SLE Photography wrote:
Why would I be pissed?  And I'm not the one who brought up the Amazon case, in fact I agree with you that it's not sanguine to this debate from a legal point of view.

It is a case in which someone was sued over the "non-commercial" use of a released image.
It is as germane to the discussion as any of ddt's points have been and it meets his criteria.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:

Okay... payable at my location... please provide a court case demonstrating said knowledge

i'll have to get a lawyer first.

ddtphoto wrote:

i'll have to get a lawyer first.

You do that 

midnightblue69 wrote:
I was wondering who uses and who doesn't use a model release for a TFP shoot?

I do not require a model release for my TFP shoots. The only time I shoot TFP is when I'm shooting the type of work I want to showcase in my portfolio.

Everything else, I either get paid for and/or models get paid for specific projects (and model releases are required).

Band photography, family portraits, headshots, event photos, etc., do not require model releases as I get paid, the photos are theirs, and I'm done with it.

Kelly Watkins wrote:
I do not require a model release for my TFP shoots. The only time I shoot TFP is when I'm shooting the type of work I want to showcase in my portfolio.

Everything else, I either get paid for and/or models get paid for specific projects (and model releases are required).

Band photography, family portraits, headshots, event photos, etc., do not require model releases as I get paid, the photos are theirs, and I'm done with it.

Do you count sites like MM as part of your portfolio?  Or do you mean a physical portfolio only?

SLE Photography wrote:

Do you count sites like MM as part of your portfolio?  Or do you mean a physical portfolio only?

I don't count MM for anything.

Kelly Watkins wrote:

I don't count MM for anything.

LOL, fair enough.  So you only use TFP pics in your physical portfolio?

SLE Photography wrote:
LOL, fair enough.  So you only use TFP pics in your physical portfolio?

In my physical portfolio, no. I have a lot of paid work in there to show my diversity. The only time I really use my physical portfolio is when I'm being interviewed by a paying client. So I need to show the type of work they are looking for.

I'm not looking for paid work here at MM. But I'm using MM to network with models, MUAs, other photographers in order to help me build a portfolio that will showcase my creativity and art direction more than anything in order to attract people to want to create some really great stuff. And also to help me continue to learn and become really good at what I do. And then I'll use that to go after my dream job!

Kelly Watkins wrote:

In my physical portfolio, no. I have a lot of paid work in there to show my diversity. The only time I really use my physical portfolio is when I'm being interviewed by a paying client. So I need to show the type of work they are looking for.

I'm not looking for paid work here at MM. But I'm using MM to network with models, MUAs, other photographers in order to help me build a portfolio that will showcase my creativity and art direction more than anything in order to attract people to want to create some really great stuff. And also to help me continue to learn and become really good at what I do. And then I'll use that to go after my dream job!

So you DO use TFP work here & elsewhere online?

SLE Photography wrote:
So you DO use TFP work here & elsewhere online?

Very limited. It's not like I'm plastering it all over the internet. I've also posted work in which I've been paid and/or had model releases signed. And no one needs to know which is which.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

Zopilote wrote:
TF and tests are two different things. If I do a TF with a model, she gets images she can use to market herself, I get images I can sell. A trade of services.

Just curious if you would shoot a model TF if she said she wanted those images for her paid membership website?

In my case no. That clearly makes the model a client... a PAYING client.

But this discussion has an element of nonsense, indeed absurdity, about it exactly for the reason that the posters are all over the place geographically and in the US [alone] you are not dealing with only one set of laws on privacy, publicity, or commercial appropriation you are dealing with 50 different laws... one for each state.

Almost all of those laws are conceived on the basis of the use of the images, where a release is required, either "in the course of trade" or "for commercial use" or more usually incorporating both of those phrases. NO ONE HERE can sufficiently describe what those expressions mean in the context of case law in each and every, much less all, of those states. In California it appears to mean nearly any use; in New York it means something different; and in Florida something different again. And on and on for the other 47 states.

Not to mention the international dimension of this board. There are different laws, again, that apply to posters from Australia, Italy, New Zealand, Canada, Barbados, Singapore, China, the UK, and many other countries that either impose more, or less, of a requirement for a release and for many different reasons.

