Stanton Street Studio wrote:
I'm wondering what legal obligation, if any, I have to honor her request, if we didn't sign a Model Release? She decided no longer to model and doesn't want her images posted, even though they enhance my portfolio.

Quite frankly if your only reservation is that they enhance your portfolio then I believe you're mistaken. There are many reasons why you might decline her request for you to remove them but honestly, you'll be no worse off without them.

Stanton Street Studio wrote:
I'm wondering what legal obligation, if any, I have to honor her request, if we didn't sign a Model Release? She decided no longer to model and doesn't want her images posted, even though they enhance my portfolio.

(1) "We" don't sign model releases, models ONLY sign model releases.
(2) Without a model release, you risk being sued for invasion of privacy if you ignore her request.
(3) It is imperative that you get on top of such issues, if you want to retain such wealth as you currently enjoy. I would recommend at the very least picking up a copy of Greenberg & Reznicki's "The Copyright Zone" from Amazon. Reading it is not painful, their writing style is excellent and their knowledge is impeccable. Failing to do AT THE VERY LEAST this is hazardous to your future.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
(1) "We" don't sign model releases, models ONLY sign model releases.
.

(1) The app I use - Easy Release - requires the photographer to sign, and a witness (which can also be the photographer) before the release is generated. So does the release used by istock photo (http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languag … elease.pdf) and IIRC every other commercial release I have seen. To say that ONLY models sign is simply not accurate.

Stanton Street Studio wrote:
I'm wondering what legal obligation, if any, I have to honor her request, if we didn't sign a Model Release? She decided no longer to model and doesn't want her images posted, even though they enhance my portfolio.

Check out the "Right of Publicity" law in your state.
Heck, I'll do it for you:

http://www.bullivant.com/files/Right-of … 3-3845.pdf

Short answer, probably no legal obligation to remove them.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:

(1) "We" don't sign model releases, models ONLY sign model releases.
(2) Without a model release, you risk being sued for invasion of privacy if you ignore her request.
(3) It is imperative that you get on top of such issues, if you want to retain such wealth as you currently enjoy. I would recommend at the very least picking up a copy of Greenberg & Reznicki's "The Copyright Zone" from Amazon. Reading it is not painful, their writing style is excellent and their knowledge is impeccable. Failing to do AT THE VERY LEAST this is hazardous to your future.

#1: Usually true. But releases evidently not needed in the OP's state;
#2: Mostly false; the operative law is usually right of publicity, NOT privacy;
#3: The authors are noted experts.

Stanton Street Studio wrote:
I'm wondering what legal obligation, if any, I have to honor her request, if we didn't sign a Model Release? She decided no longer to model and doesn't want her images posted, even though they enhance my portfolio.

Prior to the shoot, did you make her aware of your intended use of the images? Was the model paid for her time?  Do you have emails backing this up?  If so, you may have her permission to use the images.

Sometimes the model has a reasonable expectation that the photographer is shooting for practice, or for his "private collection".  If this was the agreement, then you might have a contractual obligation to keep them private.

Is your web site viewable in other states, or do you limit visibility to people located in Oregon (your state)?  Is the web server physically located in Oregon?   If the answer to either of these are "no", then you may need a model release that's valid in other states.

Is photography your hobby or a business?  If it is a business, and the images are being used to promote your business to potential out-of-state clients, then you may need a release.

Is there any nudity in the images and does Oregon have a new "revenge porn" law?  If so, you may want to have written permission from the model to post the images.

The bottom line is that the specifics of your particular situation are very important.  There are a number of different laws that can come into play, and without the details, we don't know which are important to your situation.

seanie blue wrote:
...
And she'd never signed a model release form. I don't believe in these because they generally exploit the model. When the pictures are to be used for commercial purposes, the model release form explains exactly the use of the pictures for that job only, and is signed after the edit. For nudes or creative shoots, I send out a model release form AFTER the piece (book, PDF, gallery, MM postings, Facebook, etc.) has been edited and is ready for publication, and then that form reflects exactly how these images will be seen. The idea that a model gets naked around a guy with a zoom lens and then signs into perpetuity his right to display whatever he's shot of her is absurd, and I can see that a growing number of models think so as well.

