Stephanie Castro wrote:
Is it werid, inappropriate or smart for a model to give a photographer a release form. My friend is making her own so she and the photographer both have the right to use the pics from the photo shoot however they want. Is she crazy? lol If a model can give out release forms how should it go? What should it say? What rights does he/she have?

She can ask for anything really. I am sure she'll find someone to agree to it.

I wouldn't. Most I know wouldn't.  I have a standard model release written by my attorney.

QP Doll wrote:

rightly so, and if someone expected that, well, they must think they fart solid gold cupcakes.

that... that was funny...

Stephanie Castro wrote:
Is it werid, inappropriate or smart for a model to give a photographer a release form. My friend is making her own so she and the photographer both have the right to use the pics from the photo shoot however they want. Is she crazy? lol If a model can give out release forms how should it go? What should it say? What rights does he/she have?

It's weird. It's inappropriate. She's crazy and I'll be handing her MY release that she can sign. I will NOT be signing hers. The models does NOT have the right to use the photos however she wants to. She may use them for self promotion ONLY. I can't imagine any photographer with an ounce of sense doing this any other way.

Stephanie Castro wrote:
Is it werid, inappropriate or smart for a model to give a photographer a release form. My friend is making her own so she and the photographer both have the right to use the pics from the photo shoot however they want. Is she crazy? lol If a model can give out release forms how should it go? What should it say? What rights does he/she have?

Just will not work.     Two people  with rights to one thing.    60+ years in the business  and I say it does not work

RSM-images wrote:
....Contrary to popular belief, a "Model Release" is legally issued by the model and indicated *how* the images of that model may be used.  That is why it is called a "Model Release" because the model is releasing parametric image utilization....

'Sorry, but you are mistaken.  A "release of liability" - which is what a model release is - is ALWAYS issued by, and is for the benefit of the person wishing to be released from liability.

For example - if you were to go to an amusement park and a ride was so dangerous that you had to sign a "release of liability form" saying you wouldn't sue the amusement park if you got hurt on it - the "release" would be for the sole benefit of the amusement part, not for you in any way. They would set the wording on the release and they would not allow you to ride the ride if you didn't sign it.

In the case of a model release - the photographer is the one asking to be released from liability for his commericial use of the photos he takes of the model.  This is why the MODEL signs it - in fact, it does not need the photographer's signature at all for it to accomplish its purpose should it actually be needed in a court of law as evidence that the model did in fact release the photographer from liability.

To a large degree, when a photographer pays a model, what he is paying for is her signature on the release...as the photos he takes are of no commercial value to him without her signature.  This is why I, and most photographers, do not pay a model until they have signed the model release (in fact, I would not pay a model...nor would most photographers, if the model refused to sign the release that she agreed to sign when the shoot was arranged).

If the model does NOT sign the release, the photographer has absolutely no rights to use the photos commercially, which would ultimately be to the model's benefit (it certainly would not benefit the photographer for her to not sign).  Her signing the release is SOLELY for the benefit of photographer...and her asking for anything that restricts his usage, and/or increases her benefits...reduces his benefits.)

=========================================

This all brings me to the reality of what should be considered in the case of the model asking for restrictions to the model release, and/or for usage rights:

Standard rates are generally predicated on a full commercial release, ie: if the standard market rates for nudes in a given area is $75/hour, that would be the rate for a photoshoot where the model signs a full release for the photos, meaning the photographer can use them for virtually anything he wants to.  Asking for restrictions to the release, and/or for usage rights reduces the value of the shoot to the photographer - any experienced professional photographer will expect (likely demand) that the rate paid be lowered in exchange for the concessions. (Most photographers would not expect a rate reduction for minor changes to the release, eg: adding that her real name cannot be used with the publication of any of the photos.)

As many have said (and I agree) - a photographer and model can negotiate and agree to whatever they want...but models should understand that most photographers WILL expect a rate reduction on your part if you wish to restrict your release and/or ask for usage rights (or they may not hire you if the restrictions would keep them from making money from the photos).

