|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Yeah, About That Model Release Form.
I'm sure you guys are up to date on the Emily Ratajkowski "never before scene nudes" book that's coming out without her permission from photographer Jonathan Leder. There is absolutely no reason why any model should sign a release form. You have every right to work out a contract underlining the terms of use for the photos. It is your image and if someone demands that you sign a release, you no longer have a right to say how that image will be used. You must create a contract and hand it to the photographer to sign. If they have a problem with it- find another photographer. It's not worth letting this happen to you. Poor Emily. http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/30/em … -violation Nov 30 16 07:24 pm Link according to the article the "100s" of photos in this book were "never meant to be seen" It sucks when someone sneaks in a shot that is more revealing than we realize or whatever, but you dont take HUNDREDS of photos without the intention to ever let anyone see them. Assume anyone who promises to never show anyone HUNDREDS of photos they took of you is lying. Better than "never sign a release", how about "be fucking reasonable, nobody wants to take a photo theyre not allowed to show to anyone" Besides that, the photographer has the right to show the photos all he likes, as long as it's for free. He only needed a release to sell them. Not signing a release doesnt protect you from your nudes hitting the internet. You don't seem to really understand how this works, I'm sure whatever contract you scribble up will hold up perfectly in court. Nov 30 16 07:48 pm Link The article doesn't mention a release. Are you saying she signed a release? Or she didn't sign a release? Do you have any verifiable or first hand information that was not in the article? If the photographer is breaking the law, shouldn't Emily be talking to a lawyer instead of posting on social media? Or is she driving up interest in the book because these things help an actress's career? In the meantime, you are telling models not to sign a release. Isn't that akin to telling them to not bother to look for work? The shots were taken in New York. That means that even if there is no release, they can still be made public as art. See the Bridget Moynahan case. BM could win, but the law is against her. I am squarely on Moynahan's side since she posed for a boyfriend, it is clear no release was signed, it is plausible that there was an oral contract that the boyfriend/professional photographer would not release the photos. For the case of ER, apparently there was an agreement to release the photos. Nov 30 16 07:50 pm Link I don't know any professional photographer who would sign any agreement a model provided. Not saying no one would but I would guess very few. I think its one thing to pose for a husband or boyfriend or girlfriend in fun or racy images or if drunk and have the photos shown but the ones she did were posed and actually very nice. In other words if you don't want something seen don't do it. Jonathan Leder is a professional photographer. What did she think would happen to the images? Photographers want to share their work. Ms. Ratajkowski isn't a stupid person and had there been five or ten images one thing but according to what I read there were around 100 Polaroids taken. Looking at the photos shows a beautiful young woman. Sometimes people say and do things for publicity. Here is a link to some of the images. Be forewarned NSFW: http://www.imperial-publishing.com/prod … rs-edition Nov 30 16 07:51 pm Link I think the OP is doing a terrible disservice to models by telling them not to sign a release. If they won't agree to sign a release, they will have few chances to work with photographers. I'm a hobbyist, not a professional photographer (any more). But I would not dream of photographing a model who would not sign a model release, whether on a trade or paid shoot. My model releases, drawn by a lawyer based on the standard American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) release, give me the right to do anything I like with the images. What I will probably do with the images is post a few here on MM. But I don't want to be limited, should I ever wish to have a gallery exhibition or produce a book. If you model, it's to have your pictures shown. End of story. If you don't like that, don't model. Nov 30 16 08:19 pm Link Satu wrote: I guess reading would be too much to expect now. Nov 30 16 09:09 pm Link Hm. I don't think she's actually being exploited... she did agree to pose for those pics, and it seems weird for a professional model to suggest that nude pics of her (of which there are many) are some form of unique exploitation/violation. I mean, if someone did not consent to have certain pics taken, or certain pics were taken on the sly, that's one thing, but these photos are quite clearly those of a model fully engaged in the posing of rather standard-fare (in fact, rather old-school) cheesecake nudies. Not buying this reaction AT ALL. Seriously, what happened to cross-promotional negotiations? Are those no longer a thing or what? They could both benefit tremendously from helping each other on this. Disowning the pics and pretending to be all victimized just makes her look like she's desperately trying to put all that tawdriness behind her in order to posture as being all legit and stuff. She could negotiate a healthy promotional fee from the publishers for doing some official sanctioned interviews about the book, where she embraces the openly-erotic nature of the images and how they represent her ownership of her own unabashed sexuality and all that. Her target audience (straight dudes) would love her for that, and while some women might side-eye her, others would get behind her on it. And yeah, good luck finding any photographer with even a base modicum of business sense who will be willing to sign some contract provided by a model. Nov 30 16 10:21 pm Link What's at issue is not the question of a release but of a usage agreement which