While you are certainly free to run your business however you want, your model release policies are not typical.

In the commercial world, model releases are not typically unlimited.  They specify a duration and use for the model's likeness (i.e. may be used in catalog publications for a period of 2 years).  Generally, the release is signed at the end of the shoot as part of the model's "voucher".  This paperwork contains not only the negotiated release, but also documents the time worked for billing purposes.

In terms of sending out the release after the images have beed edited and are ready for publication, that will not work for many people.  Many times I have a model come in for a shoot, and she leaves town soon after that.  I would have a very hard time tracking down some models in as little as two weeks after a shoot.  As for the OP, this would certainly not work for him.  His is a case where the model changed her mind after the shoot.  It would be a shame if he worked hard and used one of the model's images as a theme image in a book, only for the model to decide that she no longer wanted the images public, and therefore would not sign a release.

In terms of whether or not it's fair for a model to sign an unlimited license for a single fee, that depends on the situation and your point of view.  From some viewpoints you are being unfair to the model by not giving her a percentage of sales of your books.  Why should she settle for a one time fee when your book might throw off a lot of cash when it hits the bestsellers list?

From another viewpoint, the model might have been well paid for her work (either in cash, or other compensation).  Even with her signing an unlimited model release, she may have gotten the better end of the bargain.  (I have done TFP shoots, where the model signed a full release, yet I have not used the images as the model's looks varied significantly from what I was expecting.  The model loved the images, and she got the better end of that deal).

If I am shooting an image to be used on product packaging, I want full rights to use that image forever.  The model is aware of the intended usage, and prior to the shoot we negotiate a fee she is happy with.  The release is signed at the shoot, and everyone is happy.  The model knows we may still be using those images in 10 years, and she is not entitled to additional compensation.  She also knows that should we choose not to use her images, she doesn't have to return any of her fee.

There are many reasonable ways to structure these arrangements.  There is no single structure that works for everyone.

Eye of the World wrote:

(1) The app I use - Easy Release - requires the photographer to sign, and a witness (which can also be the photographer) before the release is generated. So does the release used by istock photo (http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languag … elease.pdf) and IIRC every other commercial release I have seen. To say that ONLY models sign is simply not accurate.

I have never seen either of those releases. On advice of counsel, I do not use electronic releases, strictly paper. Nor have I ever, in over 40 years in the business, been asked to sign a model release, EXCEPT when I was the model. But you point is well taken. There evidently are releases in use that require signatures from both photographer and model. What the purpose of that might be, I have no idea. I note also that there are many releases in use that have been drafted by non-lawyers and which may or may not serve their intended purpose should they wind up in front of a judge in any particular state.

Again on advice of counsel, the release I use has been drafted to the standards of the State of New York, even though I'm in Virginia. The reason being that New York has both the toughest requirements and is a big chunk of the photography market.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
(1) "We" don't sign model releases, models ONLY sign model releases.
(2) Without a model release, you risk being sued for invasion of privacy if you ignore her request.
(3) It is imperative that you get on top of such issues, if you want to retain such wealth as you currently enjoy. I would recommend at the very least picking up a copy of Greenberg & Reznicki's "The Copyright Zone" from Amazon. Reading it is not painful, their writing style is excellent and their knowledge is impeccable. Failing to do AT THE VERY LEAST this is hazardous to your future.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
#1: Usually true. But releases evidently not needed in the OP's state;
#2: Mostly false; the operative law is usually right of publicity, NOT privacy;
#3: The authors are noted experts.

RE #2: you need to understand that the "right of privacy" and "the right of publicity" essentially are the same thing. In some states you would bring a lawsuit using one wording, in other states the other wording. Either way, using someone's likeness in a way to which they object can lead to legal complications.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
...There evidently are releases in use that require signatures from both photographer and model. What the purpose of that might be, I have no idea...

Here's my understanding of why you might want the photographer to sign the model release:

The model release can be structured as a simple grant of rights (i.e. models grants the right to use her likeness for...) or as a contract (in exchange for ... model grants the right to ...).

Some attorney's prefer to structure the release as a contract as they believe that this makes it more difficult for the model to rescind permission.     If the release is structured as a contract, it makes sense for both parties to sign the document.  If the release is not structured as a contract, only the model may need to sign.