Laura Fillisch wrote:
I think it's a little far fetched. Maybe 'Here's a release that outlines what I would like from this. What would you change to make it suit you?' to be open to discussion!

My lawyer will want $150/hr to look this over.  Please make that check out to:   Mr. Ben Dover . . .

Photographers getting offended by a model presenting/providing a Model Release simply do not understand what a Model Release happens to be.

No, we just know that if we don't use our own release we're asking for trouble later on when the model gets a wild hair up her butt.

A "Usage Agreement" is legally issued by a photographer and indicates *where* the images of the respective model will be used.

No, not entirely. A usage agreement can also dictate HOW the images are used and can give the photographer the right to pull that usage if the photos are used in ways he doesn't approve of. For instance, I photographer leased out and image that was later used to promote a political point he didn't agree with. He pulled the rights to the image and threatened to sue. The leases pulled the image. This happens with celebs. Heck, Abercrombe and Fitch are going after Jersey Shore for wearing their stuff because the people on the shore are douchebags that A&F doesn't want to be associated with them. This is technically a trademark thing, but the same basic rules apply.

All involved parties (including MUA, etc.) should sign and date each agreement and all involved parties should get original copies (signed and dated) of each agreement.

LOL... it is physically impossible for EVERYONE to have an "original copy" (which is a contradiction in terms anyway). The photographer keeps the original and gives copies to everyone else.

It does not matter who originates either of the agreements, above.

If you want to open yourself up to future problems, sure.

Any party not in agreement with any term or condition is allowed to line through such offending verbiage and all parties must initial any such deletions.

More terms and conditions can be added to any agreement and all parties must initial all such additions.

.

Or you negotiate it ahead of time and print a clean copy; but honestly, a proper standard release is the way to go.

Gary Melton wrote:
This is why I, and most photographers, do not pay a model until they have signed the model release (in fact, I would not pay a model...nor would most photographers, if the model refused to sign the release that she agreed to sign when the shoot was arranged).

I'll do you one better. I don't even shoot the first frame until the release is signed.

As many have said (and I agree) - a photographer and model can negotiate and agree to whatever they want...but models should understand that most photographers WILL expect a rate reduction on your part if you wish to restrict your release and/or ask for usage rights (or they may not hire you if the restrictions would keep them from making money from the photos).

If she wants usage other than for self-promotion I'm charging her for it. Likely, it will mean she ends up paying me to shoot her. This is something else models don't consider. We charge for usage depending on how the photos are used and for how long. The usage fees alone are likely enough to offset her modeling fees.

Stephanie Castro wrote:
Is it werid, inappropriate or smart for a model to give a photographer a release form. My friend is making her own so she and the photographer both have the right to use the pics from the photo shoot however they want. Is she crazy? lol If a model can give out release forms how should it go? What should it say? What rights does he/she have?

I have my own and use it for TF shoots.  I won't sign anybody else's.  That being said, it's not a bad idea for a model to have one that he or she uses when the photographer doesn't have one.  It actually makes sense to me.

Stephanie Castro wrote:
Is it werid, inappropriate or smart for a model to give a photographer a release form. My friend is making her own so she and the photographer both have the right to use the pics from the photo shoot however they want. Is she crazy? lol If a model can give out release forms how should it go? What should it say? What rights does he/she have?

If the photographer doesn't have a release (for whatever reason) I normally have a generic one that lays out that both parties have rights to the images. Just so later on they don't come back and request that I take things off my portfolio site or whatever. It keeps us both safe. But that's just my .2

Stephen Markman wrote:
Was it REALLY necessary to bump this thread?

I didn't realize it was an old thread until I read the first page and saw people who haven't even been ON THE SITE in over 2 years! 

