2. You're only 17, you can't legally enter a contract w/o a parent signing/witnessing the event...
A caveat: I once had a model pull a fast one on me. She had her own release drawn up & signed. It basically gave me the rights to do w/ the photos that I already held. Needless to say, that model is blacklisted from ever working w/ me again. Also, it was drawn up by another model who I have had a full release given before & since she uses that same release now, she is blacklisted too...
(edit)That said, google will provide you w/ a lot of different ones. You will need to modify it to meet your needs...
Sarah E. wrote: I need to make a model release form, but i don't know excatly what to put on it?? (or is there a pre made one i can print?)
help!
Why do you need one? A photographer needs a model release for his protection (or not, depending on the use he intends for the pictures). You do not need a model release. It does not protect you.
Since you don't know what to put it it, it's kind of hard to make a recommendation. Releases come in many varieties, some better (from a model's standpoint) than others.
Why do you need one? A photographer needs a model release for his protection (or not, depending on the use he intends for the pictures). You do not need a model release. It does not protect you.
How doesn't it protect the model? I'm asking because this is a conversation my husband and I had not even 15 min. ago. The use intended is important to models as well. We were thinking that in the future if we shoot TFCD, there should be an agreement in place, not only covering non sale of pictures, but should cover timely delivery of images, retouch, etc. There are so many times that I've heard and experienced photographers treating like they're shooting a fruit bowl instead of a living breathing person that is working hard at making a name just like they are. It just seems a little biased to think that the photographer is the only one putting in work. Don't we all want a result to any work that is done? The photographer isn't the only one entering into a temporary working partnership, so is the model, and we should have some form of protection in place.
How doesn't it protect the model? I'm asking because this is a conversation my husband and I had not even 15 min. ago. The use intended is important to models as well. We were thinking that in the future if we shoot TFCD, there should be an agreement in place, not only covering non sale of pictures, but should cover timely delivery of images, retouch, etc. There are so many times that I've heard and experienced photographers treating like they're shooting a fruit bowl instead of a living breathing person that is working hard at making a name just like they are. It just seems a little biased to think that the photographer is the only one putting in work. Don't we all want a result to any work that is done? The photographer isn't the only one entering into a temporary working partnership, so is the model, and we should have some form of protection in place.
Stop me if I sound like a broken record.
The sole function of a model release is to grant usage rights to the photographer (releasee) by the model (releasor). Releases do not deal with usage granted by the copyright holder (photographer), nor do they necessarily specify compensation for the model. Only the model (or the model's legal guardian) sign the release. If you choose to incorporate details regarding delivery of images to the model or the model's usage rights, the document is no longer a release. It is a contract and must be signed by both parties.
Lenzi wrote: It just seems a little biased to think that the photographer is the only one putting in work. Don't we all want a result to any work that is done? (Models) should have some form of protection in place.
No one said ANYTHING about a model not putting in work. My MUA puts in work, too. My hair stylist puts in work. My garbage man puts in work. That is not the point of a model release.
EDITED: Whatever else you choose to negotiate generally falls outside of the scope of a model release, and the things that you mentioned (how many pics, editing times, when you get the CD, etc) can ALL be accomplished outside of a model release, and some recommend that it SHOULD be done outside of a model release.
Theda and Roger hit the nail on the head. It's not anything against you Lenzi, but there are quite a few who are confused as to what a model release does and what it is MEANT to do.
Sarah E. wrote: I need to make a model release form, but i don't know excatly what to put on it?? (or is there a pre made one i can print?)
help!
Not sure why you would want to push a release on a photographer. If they want you to sign one they will present it to you. If they don't give you one that is their fault.Why release anything that you don't have to.I'm not saying to be unfair in your dealings with people, but remember to protect yourself first. A model release does nothing for a model; it is called a "model release" because the model is the one releasing rights. Just worry about negotiating what you will get from the shoot and what you can do with that.
edit: I should have read ahead. I didn't realize that Theda and Roger were already here. For some reason people have trouble understanding the concept of model releases. For example, some model will start a thread and say, "I did a shoot and the photographer never gave me any photos". Soon someone will reply and say "Did you sign a release?". I just shake my head.
A model release does one thing, and one thing only. It allows a photographer to use a model's likeness for commercial purposes. That's it. (There's a whole page of legalese involved, but that is the basic purpose.)
It provides no benefit to the model whatsoever. If you work with a photographer who doesn't ask for a model release or doesn't ask you for one, there is no reason you should have one. The only person that benefits from a model release is the photographer. If they don't have one or don't ask for one, it isn't your problem.
