GEORGEFOREMAN wrote:
Curious if this is a standard release or if I am being taken....

Yes, it’s a pretty much standard full commercial release.

Would I sign it for a TF shoot? No
Would I sign it for a paid shoot? Probably once a few revisions are made. For me even in paid shooting I want to see a clause that prevents any dealings with $G

Digitoxin wrote:
Word choices are very critical in a legal document.  If you truly wish to have an enforceable addition to the release, I strongly suggest you seek an IP lawyer and have him/her draft you a phrase or two that you can tell the photographer you want inserted before the shoot.  Your overall desires are understandable but I don't believe that this language gets you there.

Good luck.

studio36uk wrote:
I am not alone, but many, many others here are on record as well, that I [and they] will simply NOT sign off on anything in the way of a purported legal document that a model drags in. It ain't gonna happen.

Lastly, what does it matter if the work is first used for an unrestricted purpose and then just stolen and used for an objected to purpose. And if it is on the Internet that is an all too common occurrence. So does the model intend to restrict or prohibit web use of the work, lest it be pirated and wind up on an objectionable website?

The answer is only pointing to one conclusion. The model with such pathological fear of where the images "could" or "might" be used, and uses that they would object to, might as well just start looking for a different hobby.

Studio36

I understand that adding a phrase on a release may not have much binding power, but am not about to drag in a new release for photographers. That is a huge turn off. Photographers hire me, and clearly they should be the one presenting the release.

Instead, adding this statement essentially gives me some agreement from the photographers. I'll take it for what it is, an agreement of trust, but not binding.

The "standard release" allows photos to be used for "any purpose whatsoever," so a model wanting to know their photos will not end up on internet spank banks does not seem so paranoid. I know a quite a few art models who would object to this.

Keira Grant wrote:
...but am not about to drag in a new release for photographers.

Fair enough... but if you hang around here and some other model sites long enough you will soon see the models that not only feel it is necessary, but, that it seems to them at least, a God given right to do exactly that. The demands for changes to otherwise straightforward releases can sometimes reach elephantine proportions... so much so that it is easier for a photographer not to deal with it at all, and just move on to another model.

That is why "standard" releases are called that... not because they are identical in every respect [they aren't] but that they all contain common features and language that are consistent with law; have stood the test of time; and have survived under challenge in the courts. The more that a release departs from the "standard" format the more it invites, unforeseen, unanticipated and definitely unwanted, problems.

Studio36

Anthonys Art World wrote:
This is just the basic release I use. Since I shoot pay and tfp with adults and minors I combined it into one.


Anthony’s Art World is hiring model’s for paid and TFP shoots. It is agreed with Anthony and model or Parent’s or Guardian’s of minor model for a TFP___ or paid shoot for the sum of_________.  The shoot is for the benefit of model or the parents of minor models and Anthony’s Art World. The photo’s taken will be used for Anthony’s Art World’s projects and or parent’s and or model’s project’s. In addition Anthony will have the right to publish said Photo’s to Anthony’s Art World websites. Anthony also has the right to promote the final product in  advertisements such as magazine’s, websites, and pamphlets. A c.d  will be given to the model or parent’s of minor model after final editing is done with said photo’s for promotional use by said model’s and or parent’s of minor model’s. Copyright of said photo’s is owned by Anthony but the model or parent’s of minor model have the right to promote themselves with said photo’s. The model or parent’s of minor model are not to sell, alter, re-edit or change said photo’s in anyway without express written consent from Anthony at Anthony’s Art World. All Anthony asks is model or parent’s of minor model give acknowledgement to Anthony and Anthony’s Art World and link said photo’s to Anthony’s Art World web sites.

Signature of Anthony’s Art World Representative____________________________

Signature of model______________________________

Signature of minor model’s parent’s or guardian’s____________________________________

Witness________________________________

Witness________________________________

Date_______________

You probably don't want to call that a release.  It smells more like a contract to me.

Anthonys Art World wrote:
This is just the basic release I use. Since I shoot pay and tfp with adults and minors I combined it into one.