SMH

I have been wondering the same thing.  This old thread has been bumped twice.  I guess it is a topic that will not die!

ei Total Productions wrote:

I have been wondering the same thing.  This old thread has been bumped twice.  I guess it is a topic that will not die!

It's also been re-started, in about 100000 different forms/variations in other threads since this thread was started.

I can't believe this one, of all threads, was selected for bumping.

I can't believe the Mods haven't locked it yet.

I can't believe how much misinformation is disseminated in these threads.

And, most importantly, I can't believe that someone in this thread, apparently, found (and trusts) an attorney who charges $150/hour!

Stephanie Castro wrote:
Is it werid, inappropriate or smart for a model to give a photographer a release form. My friend is making her own so she and the photographer both have the right to use the pics from the photo shoot however they want. Is she crazy? lol If a model can give out release forms how should it go? What should it say? What rights does he/she have?

A (model) release has nothing to do with the model's rights. She needs to create a usage agreement. It would need to spell out where and how she wants to use the images. I don't know any photographers who would sign anything that shares the copyright. They may allow a model to use the images for something other than promotional purposes (online portfolios, book portfolio, comp cards), but then they run the risk of the model making money by selling digital images, prints, posters, etc. Not sure if that is the kind of thing a photographer would give up, especially if the photographer pays the model for the shoot. It would have to be very carefully worded and I can't see a photographer spending time negotiating details. Probably would not fly with the vast majority of photographers she works with. Some photographers may be willing to amend their own usage agreements, but she shouldn't expect too many concessions.

Alexandra Maddison wrote:
... but I have a friend who found herself on a porn site with a penis aimed at her mouth and no legal recourse to get the picture taken down. Soooo. I had my lawyer draw up a contract that I occasionally use for TFP with photographers I don't know very well.

Your friend does have legal recourse. She just needs a good lawyer. Also she can demand significant damages.... unless she signed a release that included such alterations.

LinguaDentata wrote:
Yes, she's crazy.

A release is a "release of liability for use of one's likeness" Meaning you won't sue because your face is used somewhere.

A photographer can sign one, but since the model has no pictures of the photographer, it won't be of any use to her.

You're thinking of a contract, with joint copyright ownership. That won't happen either with any photographer who's been around the block, unless the model is paying.

+1

And the only reason "unless the model is paying" applies in Canada, is because that's our copyright laws. You'd be hard-pressed to even get that in America   I used to try to use one when I was modeling myself, before I realized what I was saying or doing. I got a few harsh responses, but the photographers who DID sign my MR had one thing in common: they all sucked, and did as they chose anyways.

From what I understand, she wants to be able to re-edit the photographer's images as you please. Uhmm...GOOD LUCK on THAT one!!!!!!!!! Baaaahahahahaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://dbiphotography.co.cc
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551

Tizzy Photography wrote:
Actually.. it is not. She wants the rights.. she can buy them from the photographer.
-Tizzy

If it's a TFP hasn't she done exactly that - assuming the contract says so?

Issue here seems to e that what the model really wants is a "usage contract" - and she's using the phrase "model release" to describe that.

If it's TFP then BOTH parties should benefit - and if the benefit the model sees appropriate in return for her posing is full rights to use the photos then fair enough.

Jac Knight wrote:
Odd question should a model sign ancontract that states any
And all proceeds made of images are for the photog no amount given to you and if not how do you go about telling a
Photographer on the spot that you will not
Sign something that gives him the right to make
Profit off a tf shoot

That depends on how much you value the images you are likely to get from that shoot vs. other opportunities you may have.

A really experienced model with a great portfolio probably has little reason to accept such an offer.  A newer model might find such an agreement a great way to get quality images she otherwise might not be able to get without paying.

Refusing to sign releases will decrease the shoots available to you.  Only you can decide how to trade that off against other options and your priorities.

Stephanie Castro wrote:
Is it werid, inappropriate or smart for a model to give a photographer a release form. My friend is making her own so she and the photographer both have the right to use the pics from the photo shoot however they want. Is she crazy? lol If a model can give out release forms how should it go? What should it say? What rights does he/she have?

