Znude! wrote:
Unlimited.

But if you don't really care and want to shoot I'd insist that the model list specific cases in which an image may not be used. Also be careful to not give away your rights to edit the images any way you see fit. And I would get this done before the day of the shoot.

Oleg wrote:
For all my previous sessions with paid models I used a generic model release from some stock agency. It basically permits any usage of pictures by photographer except unlawful and pornographic. Never had issues with it.
I am planning a shoot with paid model who asked to include all possible use of images. She says she will not accept unlimited usage. It seems somewhat reasonable.
At this point of life I am literally a guy with camera aka private person paying models out of my own pocket and shooting for my own education and entertainment. I have no immediate plans to use images outside of website/social media. But there is a chance I will offer prints, or some other products in the future.
In similar conditions do you restrict image usage or insist on unlimited release? How do you deal with it?

Interesting!  Well  since as i understand it, you are paying her, possibly go to another model.  I think her request is reasonable if  you were shooting  on  a TFI/TFP basis,  but since you are paying,  I would be rather inclined to look elsewhere.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I can understand why commercial shoots may include a release drafted for specific usage by those who are qualified to draft such legal documents.

For personal shoots, stock or minor assignments however, I’m going to stick with a more genetic, commonly used release that’s been vetted.    I feel drafting legal documents myself and making different agreements with different models is asking for trouble.   I find most freelance models are comfortable with and used to such releases.   On the rare occasion a model isn’t happy with such releases, the  easiest and safer course is to simply pass in favor of the many models who will happily accept such releases.

So just to recap your position, you would select or reject a model that best fits your project because you don't want to write or modify a model release? Really? It is neither rocket science or requires an understanding of Latin. Plus there are a number of formatted variations of model releases available online. Personally, I select models based on how they will suit my project.

While I am sure that the Getty release (one of the most widely used) was prepared under the guidance of lawyers, it is written in plain language. The problem with it is that it does not cover adult material. If anyone is participating in OnlyFans content the most common model release out there (Getty stock) is going to require modification.

I use an app on my phone called EasyRelease with the upgrade for customization which allows for modification of the standard release (based roughly on the Getty release) to suit my needs whether they change from shoot to shoot. Or you can have pre-formatted versions for unlimited, editorial-only, stock agency, adult etc.

You are obviously free to select models based on your own criteria, but your post stokes unfounded fears over a relatively minor issue.

Dan Howell wrote:
So just to recap your position, you would select or reject a model that best fits your project because you don't want to write or modify a model release? Really? It is neither rocket science or requires an understanding of Latin. Plus there are a number of formatted variations of model releases available online. Personally, I select models based on how they will suit my project..

No, that’s a poor recap.  On the very rare occasions a model wasn’t happy with the release or wasn’t happy with any of the shoot terms, I have simply passed in favor of another more compatible, more suitable model.

Oleg wrote:
In similar conditions do you restrict image usage or insist on unlimited release? How do you deal with it?

In similar circumstances, I have used unlimited releases when I’ve hired models. I understand why a model would want to protect how his/her likeness is or might be used, but I wouldn’t pay someone for that privilege; I would just find a different model.
These days, I still use unlimited releases as a starting point of negotiation, and the degree to which a model/subject/client wants to restrict my usage is a major factor into how much I charge.

AgX wrote:
These days, I still use unlimited releases as a starting point of negotiation, and the degree to which a model/subject/client wants to restrict my usage is a major factor into how much I charge.

you do know that copyright license release and a model release are two entirely different things right? the question was about model releases.

Dan Howell wrote:
you do know that copyright license release and a model release are two entirely different things right? the question was about model releases.

My response to the OP was in reference to model releases; I was not discussing any copyright issues.

Znude! wrote:
Unlimited.

But if you don't really care and want to shoot I'd insist that the model list specific cases in which an image may not be used. Also be careful to not give away your rights to edit the images any way you see fit. And I would get this done before the day of the shoot.

This is the best advice . . . Let your model determine what she is not comfortable with and spell it out in writing. Then, if that is agreeable to you, do the shoot. If not, be polite and decline to work with her.

Oleg wrote:
For all my previous sessions with paid models I used a generic model release from some stock agency. It basically permits any usage of pictures by photographer except unlawful and pornographic. Never had issues with it.
I am planning a shoot with paid model who asked to include all possible use of images. She says she will not accept unlimited usage. It seems somewhat reasonable.
At this point of life I am literally a guy with camera aka private person paying models out of my own pocket and shooting for my own education and entertainment. I have no immediate plans to use images outside of website/social media. But there is a chance I will offer prints, or some other products in the future.
In similar conditions do you restrict image usage or insist on unlimited release? How do you deal with it?

On a final note, you mention your generic release has a usage exception for "unlawful and pornographic." I suggest you get rid of those terms or that phrase. It's obvious you shouldn't do anything that violates a law so that term is not needed. And the word pornographic is subjective and might vary from place to place. If you get into a spitting match with some disgruntled model in court because of a change of heart no point in having words that could be used against you.