Anthony’s Art World is hiring model’s for paid and TFP shoots. It is agreed with Anthony and model or Parent’s or Guardian’s of minor model for a TFP___ or paid shoot for the sum of_________.  The shoot is for the benefit of model or the parents of minor models and Anthony’s Art World. The photo’s taken will be used for Anthony’s Art World’s projects and or parent’s and or model’s project’s. In addition Anthony will have the right to publish said Photo’s to Anthony’s Art World websites. Anthony also has the right to promote the final product in  advertisements such as magazine’s, websites, and pamphlets. A c.d  will be given to the model or parent’s of minor model after final editing is done with said photo’s for promotional use by said model’s and or parent’s of minor model’s. Copyright of said photo’s is owned by Anthony but the model or parent’s of minor model have the right to promote themselves with said photo’s. The model or parent’s of minor model are not to sell, alter, re-edit or change said photo’s in anyway without express written consent from Anthony at Anthony’s Art World. All Anthony asks is model or parent’s of minor model give acknowledgement to Anthony and Anthony’s Art World and link said photo’s to Anthony’s Art World web sites.

Signature of Anthony’s Art World Representative____________________________

Signature of model______________________________

Signature of minor model’s parent’s or guardian’s____________________________________

Witness________________________________

Witness________________________________

Date_______________

I surely hope that you are never sued over the usage of a model's likeness.  Because, if you are sued, there is an extraordinarily good chance that the model will be collecting damages from someone (may be even you). 

Gawd help you if you actually try to list any of your images in stock and try to rely on that release.

before you find yourself in a world of legal bills, I strongly urge you to consult an IP attorney like this one:

www.photoattorney.com  (carolyn wright).

Bad Karma Photo wrote:
Is it okay to add an image license agreement clause in there? Such as use for portfolio? Or does that have to go in a completely different form?

A lawyer can.  You shouldn't.

Keep the model release clean.

Digitoxin wrote:

A lawyer can.  You shouldn't.

Keep the model release clean.

Most of the 'releases' mentioned in this thread will need a lot scrubbing...

Digitoxin wrote:

I surely hope that you are never sued over the usage of a model's likeness.  Because, if you are sued, there is an extraordinarily good chance that the model will be collecting damages from someone (may be even you). 

Gawd help you if you actually try to list any of your images in stock and try to rely on that release.

before you find yourself in a world of legal bills, I strongly urge you to consult an IP attorney like this one:

www.photoattorney.com  (carolyn wright).

I dont do stock period...

Digitoxin wrote:
Keep the model release clean.

Over the long term, here on MM in particular, it seems that the vast majority of releasing questions, as well as releasing problems, stem from not doing exactly that.

Photographers here, it seems, as well as models, are wont to try to write in all kinds of stuff that has nothing at all to do with a release in and of itself, including but not limited to: the model's usage; terms of compensation; restrictions on uses; dividing copyright interests and ownership; pre-approvals of usage; 2257 compliance stuff; and on and on and on...

... not to mention these bothersome issues of TF[whatever] shoots which tend to take on a life all their own, usually somehow resulting in the plaintiff cry, from one side or the other, of "IT AIN'T FAIR !!!"

Studio36

R A Photography wrote:
It looks like a standard release that I had seen by another photographer I worked with when modeling. Basically, it's to keep the model from editing any of the photos themselves, or trying to sell them, it looks like.

You will see plenty of these the more you work with photographers. They will vary in wording, but basically will mean the same thing.

This release, and real releases in general have NOTHING to do with "keeping the model from editing any of the photos themselves, or trying to sell them". That would be covered in a usage license, and absent that, the model would only have any implied usage licensing.

Anthonys Art World wrote:
I dont do stock period...

You have focused on the example that illustrated the point but seem to have completely missed the point.

Ray Holyer wrote:
Most of the 'releases' mentioned in this thread will need a lot scrubbing...

More like: scrapping

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

scrapping

Studio36

As usual with these things, I bow to your superior knowledge.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Is this for a paid shoot or a trade because this release authorizes commercial use which means your images can be sold for advertising without further payment to you.

If you just want to limit use to portfolios, change part a to read:

a) the unrestricted right and permission to copyright and use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included intact or in part, composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or transformations in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproduction hereof in color or otherwise, made through any and all media now or hereafter known for the purpose of self promotion and portfolio use.

