was taken.
If 2257 applied to all nude images, then it would be a serious federal crime to take a photo of a newborn naked baby. The baby is clearly under 18, and therefore is not possible to have legitimate records that prove the baby was over 18 at the time of the shoot.
If the image does not meet 2257's definition of pornography, then you don't need to keep 2257 records. However, this does not prevent a conservative photographer from only shooting models over 18, and keeping 2257 compliant records for all shoots. In that way he does not need to worry about whether or not the image might be classified as pornographic Thanks for the clarification. I think I will continue to stay on the safe side and get the photo ID from all models regardless of age. I'm definitely NOT a member of the Purity Police.
The eternal issue is, of course, that each individual has his/her own definition of what "Porn" is. Ah, but a difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
FFantastique wrote:
Let me beg the question and ask, "Is a model release even required at all?" Ha Ha. You can sure as hell take the photo without getting a release.
What you can do with it involves whether or not you have a release. You might even get away with using it illegally for a while. But sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost.
Photographer
Michael Fryd
Posts: 5231
Miami Beach, Florida, US
Light and Lens Studio wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. I think I will continue to stay on the safe side and get the photo ID from all models regardless of age. I'm definitely NOT a member of the Purity Police.
The eternal issue is, of course, that each individual has his/her own definition of what "Porn" is. Ah, but a difference of opinion is what makes a horse race. When it comes to the law, common sense does not always apply.
When it comes to 2257, merely providing absolute proof that the model is over 18, is not enough to keep you out of jail and/or being subject to huge fines.
2257 is not an anti-pornography law, it is a record keeping law. If your images fall under 2257, then you better make damn sure your paperwork conforms 100% to the specifications of 2257. Furthermore, you must have those records available for unannounced inspections, and provide proper notice of where the records are kept.
You could have a copy of the model's driver license, a copy of her passport, a copy of her social security card, and a certified copy of her birth certificate. While these documents can prove the model is over 18, If the images are pornographic, and the paperwork doesn't exactly match the 2257 requirements, you can go to jail. Make sure you have provided the proper notice as to where the records are available for unannounced inspections? If not, then you could be subject to large fines.
If you want to play it safe then you need to follow the strict 2257 guidelines. If you don't follow these guidelines, you are just making yourself feel better without any real protection.
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Light and Lens Studio wrote:
.... I think I will continue to stay on the safe side and get the photo ID from all models regardless of age. . Lawyer - so you claim that these images of your 16 year old model are not pornographoc?
You - yes - they are Art Nudes - not pornographic in any way.
Lawyer - yet YOU chose to comply with the rules which apply to taking pornographic images...
You - yes - I do it "to be on the safe side"
Lawyer - so you are saying you cant distinguish between when you need to get ID and when you dont - that you cant tell when something is pornographic or not.
You - no no it's "just to be safe"
Lawyer - So - you are telling us that on this occasion you could tell, but usually you get so confused you have to always go to the trouble of "playing safe"?..........Your honor I rest my case.
Good luck with that one. 
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
Light and Lens Studio wrote:
.... I think I will continue to stay on the safe side and get the photo ID from all models regardless of age. . Virtual Studio wrote:
Lawyer - so you claim that these images of your 16 year old model are not pornographoc?
You - yes - they are Art Nudes - not pornographic in any way.
Lawyer - yet YOU chose to comply with the rules which apply to taking pornographic images...
You - yes - I do it "to be on the safe side"
Lawyer - so you are saying you cant distinguish between when you need to get ID and when you dont - that you cant tell when something is pornographic or not.
You - no no it's "just to be safe"
Lawyer - So - you are telling us that on this occasion you could tell, but usually you get so confused you have to always go to the trouble of "playing safe"?..........Your honor I rest my case.
Good luck with that one. "Getting ID" doesn't require pornography. If I'm shooting totally innocent figure nudes, I'm going to make very sure that the model is 18. If I were going to shoot such things with a 16 year old (for example) there would be various other things I would have to do, mostly involving the parents. Again, this is independent of the question of pornography. My avatar is far from pornography, but I wouldn't shoot it with a 16 year old without parental consent, and parents on set, AND a very good reason.
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
Virtual Studio wrote:
Lawyer - so you claim that these images of your 16 year old model are not pornographoc?
You - yes - they are Art Nudes - not pornographic in any way.
Lawyer - yet YOU chose to comply with the rules which apply to taking pornographic images...
You - yes - I do it "to be on the safe side"
Lawyer - so you are saying you cant distinguish between when you need to get ID and when you dont - that you cant tell when something is pornographic or not.
You - no no it's "just to be safe"
Lawyer - So - you are telling us that on this occasion you could tell, but usually you get so confused you have to always go to the trouble of "playing safe"?..........Your honor I rest my case.
Good luck with that one. That's the same logic that says anyone that requires police to have a warrant at 3 AM is hiding something.
I know a lot of people agree with you ... I just wish it were fewer.
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
[ Light and Lens Sudio wrote:
.... I think I will continue to stay on the safe side and get the photo ID from all models regardless of age. . Virtual Studio wrote:
Lawyer - so you claim that these images of your 16 year old model are not pornographoc?
You - yes - they are Art Nudes - not pornographic in any way.
Lawyer - yet YOU chose to comply with the rules which apply to taking pornographic images...
You - yes - I do it "to be on the safe side"
Lawyer - so you are saying you cant distinguish between when you need to get ID and when you dont - that you cant tell when something is pornographic or not.
You - no no it's "just to be safe"
Lawyer - So - you are telling us that on this occasion you could tell, but usually you get so confused you have to always go to the trouble of "playing safe"?..........Your honor I rest my case.
Good luck with that one. What donkey did you ride in on? Don't make the assumption that any sentient being would place him or herself in the situation you describe -well maybe you would be the exception.
I don't shoot 16 year olds except fully clothed and in the company of their parents.
Making a copy of a models photo ID and getting a model release doesn't remotely relate to hiding anything and to suggest so is asinine. To suggest not doing so is equally stupid. Unfixable stupid.
Photographer
L o n d o n F o g
Posts: 7497
London, England, United Kingdom
Signature, date and name in full is all I need.
But then again, a release is not required here in the UK at all, so either way is fine!
Photographer
L o n d o n F o g
Posts: 7497
London, England, United Kingdom
FFantastique wrote:
Let me beg the question and ask, "Is a model release even required at all?" No, not in the UK.
And what the hell is a 2257 record? A vinyl recording from the future maybe?
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Light and Lens Studio wrote:
What donkey did you ride in on?. It was a horse. I always use a horse for safety reasons.
Even when there is zero need to.
It makes me look and sound more professional even if it's ill thought through.
Horse.
Getit - professionals ride Horses - all the time.
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Zack Zoll wrote:
That's the same logic that says anyone that requires police to have a warrant at 3 AM is hiding something.
I know a lot of people agree with you ... I just wish it were fewer. No - actually it's the exact opposite.
It's like shouting "Nothing to hide - no drugs here - oh no - come in and check" every time you get a squad car go past.
Requiring the police to provide a warrant is asking them to comply with the law - always taking photo ID "just in case" is going above and beyond your legal duty "just in case". and actually pandering to potential abuse.
|