Obviously, you should not rely on advice from the web, however this is an issue you may wish to discuss with your attorney.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
"On advice of counsel...Again on advice of counsel"

Hey OP,

If you are really concerned about your rights, Michael provides some very sound advice.  Some of the others posting here have also stated about the laws of states varying, which is another reason you may want to get professional advice, not for just this incident but for the future as well.  At that same time, have the lawyer review your model release for completeness in protecting you.  The attorney I use will periodically review the releases ( and suggest changes when applicable) of his clients to ensure that changes in the laws are covered by the releases being used.

A point was made by a member about the cost of an attorney being more of an expense than its worth and that simply removing the images is the better course of action.  In practicality, I agree with that point of view.  In the eyes of prospective TFP models, there may be something to gain reputation-wise from doing so.  However, if you paid this model for her services, you do have the right to receive and retain the product you paid for in her services as a model.  Again, the only way to ascertain what is most beneficial to you is to seek the advice of counsel but its your option.  I didn't notice anyone suggesting this (and apologize if someone did and I missed it) but, if you did pay for her services, you could ask her to make an offer for the rights to the images, allowing you to recoup some of the money you paid to create the images.

I really like some of your work and your portfolio shows you have plenty of work coming your way.  As one member asked, will removing the images of that one model degrade your portfolio that much?  Only you can make that call. 

Best of luck in all you do.  I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future!

Todd Meredith wrote:

Hey OP,

....have the lawyer review your model release for completeness in protecting you...

...A point was made by a member about the cost of an attorney being more of an expense than its worth and that simply removing the images is the better course of action...

A model release should be drafted by an attorney, but it does not have to be unique to you.

You may want to join a professional association like the Professional Photographers of America (PPA).  Among their many benefits are attorney crafted releases, contracts, and other forms for use by members.

The membership fee for joining such an organization might be a small price to pay for the various benefits.

Michael Fryd wrote:

A model release should be drafted by an attorney, but it does not have to be unique to you.

You may want to join a professional association like the Professional Photographers of America (PPA).  Among their many benefits are attorney crafted releases, contracts, and other forms for use by members.

The membership fee for joining such an organization might be a small price to pay for the various benefits.

Hi Michael,

I couldn't agree with you more about who should draft a model release, as well as review it.  I appreciate you clarifying that point.  When I wrote that reply, I should have mentioned that, as that's the way I've been doing business for years.  Your point that a model release does not have to be personalized is valid but when you discuss your intents with the attorney, he/she can modify a release to accommodate how you desire to do business.  Not everyone dos that exactly alike. 

I'm not a fan of wholesale releases not reviewed by the counsel I select and with whom I have developed a relationship, as that ensures that the person I chose has my best interests at heart.  I'm not doubting the PPA attorneys abilities, I just don't feel the need after 20+ years of working as a professional to change methods.  If it works for others, I wish them all the best of luck.

It took me year to finally sign up for this site.  I'm not a big "joiner" or organizations or clubs but I would be interested in hearing more about the PPA benefits from your perspective, if you'd like to share.  Thanks for the link, by the way.

Best of luck to you in all you do.

Todd Meredith wrote:
Hi Michael,

I couldn't agree with you more about who should draft a model release, as well as review it.  I appreciate you clarifying that point.  When I wrote that reply, I should have mentioned that, as that's the way I've been doing business for years.  Your point that a model release does not have to be personalized is valid but when you discuss your intents with the attorney, he/she can modify a release to accommodate how you desire to do business.  Not everyone dos that exactly alike. 

I'm not a fan of wholesale releases not reviewed by the counsel I select and with whom I have developed a relationship, as that ensures that the person I chose has my best interests at heart.  I'm not doubting the PPA attorneys abilities, I just don't feel the need after 20+ years of working as a professional to change methods.  If it works for others, I wish them all the best of luck.

It took me year to finally sign up for this site.  I'm not a big "joiner" or organizations or clubs but I would be interested in hearing more about the PPA benefits from your perspective, if you'd like to share.  Thanks for the link, by the way.

Best of luck to you in all you do.