There may be other issues to negotiate and put on paper, such as compensation, how many prints/images, finished/unfinished, web-sized/hi-rez, where you can or can't use the images, etc. But none of that should be on a model release. Anything of that nature should be on a separate form.
Paul Brecht wrote: 2. You're only 17, you can't legally enter a contract w/o a parent signing/witnessing the event...
Actually, that's not quite true.
An minor can sign a model release (or any other contract). That contract is then legal, but "voidable". That means that the contract is valid until the minor changes their mind.
For example: say I shoot a minor model, and she signs a model release, and I sell the photo for use on a billboard 2 weeks later, and a month later the model writes me to say she's changed her mind and wants to void the model release. From that point on, I can no longer use the images for commercial use, but at the time I sold the photo for use on the billboard (prior to her voiding the release), the contract was valid and legal. The model can't undo that.
Also, only the minor can void the contract. If there are more than one party to the contract, any adults that sign it can not void it.
But I would agree that as a practical matter, as a photographer, it does me little good to have a minor sign a model release. Having a voidable model release in my file is almost as useless as not having one at all.
Damien Smith
Posts: 305
Los Angeles, California, US
A model release grants both parties certain rights. Gives models the rights to do a, b, c, and gives photographers the rights to do x, y, z.
If you as a model decide that you want to sell a photo that was taken by a photographer, you will first need to obtain that photographers written permission if it was not granted in the model release.
Most model releases already give the photographer full commercial release.
You as a model will receive whatever permission you paid to receive, and the same is true if a photographer hires a model.
Damien Smith wrote: A model release grants both parties certain rights. Gives models the rights to do a, b, c, and gives photographers the rights to do x, y, z.
If you as a model decide that you want to sell a photo that was taken by a photographer, you will first need to obtain that photographers written permission if it was not granted in the model release.
Most model releases already give the photographer full commercial release.
You as a model will receive whatever permission you paid to receive, and the same is true if a photographer hires a model.
Damien Smith wrote: A model release grants both parties certain rights. Gives models the rights to do a, b, c, and gives photographers the rights to do x, y, z.
If you as a model decide that you want to sell a photo that was taken by a photographer, you will first need to obtain that photographers written permission if it was not granted in the model release.
Most model releases already give the photographer full commercial release.
You as a model will receive whatever permission you paid to receive, and the same is true if a photographer hires a model.
Ah, no. This is wrong.
You are confusing a Model Release with a Usage License.
Perhaps you have incorporated both of these documents into one document. That is certainly acceptable. However, the OP did not ask about a Usage License. Rather, she asked about a Model Release. The information you have provided only serves to make the issue less clear.
No one said ANYTHING about a model not putting in work. My MUA puts in work, too. My hair stylist puts in work. My garbage man puts in work. That is not the point of a model release.
EDITED: Whatever else you choose to negotiate generally falls outside of the scope of a model release, and the things that you mentioned (how many pics, editing times, when you get the CD, etc) can ALL be accomplished outside of a model release, and some recommend that it SHOULD be done outside of a model release.
Theda and Roger hit the nail on the head. It's not anything against you Lenzi, but there are quite a few who are confused as to what a model release does and what it is MEANT to do.
Hey! No offense taken! I was unclear on that so I appreciate the feedback now i know what I need to do. Thank you!
Doug Swinskey wrote: what most models don't realize is that they have more rights if they don't sign a release...
Digitoxin wrote: They don't have more "rights" they just (typically) have granted fewer usage rights to the photographer.
With all due respect, you really seem to miss the point of a model release. When a model shoots for a photographer and declines to sign a release, she has granted NO rights to the photographer, not fewer rights. Obviously there are some things that a photographer can do with her likeness without her consent, but that isn't because she has granted him rights, it is because the law has granted the rights.
The moment the model signs a release, she has entered into an agreement and has granted rights. That agreement is subject to the interpretation of the courts and there can be, through ambiguity, unintended consequences.
From the perspective of a model, NOT signing a release puts her in the stronger legal position if she wants to limit the use of the photos. At that point the photographer has no consent from the model, and if there is a dispute, the burden will fall on him to prove that his use falls into one of the narrow legal exceptions that allow a photo to be published without the model's consent.
Damien Smith wrote: A model release grants both parties certain rights. Gives models the rights to do a, b, c, and gives photographers the rights to do x, y, z.
If you as a model decide that you want to sell a photo that was taken by a photographer, you will first need to obtain that photographers written permission if it was not granted in the model release.
Most model releases already give the photographer full commercial release.
You as a model will receive whatever permission you paid to receive, and the same is true if a photographer hires a model.
