Creative Studio One wrote:
I had a conversation with a model who freaked out about signing a release... she said she had never signed one... then she starts asking me if her pictures are going to end up on erotic sites or what the heck I am going to do with the photos. Off course my natural response was, without a release the photos are useless for me, so why would I even shoot you. When I say there are a lot of amateur models here people start attacking me.

So I asked the model I was working with today if that's the norm. She said most photographers don't ask for it.

What is going on with keeping thing legal around in photography? (I realize outside North America it may not be needed)

I always have a signed release

Laura UnBound wrote:
Its in the models best interest NOT to sign a release.

It is, especially if they want to have any say over the images, lol

Creative Studio One wrote:
========

What is going on with keeping thing legal around in photography? (I realize outside North America it may not be needed)

http://asmp.org/articles/business-and-legal-faq.html#1

excerpts from the ASMP page:

The basic, general rule is that you need a release from people to use photographs showing a recognizable likeness of them for purposes of trade or advertising.

If the person is recognizable, the second question is whether the proposed use is for an advertisement(which is very broadly defined). If it is, then you need a release. If it is not, then you go to the next question.

That question is whether the usage is for a commercial purpose, such as a corporate brochure, product packaging, a calendar, a website that is intended to enhance or promote a business interest, etc.If it is, then you need a release.

Personally I would never photograph a model without a release, because if the image is placed online it would most likely be for the purpose of  "enhancing or promoting a business interest".

This is not legal advice, just common sense advice, and only for the USA (I just noticed the OP is in Canada)

Creative Studio One wrote:
I had a conversation with a model who freaked out about signing a release... she said she had never signed one... then she starts asking me if her pictures are going to end up on erotic sites or what the heck I am going to do with the photos. Off course my natural response was, without a release the photos are useless for me, so why would I even shoot you. When I say there are a lot of amateur models here people start attacking me.

your response was not very professional here.  you should be prepared to explain in clear and simple terms why you want a model to sign a release.  i don't know the laws about such things in canada, but if you're wanting her to sign one for a valid reason, you should explain that to her.  and if she wants to add a clause about the photos not appearing on adult sites, maybe you can consider that, unless that was your intention.  either way, she just wants reassurances about how the photos will be used.

i almost always ask for a signed release in case i decide to submit something for publication, but even with all the publications i've done, i've only been asked once if i actually had releases.  when i said, "yes, would you like me to send them to you?"  the response was that no, they didn't need to see them, just to know that i had a release for the people involved.

ForeverFotos wrote:
My shoots aren't complete until the release is signed.....period.

My shoots don't start till a release is signed ...

RalphNevins Photography wrote:

My shoots don't start till a release is signed ...

Interesting that you ask a model to sign away her rights to something that hasnt even been done yet.

Creative Studio One wrote:
What is going on with keeping thing legal around in photography?

Has a law been broken?

IrisSwope wrote:
I've never used a release.
For commercial work, it's the clients duty to get one signed.



It is, especially if they want to have any say over the images, lol

If I'm selling the image to the client.  I have a release, no matter what they have the model sign.  Their release does not necessarily protect me and my right to sell the image.

IrisSwope wrote:
I've never used a release.
For commercial work, it's the clients duty to get one signed.

I am curious how this works since I am not a photographer for commercial or agency.  What's the process that puts your method to practice?

Joel England Photo wrote:
There was an interesting legal case in Los Angeles involving Cameron Diaz, a model-released humorous spoof shoot with her dressed as a dominatrix, and a supposedly signed model release which Diaz later claimed she hadn't signed. (She claimed her signature was forged). Diaz' agency had approved the concept and the shoot.

A dispute arose years later when the photographer was going to publish images. Somehow, in what was at heart a simple civil dispute, the Los Angeles Police Dept. got involved. They arrested the photographer, trashed his studio, and the photographer was later charged  with blackmail (and convicted!).

There was a witness to Cameron signing or not signing the release: the photographer's assistant who had been present at the shoot and apparently took care of getting releases signed and such paperwork.

At the same time the LAPD was arresting the photographer and trashing his studio and life, someone broke into the assistant's home, murdered the assistant in a professional-style hit. Reportedly the only thing missing was the assistant's laptop, which contained extensive notes of that and other shoots.

The photographer's life was ruined, especially after he was criminally prosecuted for what was at heart nothing more than a dispute over a contract. Or maybe just "model's remorse" because the shoot didn't fit in with Diaz' career plans. The assistant was murdered. And Cameron continued her climb to stardom.

Interesting also that even if Diaz hadn't signed, the shoot was released. All the arrangements and agreement was for it to be released, and California law does not require a written release. The most bizarre aspect of the whole case, though, was the LAPD and DA jumping in and acting as "muscle" for Diaz in a private dispute.