Honestly it isn't rude or crazy, a bit presumptuous but I have seen before. You don't go to a perspective land lord and dictate to them your terms for living on their land. You don't go to an employer and dictate the terms of your employment. You don't go to your cell ohms carrier and dictate your terms and conditions. The copyright ownership still is in the hands of te photographer. Myself, in my tfp/cd I do state in writing payment (ok lack there of) and include a usage license.

Adella M wrote:
I understand that most photographer's are stating "No I will not sign, but you will sign mine" and that is fine with me.

My question/comment is :

I am not making a waiver, release, or anything like that. I am making a contract of conduct. (basically)

After spending all this time talking with photographers and setting up shoots, you should know the photographer well enough right? Well sometimes they can fool you, as some have done to myself and my friends. You go to the shoot that is supposed to be a "Prom dress shoot" and its all girls and guys half naked on a bed together. Blantantly lied to you basically.

I put together something that basically states that if I feel uncomfortable I leave. Period. The shoot will be over and all my pictures erased because of the way that my views/opinions were ignored. Most know the word "no" but some do not. I also put in there that my photos are not to be used on pornography websites and if they are I will be contacting them and my lawyer. This is just my security to make sure that if anything like that does happen I have a signed document that states that the photographer was not going to do that, when in fact he/she did.

If the photographers going to be that unprofessional (in the situation you described), then it doesn't matter what they sign- they're going to do whatever they want to do. If you walk into that situation, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY! You don't have to have a contract for that. Also: How in the world are you finding these bookings where people are in bed together ? Are you guys answering nude/porn castings, or...? Contacting on MM? Craigslist? There are shitty people in every industry, photographers included. Are you checking references? Doing research- what do the photographers portfolios look like? Due diligence?

and views/opinions being ignored vary. What are you giving your views and opinions on? The photographer and you should be working together, so talk it out.

Also, you do realize that most times, photographers don't submit things to porn sites unless they ask ahead of time. however, random people will come and steal your photos, and put them up on sites without either if you knowing. If you are concerned with those types of photos getting out and on the internet, it probably isn't a genre you want to pursue.

just sayin!

Also, OLD THREAD!

Alexandra Maddison wrote:
I've done it. Never had any opposition in situations where I felt it needed, but my release is a bit different. It limits what the photographer may use the images for, ruling out use that would be deemed "explicit", or editing that would make the images explicit. Now, before anyone says it, I know that is a bit paranoid... but I have a friend who found herself on a porn site with a penis aimed at her mouth and no legal recourse to get the picture taken down. Soooo. I had my lawyer draw up a contract that I occasionally use for TFP with photographers I don't know very well.

This is why its is nice to include a field "Shoot description" in any release you sign and fill it accordingly and specifically. So you can avoid situations like that. If in my release the model writes topless portraits, or partial nudity, should i use those images to create pornographic content later on in post production, I am quite sure any judge would see that this is not what the model has agreed to.

Isaiah Brink wrote:
Honestly it isn't rude or crazy, a bit presumptuous but I have seen before. You don't go to a perspective land lord and dictate to them your terms for living on their land. You don't go to an employer and dictate the terms of your employment. You don't go to your cell ohms carrier and dictate your terms and conditions. The copyright ownership still is in the hands of te photographer. Myself, in my tfp/cd I do state in writing payment (ok lack there of) and include a usage license.

In a tf shoot the Photographer is not the employer both model and tog are at an equal footing. You both trade usage rights. You allow her to use your copyrighted image and she allows you use of her image.

Not that photographers stop from being presumptuous as you put it. Most presume to dictate the terms and expecting there forms to be signed when they are hired by someone. Even expecting copyright to be given over in countries where the tog does not get automatic copyright.

In the end most photographers just want everything in there favor.

pretty pleads wrote:
thats fair trade

No