stipulates what uses (if any) may be made of the resulting photos and which usually, (but not always) is a separate document . I've never professionally modeled or acted in a film (including student films) in which usage was not spelled out. Things done on a personal basis are different, of course, and carry all the risks of normal social interaction. I use two slightly different releases, most often a fairly standard release which grants me all the rights associated with copyright (including publication) and another which grants the model the right to restrict from publication certain, specific images without his/her permission. That one is used primarily for beginning models and/or those experimenting with nudity and are not yet sure whether or not they want to continue to shoot nudes. Occasionally I'm asked by more experienced models to restrict nudes from internet publication but who have no concern about publication in books, magazines or gallery showing. The purpose here is to control, as much as possible, access to the nudes by exploiters, potential employers, or those photographers who work on the premise that "You shot nudes with him, so you should shoot nudes with me." I agree that most photographers won't (and shouldn't) sign any document prepared by the model, at least without prior discussion and agreement, if for no other reason because it almost certainly will not have been prepared by a lawyer but rather by a sluggo boyfriend who has in all probability not completed high school, let alone law school, and is likely to harm and restrict the model as much as the photographer. That's not to say that the model has no right to control the use of any picture taken of her. She does and that right is best protected by fully understanding and agreeing the nature of the proposed shoot, discussing fully with the photographer any restrictions she requires before the shoot, and walking away from the job if they can't reach agreement (in writing). Then, if the photographer violates their employment contract (which is what proper release/usage agreements are in effect) she has the right to sue the Hell out of him. Far too often models are injured more by their own hands by failing to use the means available to them at the outset than by any impropriety by the photographer. The best protective device available to a model (or anybody else for that matter) sits right between and slightly above her shoulders. All IMHO as always, of course. Dec 01 16 06:32 am Link Leonard Gee Photography wrote: Exactly. If she had not become famous, she would be flattered that there was art book dedicated to her. Sour grapes for not getting paid at this point. Dec 01 16 06:48 am Link Satu wrote: We have a name for contracts underlining the terms of use for the photos of a model by others which the model agrees to. It's called a model release, or just release for short. Dec 01 16 07:25 am Link Satu wrote: Except payment maybe? You have every right to work out a contract underlining the terms of use for the photos. And the photographer has the full right not to work with you but to choose a model who is easier to work with. It is your image and if someone demands that you sign a release, you no longer have a right to say how that image will be used. No, it is not your image in the sense of property. It is a common work of everyone involved in the process and by default the owner of the copyright (the exclusive right) is the photographer. Without a license from the photographer you cannot use the image for whatever purpose. You must create a contract and hand it to the photographer to sign. I don't know how many photographers who have purchased equipment for tens of thousands of USD and spent years in perfecting their skills will merely agree to some model handing them a contract to sign. The only possible case is if that contract says that the models pays enough. If they have a problem with it- find another photographer. It's not worth letting this happen to you. So photographers are replaceable but models are not? Poor Emily. I don't see how this whole article is related to her having signed a release. Dec 01 16 07:59 am Link Tony Lawrence wrote: Indeed. Photographers and clients hire models to produce images based on their needs, not the desires of the model. Dec 01 16 08:11 am Link If it had been here she wouldn't even get a look in, and release or no release photographers here have the last word on where and how their work gets published. ...thankfully! Dec 01 16 08:54 am Link Laura UnBound wrote: The boldfaced is wrong, wrong, wrong. Dec 01 16 11:13 am Link Hunter GWPB wrote: Boldfaced statement is incorrect and NY law requires a WRITTEN rls. Verbal agreements are not valid. Dec 01 16 11:17 am Link How many people believe this nonsense? That a publisher and photographer would risk millions to publish images they didn't have a legal right too. C'mon. I was born at night but not last night. My guess is signed a release and later perhaps decided she didn't want the photos shown. She was and is a professional model signed with a major agency. She wasn't tricked into posing that I can see. No one poses of 100 or so photos tricked. She was a young model in 2012 and got lucky enough to do a feature film. However you can't un ring a bell. Maybe she feels this may hurt her chances to do more films. I don't think it will matter. What saddens me are those who excuse other adults for the choices they make and blame those they work with. Jonathan Leder didn't make her take her clothes off. Certainly didn't shoot her in the bath or bedroom without her knowledge. Her claims of only 5 images were too be used for a art publication seem fake when again in some of the images she posed for she is totally nude and posed in a sexual manner. This feeds into this notion that photographers are creeps who take advantage of young naive women. When my thinking is Emily is a bright person who understood what she did but can get some sympathy by disavowing the photos. Dec 01 16 11:43 am Link Is "poser's remorse" a term yet? Dec 01 16 12:38 pm Link Eagle Rock Photographer wrote: - Dec 01 16 01:27 pm Link I think that it is a publicity stunt and it will benefit both.  