Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
model sign a model release can the photog. still use the images of the model?,
The reason why I ask is this has happened A few times and therefore the photog.'s won't use the images.

Generally speaking this is true. The photog owns the images, but cannot use them for most purposes without a release from the model. Neither can the model without permission from the photog  On the other hand, a legal challenge would be expensive and highly unlikely.

Jouissance Images wrote:
Generally speaking this is true. The photog owns the images, but cannot use them for most purposes without a release from the model. Neither can the model without permission from the photog  On the other hand, a legal challenge would be expensive and highly unlikely.

Define "most purposes"?

Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
model sign a model release can the photog. still use the images of the model?,
The reason why I ask is this has happened A few times and therefore the photog.'s won't use the images.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ … licity-law

P O T T S wrote:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ … licity-law

good job with that link!! 
If people only used the internet to research a little then they could avoid the headaches!

Jouissance Images wrote:
Generally speaking this is true. The photog owns the images, but cannot use them for most purposes without a release from the model. Neither can the model without permission from the photog  On the other hand, a legal challenge would be expensive and highly unlikely.

For me, I can use photos taken for almost all purposes, without a release.

Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
I offered to sign one of them via fax but that photog. said he didn't like getting it signed via fax.

a release is simply having consent to use likeness.  it can be written on a napkin.  not accepting a fax is rather silly as there is often a transmission tag on the header or footer and within the internal log showing from where it was received.  as well, electronic transmissions have become commonplace as being valid.

Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:

I don't always remember as well to do so.

That is terrible advice. It is to your benefit to not sign a model release. It may not be much of a benifit in the vast majority of cases but signing a release does not help the model in any way.

Greg Kolack wrote:
I'm wondering if the photographer simply doesn't want to use the images for some reason and is using that as an excuse. Seems if he really wanted to use them he would figure out a way to get a release.

And, as has been mentioned, a release is not always needed anyway.

This is what I am thinking. There has to be more to this story.

L2Photography net wrote:
If you don't sign a model release and the photographer uses them in a way you don't like what can you do about it.. It becomes a he said she said. My model release is more of an agreement on a TF shoot saying we will only use the in our ports and not for profit. I can't sell them nor can the model. I won't shoot a model with out a sign a model release. Why would you shoot with a photographer with out one.
L2

I didn't know a release allowed the model to sell them?

Blue Ash Film Group wrote:

This is what I am thinking. There has to be more to this story.

Or he could be like me who doesn't bother with releases as they have no need for one.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:

I didn't know a release allowed the model to sell them?

? what? model sell photos

Blue Ash Film Group wrote:

This is what I am thinking. There has to be more to this story.

I'm curious what the use is for. Commercial? If its just portfolio, he probably simply doesn't want to use the. Perhaps the OP contacted him asking why her images were not in his portfolio, and using the release excuse is the gentle way out.

L2Photography net wrote:
? what? model sell photos

I'm not sure I understand what you're typing. But it doesn't matter, you said the models can't sell the photos, and a release has nothing to do with the model selling the photo, as far as I know.

Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
model sign a model release can the photog. still use the images of the model?,
The reason why I ask is this has happened A few times and therefore the photog.'s won't use the images.

Model signs release yes of course the photographer can use the images. He probably just doesnt want to.

Dan K Photography wrote:
That is terrible advice. It is to your benefit to not sign a model release. It may not be much of a benifit in the vast majority of cases but signing a release does not help the model in any way.

it does if they want to be taken seriously as a model. maybe you should focus less on other people's terrible advice and more on your own.

Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:

I offered to sign one of them via fax but that photog. said he didn't like getting it signed via fax.

His loss then. Faxed signatures (or these days scanned emailed and printed) is just as good.

Michael Broughton wrote:
it does if they want to be taken seriously as a model. maybe you should focus less on other people's terrible advice and more on your own.

You're Canadian - research this one. No release in Canada means that for many TF shoots the unless the model signs a release then she owns the copyright to the pictures!.

Michael Broughton wrote:
it does if they want to be taken seriously as a model. maybe you should focus less on other people's terrible advice and more on your own.