Wrong. You are merging two separate issues into one document, which is confusing and a bad idea.
A model release should be one form. A model release only gives rights to a photographer, and does not grant any rights to a model. It only allows a photographer to use the model's likeness for commercial use.
Usage rights are what a photographer grants to a model, describing where and how the model can use the images provided. The photographer automatically owns the copyrights to the images shot (in the US at least), and the model has no right to do anything with them without usage rights granted by the photographer. Usage rights should not be on the same form as a model release.
You can find samples of model releases from all kinds of professional photography associations, stock agencies, legal books, etc. None of them will merge the model release and usage rights on the same form.
Lenzi wrote: Hey! No offense taken! I was unclear on that so I appreciate the feedback now i know what I need to do. Thank you!
All good. My radar went off, and it may have seemed I was all "pit-bull" on you. I really wasn't. I just wanted the point to be clear and help you understand that the big bad photographer isn't always out to get you with the model release (though unfortunately, some do take advantage of that).
It does one thing - allow for your likeness to be used in certain situations. Sometimes one's needed; sometimes, it's not. As a matter of general speaking, it all depends on what the end use of the pics will be. Nothing more, nothing less.
Some wrap up other things into a document that has the title of "Model Release" as was explained above. That's all well and good for those particular people, but others keep that stuff separate, for this very reason: sometimes it gets confusing to some what part of the document is the actual model release and what isn't.
Damien Smith wrote: A model release grants both parties certain rights. Gives models the rights to do a, b, c, and gives photographers the rights to do x, y, z.
The first two parts of this are absolutely wrong! A model release doesn't do anything for the model. Like I wrote before, it is called a "model release" because the model is permitting some action by the photographer. Most of the time a model will be required to sign a release to be granted certain usage rights from the photographer. So, I don't understand why a model would want a photographer to sign a model release; if the model wants the photographer to sign anything it should be a usage license.
As a photographer my release is for the benefit of the photographer but also for the benefit of the model. It explains how each of us may use the photos in the future. I think that is only fair and we both sign it.It may not officially be a model release anymore, but more of a contract like some have said, but to me its still a Model Release. Models don't want me doing weird things with their photos making them look foolish or worse and I don't want the model doing something with the photo that would give me a bad name or harm my professional image. Just makes sense for all involved. I got my release online and modified it not only in the terms, but also in the language, so anyone could understand it. Not all the legal mumbo-jumble only for lawyers.
Doug Swinskey wrote: what most models don't realize is that they have more rights if they don't sign a release...
Digitoxin wrote: They don't have more "rights" they just (typically) have granted fewer usage rights to the photographer.
Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: With all due respect, you really seem to miss the point of a model release. When a model shoots for a photographer and declines to sign a release, she has granted NO rights to the photographer, not fewer rights. Obviously there are some things that a photographer can do with her likeness without her consent, but that isn't because she has granted him rights, it is because the law has granted the rights.
The moment the model signs a release, she has entered into an agreement and has granted rights. That agreement is subject to the interpretation of the courts and there can be, through ambiguity, unintended consequences.
From the perspective of a model, NOT signing a release puts her in the stronger legal position if she wants to limit the use of the photos. At that point the photographer has no consent from the model, and if there is a dispute, the burden will fall on him to prove that his use falls into one of the narrow legal exceptions that allow a photo to be published without the model's consent.
Alan:
I fully agree with you. By posing for a photographer, the law grants certain usages (I should have said that) narrow as they may be to the photographer.
By signing a release, the model grants (Typically) more usage rights to the photographer than the photographer has without the release.
But, the model does not have "more rights" by not signing a release. He/she has just limited the usages to those allowed by law and NOT those contemplated by a release.
NewBoldPhoto
Posts: 4,641
PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US
Great Images Photograph wrote: As a photographer my release is for the benefit of the photographer but also for the benefit of the model. It explains how each of us may use the photos in the future. I think that is only fair and we both sign it.It may not officially be a model release anymore, but more of a contract like some have said, but to me its still a Model Release. Models don't want me doing weird things with their photos making them look foolish or worse and I don't want the model doing something with the photo that would give me a bad name or harm my professional image. Just makes sense for all involved. I got my release online and modified it not only in the terms, but also in the language, so anyone could understand it. Not all the legal mumbo-jumble only for lawyers.
-Phil Grierson
Great Images Photography
You may want to show that errr-"form" to your lawyer.
Just sayn...
Damien Smith
Posts: 305
Los Angeles, California, US
Digitoxin wrote: Ah, no. This is wrong.
You are confusing a Model Release with a Usage License.