Standard disclaimer about me not being a lawyer applies.

my release does not limit that, and that is used for anything from free model agency tests, free shoots to paid shoots.  Models need not sign it, but we do not shoot if they are not willing to sign it, paid advertising shoots have specific releases per shoot.  Its value, if they see value in a shoot with me, they can sign it as the exchange of value, if not, we need not shoot, there are more than enough models for the limited amount of shoots I do now a days.



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

StephenEastwood wrote:
Models need not sign it, but we do not shoot if they are not willing to sign it

I like the way you think

Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Ray Holyer wrote:
As usual with these things, I bow to your superior knowledge.

Have you seen the actual UK qualified releasing document I use? I believe we have discussed it in the past, Ray, or at least the issues that need to be addressed in it in the UK context and the underlying principles for each of the major parts of it, and those additional things that also need to be addressed on separate pieces of paper such as licensing to the model.

Studio36

Digitoxin wrote:
You have focused on the example that illustrated the point but seem to have completely missed the point.

Then give me your professional opinion. If you say im leaving myself open when or of I list a pic in stock when I dont sell images im lost. I would like your opinion but without a lot of sarcastic points made that are flung quite frequently here on MM.Thanks ahead of time for any useful info you can help  me with.

studio36uk wrote:

Have you seen the actual UK qualified releasing document I use? I believe we have discussed it in the past, Ray, or at least the issues that need to be addressed in it in the UK context and the underlying principles for each of the major parts of it.

Studio36

I remember having the conversation, John, and I'm sure I saved the message as a word processor document, so that I could steal it, but I can't find it.  I hope my standard release, in which the model gives (not sells) his/her soul to the devil, still covers me, although I suspect you're going to scare me...

Digitoxin wrote:
You have focused on the example that illustrated the point but seem to have completely missed the point.

Anthonys Art World wrote:
Then give me your professional opinion. If you say im leaving myself open when or of I list a pic in stock when I dont sell images im lost. I would like your opinion but without a lot of sarcastic points made that are flung quite frequently here on MM.Thanks ahead of time for any useful info you can help  me with.

I have already given you my opinion.  The "release" that you have is likely completely, utterly, and totally invalid and does not grant you any specific rights to use the model's likeness (other than those you already posses).  A case can be made that you may not even use the images on MM based on that release:
 
"In addition Anthony will have the right to publish said Photo’s to Anthony’s Art World websites. "  Since when is  MM an "Anthony's Art World website"?  That language could easily be construed to mean only websites that YOU OWN or control. 

The facts of the situation will be state-specific.  Do you even know if you need a release in Alabama to publish someone's likeness on a site like this?  I don't know about AL law.  You should.  Do you also know about the age limits in Alabama for certain types of photography?  Hint: 18 is not a magic number -- it is older.

Further, I am not a lawyer so, I had an IP lawyer draft my release.  If you ever try to commercialize in any manner or form one of your images and you think that you are going to rely on that release, you are opening yourself up to issues.  The severity of the issue will be based on usage and the individual model (or mother of the model).  Should they wish to pursue legal action, even if you win, the bills will be costly.  For a few hundred dollars you can have a lawyer draft your Release.  It will be valid and well drawn.  Is that not good money spent?

studio36uk wrote:
Over the long term, here on MM in particular, it seems that the vast majority of releasing questions, as well as releasing problems, stem from not doing exactly that.

Photographers here, it seems, as well as models, are wont to try to write in all kinds of stuff that has nothing at all to do with a release in and of itself, including but not limited to: the model's usage; terms of compensation; restrictions on uses; dividing copyright interests and ownership; pre-approvals of usage; 2257 compliance stuff; and on and on and on...

... not to mention these bothersome issues of TF[whatever] shoots which tend to take on a life all their own, usually somehow resulting in the plaintiff cry, from one side or the other, of "IT AIN'T FAIR !!!"

Studio36

Generally agree with the exception of "terms of compensation".  I had to do a reshoot in Tennessee once when the court threw out a phrase of "for compensation mutually agreed upon and received by the Model....".   Seems several states in the US demand that the compensation be reasonable to avoid a usury situation, and must be clearly enumerated in the release or codicile.  Even though the model was paid, the lack of clear connection of the release to the payment was used to break the release.