Terrible advice? Everything I wrote is 100% accurate. The vast majority of MM photographers have no real need to have a model release. They do so because they want to pretend they do. Oh you never know the model may get famous and you can hit the jackpot with your images.  lol.

Aside from that I never told her or anyone not to sign a release. I just said that a model release is for a photographers benefit and not a models unlike what the person she quoted told her.

"Wants to be taken seriously as a model"  lol you are funny.  Do a test through an agency and tell them there models will never be taken seriously when they don't sign your release.

Michael Broughton wrote:
it does if they want to be taken seriously as a model. maybe you should focus less on other people's terrible advice and more on your own.

How is relinquishing the rights a model would have otherwise a mark of seriousness?

Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
model sign a model release can the photog. still use the images of the model?,
The reason why I ask is this has happened A few times and therefore the photog.'s won't use the images.

Sure, no problem, but only if said photographer is willing to risk getting sued into bankruptcy for invasion of the model's privacy. All it takes is making said model angry, the reason is irrelevant, and the sweetest of innocent young things can take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Greg Kolack wrote:
I'm wondering if the photographer simply doesn't want to use the images for some reason and is using that as an excuse. Seems if he really wanted to use them he would figure out a way to get a release.

And, as has been mentioned, a release is not always needed anyway.

I was wondering the same thing about the fax issue. A faxed release would certainly be better than no release at all. I've bought homes using signed documents that got faxed to the bank or title company.

Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:
model sign a model release can the photog. still use the images of the model?,
The reason why I ask is this has happened A few times and therefore the photog.'s won't use the images.

The only true answer to this is to research what the laws of your state are with regard to this issue. Any other "advice" given here is pure speculation as to what your rights are, as well as the photographer's.

Michael Broughton wrote:
it does if they want to be taken seriously as a model. maybe you should focus less on other people's terrible advice and more on your own.

That makes no sense at all, though perhaps its different in Canada than in the US.

Not signing a release protects the model - though I am confused why that would make her not seem serious.

Knowledge of your rights and protecting them seems to say that the model IS serious.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you're typing. But it doesn't matter, you said the models can't sell the photos, and a release has nothing to do with the model selling the photo, as far as I know.

My model release is more of an agreement on a TF shoot saying we will only use the in our ports and not for profit. I can't sell them nor can the model.

Models will try to take photo print them and sell at event or even add to a pay site if they have one.  Thats why I have the above in MY TF shoot.
Some models don't want to sign a release because some one told them I could sell them so thats why its in my release that I also call an agreement. I tell them this is what we are both agreeing to for our TF shoot. I also have on my release  posted they can NOT edit photos or have some one do it. why because its been done so I just add to it and let them know.
The key here Mnemosyne Photography is MY release and they get a copy..
L2

Virtual Studio wrote:

You're Canadian - research this one. No release in Canada means that for many TF shoots the unless the model signs a release then she owns the copyright to the pictures!.

i suggest you go research the difference between tf and a commissioned work.

Blue Ash Film Group wrote:

This is what I am thinking. There has to be more to this story.

+10000000000000000000000000000000

L2Photography net wrote:
If you don't sign a model release and the photographer uses them in a way you don't like what can you do about it.. It becomes a he said she said. My model release is more of an agreement on a TF shoot saying we will only use the in our ports and not for profit. I can't sell them nor can the model. I won't shoot a model with out a sign a model release. Why would you shoot with a photographer with out one.
L2

Youre mixing model releases and image useage agreements into the same document.

Its actually in a models best interest to NOT sign a release because it disallows you from doing everything under the sun with the images. Its absolutely not her responsibility to remind you if you forget to have one/have her sign it. I shoot all the time without doing paper work (their preference, not my refusal). It doenst hurt ME at all.

If Im shooting TF I absolutely DO want to sign a usage agreement though, because it tells me where and how Im allowed to use the images of me.

Your terms of who can use what images and how, is your usage agreement. Thats an entirely separate ballgame than the model releasing the use of her likeness.

Michael Broughton wrote:

i suggest you go research the difference between tf and a commissioned work.

It's a shame that the court didn't do similar research before making the binding case law which means that in many TF cases the model owns the copyright.