You are probably like me in that if someone told you their life had taken another direction and asked you politely to not use their images publicly you would probably just do that as a favor to them. But it's best to have the terms of the agreement favor you anyway.

Znude! wrote:
On a final note, you mention your generic release has a usage exception for "unlawful and pornographic." I suggest you get rid of those terms or that phrase. It's obvious you shouldn't do anything that violates a law so that term is not needed. And the word pornographic is subjective and might vary from place to place. If you get into a spitting match with some disgruntled model in court because of a change of heart no point in having words that could be used against you.

You are probably like me in that if someone told you their life had taken another direction and asked you politely to not use their images publicly you would probably just do that as a favor to them. But it's best to have the terms of the agreement favor you anyway.

So you are aware that removing that sentence can cause the model release to get rejected by Getty and other stock agencies, right? If stock submission is one of the OP's goals the above advice is mistaken.

Oleg wrote:
For all my previous sessions with paid models I used a generic model release from some stock agency. It basically permits any usage of pictures by photographer except unlawful and pornographic. Never had issues with it.
I am planning a shoot with paid model who asked to include all possible use of images. She says she will not accept unlimited usage. It seems somewhat reasonable.
At this point of life I am literally a guy with camera aka private person paying models out of my own pocket and shooting for my own education and entertainment. I have no immediate plans to use images outside of website/social media. But there is a chance I will offer prints, or some other products in the future.
In similar conditions do you restrict image usage or insist on unlimited release? How do you deal with it?

This is would be something I would consult with a lawyer that deals with copyrights. Even though you are just a "Guy with a Camera" you still have control on how you use your content. You may be able to get the lawyer to address the model's limited use agreement. I use the word limited because in some cases these models have their only fans or patreon some other account that they can sell their photographs of which in some cases is okay but like selling to a magazine so she can make money off of your photograph is not correct..

Dan Howell wrote:

So you are aware that removing that sentence can cause the model release to get rejected by Getty and other stock agencies, right? If stock submission is one of the OP's goals the above advice is mistaken.

I wouldn't sell to Getty or the like. So I stand corrected and refer the OP to you.

TaylorScott Photography wrote:
... Even though you are just a "Guy with a Camera" you still have control on how you use your content. You may be able to get the lawyer to address the model's limited use agreement. I use the word limited because in some cases these models have their only fans or patreon some other account that they can sell their photographs of which in some cases is okay but like selling to a magazine so she can make money off of your photograph is not correct..

You're confusing/combining a model release with a photographers copyright/usage license.
They are two totally different things and should NEVER be combined.

Oleg wrote:
At this point of life I am literally a guy with camera aka private person paying models out of my own pocket and shooting for my own education and entertainment. I have no immediate plans to use images outside of website/social media. But there is a chance I will offer prints, or some other products in the future.
In similar conditions do you restrict image usage or insist on unlimited release? How do you deal with it?

From what I've seen, most MM and amateur photographers can easily get by without any model release at all because the photographs are often either taken in a public place and isn't being used to promote or endorse products or services (ie: an advertisement).

Even if the photo was created in a private place such as a studio, a model release isn't required if the image is simply for personal use (ie: hanging a print on a wall, an online portfolio).  Even creating a print for sale in a gallery doesn't usually require a model release (albeit many people mistakingly thing it does).

Limited model releases can restrict the usage of images for one or many of a variety of ways including date(s) that the image may be displayed, amount of images printed/displayed, location/territory the images are displayed, type of poses shown, media that the image is displayed on, and a whole bunch more.

Limited releases are very common in the professional / commercial world.  A typical qualified modeling agency would NEVER have a model sign an unlimited release.  NEVER!!!  If for no other reason it's so they can make more money.  The agency may let a model sign a release to appear on a couple thousand brochures for a small business, but if the business is a hit and they want to make millions of brochures, postcards... etc the modeling agency will require more fees and then the release will be revised.   There's a huge difference in the price of a small run and a huge international run and both the agency and model want to be compensated accordingly.

Limited releases can always be amended if the model agrees to the new terms.
So, if the model is willing to sign a limited model release that fulfills all of your needs why worry about it?

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
You're confusing/combining a model release with a photographers copyright/usage license.
They are two totally different things and should NEVER be combined.

I understand and my wording may not have been right however, my point is to seek legal advice when it comes to contracts. Even a GWC can get into legal action if not done right. The photographer needs to protect their interest.

Znude! wrote:

I wouldn't sell to Getty or the like. So I stand corrected and refer the OP to you.

The best way to endure a release will be accepted by a stock company is to use a vetted release they provide or have indicated they approve of.   Another reason not to just start altering releases on a model’s say so.   

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/im … e1ee44.pdf

Abbitt Photography wrote:

The best way to endure a release will be accepted by a stock company is to use a vetted release they provide or have indicated they approve of.   Another reason not to just start altering releases on a model’s say so.   

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/im … e1ee44.pdf

I don't ever alter my model release. If a model is unwilling to sign it I don't work with them.

Oleg wrote:
I am planning a shoot with paid model who asked to include all possible use of images. She says she will not accept unlimited usage.

All possible uses? This could be a long list. As Ken says, have her make a list of prohibited uses.