I was just happy it was the ad agency's release and not mine.   I was paid for two shoots instead of one.

Ray Holyer wrote:
I remember having the conversation, John, and I'm sure I saved the message as a word processor document, so that I could steal it, but I can't find it.  I hope my standard release, in which the model gives (not sells) his/her soul to the devil, still covers me, although I suspect you're going to scare me...

LOL, I wouldn't do that. Basically I think you have the idea anyway, from past discussion. You get the release in as comprehensive form as you can and then adjust anything else outside that releasing document, not concerning the actual releasing, by separate documentation. That is a sound approach here... and also in the context of this thread. The actual releasing to you is kept clean and to the point.

Studio36

Anthonys Art World wrote:
Thanks. I do know about Alabama's laws and age requirements. I want to do this the right way without a lot of bullshit launguage involved. I dont intend on selling images but guess I should be more thorough.

The language is not bullshit.  It is designed to protect your ASSets.

You drive over the road, right?

I see at least one model you shot lives in central florida.  I assume that this was shot in Florida.  Do you know what the law is in Florida with regard to privacy rights?  What State law would govern your release language?  Florida or Alabama?

Would it not make sense to clarify that in the release?

A lawyer will do that for you and many other things.

Luminos wrote:
Generally agree with the exception of "terms of compensation".  I had to do a reshoot in Tennessee once when the court threw out a phrase of "for compensation mutually agreed upon and received by the Model....".   Seems several states in the US demand that the compensation be reasonable to avoid a usury situation, and must be clearly enumerated in the release or codicile.  Even though the model was paid, the lack of clear connection of the release to the payment was used to break the release.

I was just happy it was the ad agency's release and not mine.   I was paid for two shoots instead of one.

Yup, I see the probable problem, as you describe it. Not the fact of the compensation itself, but the sufficiency of it being called into question. That may indeed vary from state to state in the US.

That is also, exactly and precisely, the problem with using completely generic releases, or, even worse, the DIY versions, found on the Internet.

Studio36

Ray Holyer wrote:
Most of the 'releases' mentioned in this thread will need a lot scrubbing...

studio36uk wrote:
More like: scrapping

Studio36

Would 'burning' be a more appropriate word?

JoJo Suicide wrote:
Would 'burning' be a more appropriate word?

Nah, I'm into recycling scrap paper, JoJo.

Studio36

Anthonys Art World wrote:
Thanks again. The one in Florida I manage. I do drive over the road and shoot in lots of states. Advise is welcome..

Yes you do require a release with different wording for Alabama and for Florida. Talk to a lawyer.

As for driving over the road…. let me guess, a hovercraft? (sorry, had to do that)

studio36uk wrote:

Yup, I see the probable problem, as you describe it. Not the fact of the compensation itself, but the sufficiency of it being called into question. That may indeed vary from state to state in the US.

That is also, exactly and precisely, the problem with using completely generic releases, or, even worse, the DIY versions, found on the Internet.

Studio36

I actually think that the release would have stood had the ad agency fought it.  There was proof of compensation.   But in truth, it was cheaper to reshoot than to haul in the lawyers.  So they made a very cursory defense and did not appeal.  But it's hard to be sure, and it set a precident I suspect.

The model was blacklisted, which made her husband happy.   He had put her up to pulling out of the ad (for a famous line of makeup).  Long after they divorced, she was still blacklisted.

JoJo Suicide wrote:

Yes you do require a release with different wording for Alabama and for Florida. Talk to a lawyer.

As for driving over the road…. let me guess, a hovercraft? (sorry, had to do that)

I wish it were a hovercraft..... Feel free to P.M me with some specifics I should ask for from my lawyer to be included in the release I have models sign. Thanks again..

Luminos wrote:
The model was blacklisted, which made her husband happy.   He had put her up to pulling out of the ad (for a famous line of makeup).  Long after they divorced, she was still blacklisted.

What's the phrase that applies? Ah, yes: "What goes around comes around"

Studio36