I wonder if Cameron Diaz will star in the movie version of this?

Laura UnBound wrote:

Interesting that you ask a model to sign away her rights to something that hasnt even been done yet.

Seems like a perfectly good time to make sure everyone understands where and what the shots could be used for. Releases don't have to be all encompassing. If a model has reservations about how the shots might be used, this is the last chance to discuss them and adjust the release terms accordingly. Better before than after the fact. No?

Laura UnBound wrote:
I havent signed a release for many of my shoots (because the photographer doesnt use them, not because I refused) If you have no intention of using the images for a commercial purpose, you probably dont need one. Its in the models best interest NOT to sign a release.

Wrong!! mine is a release but I call it an agreement. I give the model a copy and on a TFCD it states only for our use to promote our ports, so why not sign mine. If you don't I can do almost anything I want with them. It will be come he said she said. lol

Laura UnBound wrote:
The release, or a lackthereof, also isnt the end all be all of keeping things legal.

I regularly shoot with a few good friends, and we dont keep track of releases. If one of them wants to sell prints, or enter our images into magazines, or whatever...thats cool by me, we have that kind of relationship. They dont need a release from me (ie: Im not angry over it)

On the other hand, just because I didnt sign a release for joeschmoe who shot me 3 years ago and thinks Ive forgotten about him, doesnt mean hes not trying to sell off image sets of me to private collectors on a website Ive never heard of and will never know about.

You entioned something very important: relationship.

I never ask for a signed release because I try to develop a good relationship with the models, then there is trust and if one of us is able to use the images and sell them the other one will agree and it will be a win-win situation for both.

I laugh at these things because it sounds as if we were all making great pieces of art and the whole world wants to buy them. Gimme a break...

However I understand you will need it if you are doing a commercial job and the customer is kinda nervous about where his images could end.

Thanks

Laura UnBound wrote:

Interesting that you ask a model to sign away her rights to something that hasnt even been done yet.

++1

Laura UnBound wrote:
I havent signed a release for many of my shoots (because the photographer doesnt use them, not because I refused) If you have no intention of using the images for a commercial purpose, you probably dont need one. Its in the models best interest NOT to sign a release.

"Commercial purpose" is not clearly, or consistently, defined, and at times, the definition is changing.  Also, some uses, like online portfolios and gallery print sales are either not clearly legal, or require a release due to someone (gallery, magazine, etc.) having a policy to that effect. 

While formally, a model release is only to protect the photographer, I think that using a release all the time is being honest with the model.  In some areas, there are a lot of options without one, and the model might find her "unreleased" images used in ways she had no idea were allowed. 

Personally, the model release I use also makes it clear what degree nudity is released or isn't; since accidents occur.

Stack Studios wrote:

Seems like a perfectly good time to make sure everyone understands where and what the shots could be used for. Releases don't have to be all encompassing. If a model has reservations about how the shots might be used, this is the last chance to discuss them and adjust the release terms accordingly. Better before than after the fact. No?

Yes and no. I wasnt necessarily disagreeing with his practice, I understand the reason for wanting it done at the beginning of the shoot, but its not in the models best interest do a) do it at all, and b) to do it before the shots are taken.

Ultimately, both parties working together should be acting professionally and able to have some degree of trust. Unfortunately, this isnt always the case.

For example, Model A and Photographer B have discussed that she only wants to do implied nudes. She signs the release before the shoot starts.

Photographer B then has the release to sell all the nude images he took of her between poses that he swore he would delete, all the nip-slips, etc. Even after the first shutter click that made her feel uncomfortable she walked out on the shoot, he still has the release for whatever he managed to shoot before that happened.

Or, another example, Photographer B is supposed to be paying the Model A. She signs the release when she gets there, but he holds the money till the end of the shoot (makes sense, she hasnt done what shes being paid for yet. If you pay her at the beginning of the shoot, she can take your money and run). Then decides to short her on cash. Hes got the release, she doesnt have all her money. It would be in the models best interest to wait until the end to sign a release. No money? No release.


As I said, I wasnt necessarily disagreeing with the practice, Ive certainly done both without complaint, I just think its interesting that what benefits the photographer is the polar opposite of what benefits the model when it comes to how one handles the release.

L2Photography net wrote:

Wrong!! mine is a release but I call it an agreement. I give the model a copy and on a TFCD it states only for our use to promote our ports, so why not sign mine. If you don't I can do almost anything I want with them. It will be come he said she said. lol

Im sorry, please make a coherent argument and try again. What about what I said is WRONG!@!!@?

If a model doesnt sign your release, you certainly cant do almost anything you want with them.