Perhaps you have incorporated both of these documents into one document. That is certainly acceptable. However, the OP did not ask about a Usage License. Rather, she asked about a Model Release. The information you have provided only serves to make the issue less clear.
Thanks to my lawyer, it's all included in one document.
Damien Smith wrote: Thanks to my lawyer, it's all included in one document.
You can do that, if you choose, and many do.
However, it brings about several layers of problems, and is generally not recommended by Entertainment Law specialists or seasoned industry professionals.
1. It opens up the possibility of the release portion of the document being voided by a failure to meet terms in another portion of a document.
2. It requires your signature, which binds you to all elements of the document. A release does not do that.
3. It confuses people when folks like you use the term "Model Release" imprecisely to mean "the document I use" instead of what a model release really is.
Sure, you can put the words "Model Release" on the front cover of the telephone book, if you want to, but that doesn't mean that a list of names and numbers is a fair description of what a model's release does and does not do. Your choice to write some other document and put "model release" on it just confuses both the conversation and, it appears, you yourself.
TXPhotog wrote: 1. It opens up the possibility of the release portion of the document being voided by a failure to meet terms in another portion of a document.
2. It requires your signature, which binds you to all elements of the document. A release does not do that.
theda wrote: but... but... that's what I LIKE about it...
And I don't blame you. All these photographers using a comprehensive agreement are doing themselves a disservice that they don't understand. There is a sort of poetic justice about that, though, when they get on the forum and sing the praises of whatever it is that they call "a release".
Damien Smith
Posts: 305
Los Angeles, California, US
theda wrote: but... but... that's what I LIKE about it...
I don't mind being binded to the terms of a contract that I laid out in the first place. This is only a problem if you don't intent to follow the terms of your own document.
Damien Smith wrote: I don't mind being binded to the terms of a contract that I laid out in the first place. This is only a problem if you don't intent to follow the terms of your own document.
You don't?
What happens when a model sees herself in print someplace she doesn't like. She goes to her copy of the model release, and it says something like "for an in consideration of receipt of a CD of images from my shoot on this day . . ." and continues on to the "release".
She says to you, "Hey, I never got that CD. The release isn't valid". More to the point, she says it to the publisher. He gets pissed. He wants to know if you can prove that you met the terms (whatever they were) of your agreement, and can you prove it. She says you didn't.
Whatever terms they are that are in that comprehensive document of yours, you had better be able to prove unambiguously that you met ever single one of them. Even if you can prove it, why do you want to have to in front of a client?
Damien Smith
Posts: 305
Los Angeles, California, US
TXPhotog wrote: You don't?
What happens when a model sees herself in print someplace she doesn't like. She goes to her copy of the model release, and it says something like "for an in consideration of receipt of a CD of images from my shoot on this day . . ." and continues on to the "release".
She says to you, "Hey, I never got that CD. The release isn't valid". More to the point, she says it to the publisher. He gets pissed. He wants to know if you can prove that you met the terms (whatever they were) of your agreement, and can you prove it. She says you didn't.
Whatever terms they are that are in that comprehensive document of yours, you had better be able to prove unambiguously that you met ever single one of them. Even if you can prove it, why do you want to have to in front of a client?
Unlike many photographers, it's easy for me to prove that a model received what they paid for. If they pick it up, they have to sign for it. If it's mailed, it's sent certified. Every stage of a project is signed off as completed by the client. If it goes to court, I just produce the signed evidence. It's that simple. Just sound business practice...
Damien Smith wrote: Unlike many photographers, it's easy for me to prove that a model received what they paid for. If they pick it up, they have to sign for it. If it's mailed, it's sent certified. Every stage of a project is signed off as completed by the client. If it goes to court, I just produce the signed evidence. It's that simple. Just sound business practice...
Well, there you are. Another case of some guy who figures that his personal practices define the way the law works, and that shorthand versions of it are appropriate for any question.
I am impressed by the thoroughness with which you approach TFPs. Do you think what you do is typical of photographers and models?
Damien Smith
Posts: 305
Los Angeles, California, US
TXPhotog wrote: Well, there you are. Another case of some guy who figures that his personal practices define the way the law works, and that shorthand versions of it are appropriate for any question.
I am impressed by the thoroughness with which you approach TFPs. Do you think what you do is typical of photographers and models?
Who said anything about TFPs? I don't do them. Every time I pick up my camera, I get paid.
As for law practices, I've been in business for 15 years. Lawyers write all my contracts; it's not my personal practice, it is law, and has already proved it self in court.
As far as I'm concerned, the lawyers I employ are doing a great job!
| 
| 
| edu