Dec 01 16 01:43 pm Link Hunter GWPB wrote: As to 'art' the exception is goofy and vague and limited.And very inviting to abuse since 'art' is undefined. As to when a rls is needed, it varies from state-to-state and often depends on the specific situation. For example, plaintiffs prevailed when models sued over online display in LOUDER V. COMPUSERVE in CA, and defendants coughed up ~ $1 Million. Dec 01 16 02:02 pm Link I have no knowledge of the situation in the OP, but having spent 40 years "in the business," I can tell you that without a model's written permission, no photo I take is of any use to me whatever. If I can't get a model release, I don't do the shoot. As for a contract the model might hand me and ask me to sign, it depends on what's in it. My needs are simple: I own copyright and have the model's permission to use the photos. Beyond that, what does the model want, exactly? Some things I've heard being asked for are logistically or legally impossible, thus not going to happen. There's a simple rule at work here: never allow anyone to photograph you in ways you aren't comfortable showing your mother. Dec 01 16 02:06 pm Link Ask your lawyer if you need a release. My lawyer reviewed my releases. He also told me that if I added anything he didn't see And if that addition wasn't legal it could make the whole release invalid. Things like pay and pics are included in my release . If a model asked me to sign anything she would have to agree to pay my legal fees to get my lawyers opinion ( ha ha ). If the model wants to add something that's ambiguous you may find yourself In court having a judge decide what it means. Regardless of what you think the law is, all it takes is a model with a lawyer who wants to take it to court and you have to pay to Defend yourself. I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Dec 01 16 02:11 pm Link Satu wrote: If it was truly without permission, she can sue and get a TRO and PI. Or if she has enough 'juice' emulate Cameron Diaz and get the police to ruin the photographer's life. Dec 01 16 02:12 pm Link Satu wrote: Contracts are an option for high profile celebrities whose public image is actually worth something. Give me Scarlett Johansson. I'll sign anything she gives me just for the chance to photograph her. Dec 01 16 02:13 pm Link Meh, the pictures in the aforementioned book neither are hot nor good. Dec 01 16 02:17 pm Link Eagle Rock Photographer wrote: Where would we be without ambiguous laws and changes in the law from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Dec 01 16 03:52 pm Link Terrible advice. In some cases like agency test shoots a release may not be appropriate, but if a photographer is providing their services as a trade or has hired the model, then they want to use the images and they need a release to do so. If the model is unwilling to allow the photographer to use the images, then there is no point in shooting that person. In simple terms, a model release is the subject giving the photographer permission to use their likeness. There should also be a usage agreement that specifies how both parties may use the images. This protects both parties. Some good advice is for models to ask before a shoot if the photographer has a release and ask to see it before the shoot. If they are agreeable, then the shoot proceeds. If not, they can ask to insert specific terms, which the photographer may or may not agree to. If agreement can't be reached, then the parties shouldn't work together. I have (once?) signed an agreement that a model presented, but in most cases if a model made the demands you're suggesting I would simply say "Thank you for your interest, but I don't think this is a good fit." Dec 02 16 05:51 am Link Pay me . . . or, give me a full release so I can market the images and get paid that way. Dec 02 16 06:09 am Link If a model won't sign my model release, then what the hell am I paying her for? Dec 02 16 07:46 am Link John Jebbia wrote: That is the answer! Dec 02 16 07:58 am Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: The day I start signing "contracts" drafted by 20yr old models who may or may not know the difference between "your" and "you're" is the day I start slamming my pecker in the sliding glass door for fun. Dec 02 16 08:12 am Link Satu wrote: +1000 best advice I have seen in a long time on MM. Dec 02 16 08:48 am Link 4 R D wrote: The unknown today may be the top model of tomorrow. The unknown photographers that takes her picture today will then exploit those pictures when she/he becomes famous. Dec 02 16 08:53 am Link John Jebbia wrote: A contract will insure that what the photographer says will be enforced. A lot of photographers lie... Having a open release only allows them to lie legally... Dec 02 16 09:02 am Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: This is very understandable when working with a photographer that builds a reputation for themselves. But models work with most all photographers and 90% of them are just Joe blows with a camera. Dec 02 16 09:18 am Link Caitin Bre wrote: This is not the situation. Dec 02 16 09:24 am Link Caitin Bre wrote: We don't negotiate with the hypotethical, and it works both ways. I might become a big time photogrpaher in the future so, pay me. You see? I can play the same card as well. Dec 02 16 10:12 am Link Caitin Bre wrote: You can google any famous model or actress and find crappy, non-professional photos of them, Dec 02 16 11:10 am Link Tony Lawrence wrote: +100 Dec 02 16 11:46 am Link Pretty tacky looking pics, but I guess that was the intention https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2 … aphy-book/ What makes me laugh my ass off are her ridiculous tweets... "These photos being used w/out my permission is an example of exactly the opposite of what I stand for" and this gem... "women choosing when and how they want to share their sexuality and bodies" Honey, if you didn't want the world to see those pics then you shouldn't have got your tits out! Dec 02 16 12:23 pm Link |