I agree that the best results from a legal perspective are likely a custom released drafted by a local attorney specializing in this area of the law.  If you are running a successful full time photography business, then this sounds like an excellent solution.

For those who are not in a position to afford this, the professional organizations may be a reasonable fallback.

While organizations like the PPA may not be looking out for you in particular, at least their primary focus is photographic professionals, and hence their lawyers specialize in this area.

The PPA is not the only such organization, there are others that focus on various aspects of the business (like the American Society of Media Photographers - ASMP)

GM Photography wrote:
First of all, it's just a nice thing to do.  If you don't have a model release, you don't have permission to use her image, so you should also do it for that reason.

In a portfolio? I think you're mistaken.

GM Photography wrote:
First of all, it's just a nice thing to do.  If you don't have a model release, you don't have permission to use her image, so you should also do it for that reason.

Apparently incorrect. Google: oregon "right of publicity" law

Evidently, OR lacks an ROP law, so no release is required in most cases. Also, note that even states WITH ROP laws sometimes recognize non-written releases.

As to "nice," or "fair," it depends on the individual situation.

Andrew Koenig wrote:

In a portfolio? I think you're mistaken.

Depends on the details and the state. In many situations, portfolio use WOULD require a rls. Also see, e.g., LOUDER V. COMPUSERVE which cost the defendants more than $ 1 Million for unreleased photos in an online portfolio.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:

I have never seen either of those releases. On advice of counsel, I do not use electronic releases, strictly paper. Nor have I ever, in over 40 years in the business, been asked to sign a model release, EXCEPT when I was the model. But you point is well taken. There evidently are releases in use that require signatures from both photographer and model. What the purpose of that might be, I have no idea. I note also that there are many releases in use that have been drafted by non-lawyers and which may or may not serve their intended purpose should they wind up in front of a judge in any particular state.

Again on advice of counsel, the release I use has been drafted to the standards of the State of New York, even though I'm in Virginia. The reason being that New York has both the toughest requirements and is a big chunk of the photography market.

So you're getting the release for the people you want to license your images to.

GM Photography wrote:
First of all, it's just a nice thing to do.  If you don't have a model release, you don't have permission to use her image, so you should also do it for that reason.

Andrew Koenig wrote:
In a portfolio? I think you're mistaken.

A photographer's "portfolio" is a printed book showing his work.  It is not a published work readily available to the public.

The courts in most states have not yet determined whether or not use on a web site is the same thing.   While some believe they are the same, I would rather not have to hire a lawyer when I become the test case.

GM Photography wrote:
First of all, it's just a nice thing to do.  If you don't have a model release, you don't have permission to use her image, so you should also do it for that reason.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
Apparently incorrect. Google: oregon "right of publicity" law

Evidently, OR lacks an ROP law, so no release is required in most cases. Also, note that even states WITH ROP laws sometimes recognize non-written releases.

As to "nice," or "fair," it depends on the individual situation.

If the image was being used in an advertisement that only appeared on a local billboard, then he may not have to worry about other states.  However he is using the image on his web site, and that's not at all the same thing.

Has the OP verified that the server that handles his web site is located in Oregon?  Has the OP taken the necessary steps in order to prevent those images from being viewed outside Oregon?

If not, then the OP may want to comply with the laws of other states.

Andrew Koenig wrote:
In a portfolio? I think you're mistaken.

Are you an attorney? 

I know I'm not.  I also know that I don't want to have to hire one to defend myself if someone sues me.  They can claim that my Model Mayhem portfolio is "promotional" and I don't have a release and the model has an e-mail record of her asking me not to use her image that way.  Even if I'm "right" it might cost me a pile of attorney fees to prove it.

Michael Fryd wrote:

GM Photography wrote:
First of all, it's just a nice thing to do.  If you don't have a model release, you don't have permission to use her image, so you should also do it for that reason.

A photographer's "portfolio" is a printed book showing his work.  It is not a published work readily available to the public.

The courts in most states have not yet determined whether or not use on a web site is the same thing.   While some believe they are the same, I would rather not have to hire a lawyer when I become the test case.

If you're putting photos on a website to show work you've done, then it's a statement of fact/biographical use and no release is needed.