IrisSwope wrote:
I've never used a release. For commercial work, it's the clients duty to get one signed.

sdgillis wrote:
I am curious how this works since I am not a photographer for commercial or agency.  What's the process that puts your method to practice?

who ever is using the images for a commercial purpose needs a model release.
i have created countless images that have been used for advertising in some of the top magazines on the planet...i don't ever need a release from the model, but that advertiser does.

if i am hired by a client, i get paid to shoot, they handle a release through the models agency.

they are the ones using, publicizing her likeness, not me..

New Age Studio wrote:

You entioned something very important: relationship.

I never ask for a signed release because I try to develop a good relationship with the models, then there is trust and if one of us is able to use the images and sell them the other one will agree and it will be a win-win situation for both.

I laugh at these things because it sounds as if we were all making great pieces of art and the whole world wants to buy them. Gimme a break...

However I understand you will need it if you are doing a commercial job and the customer is kinda nervous about where his images could end.

Thanks

The people who balk most about needing releases every time because they need to be able to sell the images....are rarely the ones selling anything, especially where internet models are concerned.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
He asked of the photo would end up on a package of condoms....In his case, he was a dick.

lulz

Art of the nude wrote:

"Commercial purpose" is not clearly, or consistently, defined, and at times, the definition is changing.  Also, some uses, like online portfolios and gallery print sales are either not clearly legal, or require a release due to someone (gallery, magazine, etc.) having a policy to that effect. 

While formally, a model release is only to protect the photographer, I think that using a release all the time is being honest with the model.  In some areas, there are a lot of options without one, and the model might find her "unreleased" images used in ways she had no idea were allowed. 

Personally, the model release I use also makes it clear what degree nudity is released or isn't; since accidents occur.

Thats where releases and usage agreements get mixed together.

L2Photography net wrote:
Wrong!! mine is a release but I call it an agreement. I give the model a copy and on a TFCD it states only for our use to promote our ports, so why not sign mine. If you don't I can do almost anything I want with them. It will be come he said she said. lol

question: does your state require a written model release?
(i know the answer)

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
i'll bet the people that make the most noise about demanding/needing, model releases, don't have any idea why they need one...they saw some guy talking tough in the forums and figure if he needs 'em, so do i.

Psssst.....your sense is showing....

Laura UnBound wrote:

Interesting that you ask a model to sign away her rights to something that hasnt even been done yet.

yes & some times i get crap for the effort i put in as well (paid or tf  some are better than others .. )

My release explicitly states the usage - for both parties
- who gets what - in trade or in $$

the purpose of my images are limited edition Art pieces (& self promotion , etc..)
i do not sell to stock / adverts / mag.
IF an opportunity came up to sell such an image (which i'm not looking for ..)
it would have to be renegotiated..

My method may not work for everyone but it works for me & the people who model for me ..

Laura UnBound wrote:

Interesting that you ask a model to sign away her rights to something that hasnt even been done yet.

I'm having a release signed and a basic 2257 form filled out at the beginning of a working relationship (first session). I don't think that either are strictly applicable to my work but I have noted that some of the institutional sponsers are requiring one or both, I think I remember the Seattle erotic festival asking for these when I was thinking about trying to show there.

It's not an issue between me and the model(s) because, with my work consisting of altered one-of-a-kinds marketed through galleries and shows there wouldn't be any viable suit that could be brought (and 2257 is even more far-fetched). But there can be a reason for the paperwork if the galleries or other institutions want to require it for access to markets.

RalphNevins Photography wrote:
the purpose of my images are limited edition Art pieces (& self promotion , etc..)

in most states in the USA, we don't need a release for that...

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
I'd venture that;  anyone who has never dealt with a release, has never really worked on anything of any consequence.     
That goes for photographers as well as models.

I was taking a portrait of a dentist for his a magazine ad. He asked of the photo would end up on a package of condoms.   I was like WTF???   I said, "You should be so lucky." and made a joke of it.  He wasn't trying to be funny with his question.   In his case, he was a dick.

People are ignorant. It's not uncommon get comments like that with people who are amateurs.

If he was as you said, wouldn't a package of condoms be the proper place for his photo??

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

I'm having a release signed and a basic 2257 form filled out at the beginning of a working relationship (first session). I don't think that either are strictly applicable to my work but I have noted that some of the institutional sponsers are requiring one or both, I think I remember the Seattle erotic festival asking for these when I was thinking about trying to show there.

It's not an issue between me and the model(s) because, with my work consisting of altered one-of-a-kinds marketed through galleries and shows there wouldn't be any viable suit that could be brought (and 2257 is even more far-fetched). But there can be a reason for the paperwork if the galleries or other institutions want to require it for access to markets.

My post was more in reference to when the release is signed, than whether or not one is signed at all.