There is one common factor, however, if you need a release and don't get one you have shot yourself in the foot. If you don't need one but still get one you are no better, and certainly no worse, off.

Studio36

Virginia Savelle wrote:
I'm more than happy to sign a FAIR and REASONABLE release, but like I've reading, so many of you want to make sure you can get  your big sales profits from your TFCD shoots. Step back and look at the big picture of that please.

But, the reality is, that very few will.

Why get a "general release" at a TFP shoot?

Suppose in 1970 a photographer started shooting (not me, I am not that old).  He figured that he would never do anything with the images but, maybe one day he would publish a "book."

In 1970 in the US, a release was generally not required to publish a book.  If you could find a publisher, it would likely not require a release.   So, the photographer did not get one.  Unfortunately 38 years later, things are different today.  Some publishers (not all) require a release (even though under the strict letter of the law they may not need one) -- hell, even some NEWSPAPERS ask for releases these days.

Worse, lets say he did, in fact, get a release in 1970 and it said he could publish the images in a "book."  It was a very specific release and it said he could publish a "BOOK."   Things like e-books, digital books, DVD compendium "books" were not invented yet.  Can this poor slob publish his "book" today in an e-book format?

There are many reasons why photographers want a release -- and want it worded as broadly as possible and to last as long as possible -- often, it has nothing to do with profit.

Digitoxin wrote:
There are many reasons why photographers want a release -- and want it worded as broadly as possible and to last as long as possible -- often, it has nothing to do with profit.

You know what Digitoxin? Everyone here on planet "Internet" has a sort of short sighted view of the release question, BUT, far, far away and in another galaxy we could call the "real world" and especially on the planets known as "Motion Pictures", "Television", and "Video", but also on the "Moon of Stills", a release is a whole other proposition. It will be made to cover every possible use now known or yet to be invented; it will be good for ever and ever; it will be written so that it can never be recinded, withdrawn or even seriously questioned; it will allow use of the goodies any time and anywhere "throughout the known and unknown universe"; it will be written by lawyers who know what the fuck they are doing and not continuously tinkered with, re-written, adjusted, added to or reduced, by everyone from the producer to the tea lady; and it will NOT be negotiable.

The End!

Studio36

End note: I use ONE single comprehensive form of releasing document. It is specific to the relevant law and MY needs or those of my clients. A model can sign it or not, but if they won't, I couldn't care less. There are hundreds more waiting outside the door and down the street that will.

studio36uk wrote:
There is one common factor, however, if you need a release and don't get one you have shot yourself in the foot. If you don't need one but still get one you are no better, and certainly no worse, off.

I agree with  you completely.  People need to understand that a release will always provide you some degree of protection, but a photographer isn't always entitled to get one.

However, when doing a TF, that shouldn't be an issue.  What is at issue is whether both parties have agreed to a full commercial release or something else.

That having been said, just because a photographer chooses to do a TFP doesn't mean that a model is required to sign a full release.  She has the option to turn down the shoot.

by the same token, a photographer can do the same.  He is not obligated to shoot a model who is unwilling to sign his release, so while he may not be able to compel her to sign a release, he is free to just not pick up his camera.

Virginia Savelle wrote:
Damn!  I'm starting to feel sorry for some of you, even the ones I typically consider to be hell demons.

Now I at least understand why photographers always want to shove some way overdone contract at me for what should be simple TFCD.

A big problem that many of you might not be aware of is that you very often ask us to sign away everything but the kitchen sink.  You don't give a highly detailed, overly legalesed PAID MODEL contract to a model who you are doing TFCD with.  It's just stupid, makes you look stupid, creates bad blood, ruins or cancels a shoot.

Please, please, please, just simplify your paperwork to address exactly what is going on, and ONLY what is going on in that shoot.

I'm more than happy to sign a FAIR and REASONABLE release, but like I've reading, so many of you want to make sure you can get your big sales profits from your TFCD shoots.  Step back and look at the big picture of that please.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying they demand a full commercial release, just that they demand a release.
The only one I've seen discuss the NATURE of the release is, well, ME and I've clearly stated I negotiate the terms depending on the particular shoot.  One or two others have mentioned negotiation.

And if you noticed, the "pro" who's been heckling the whole idea criticized me for using a limited release after saying releases are unfair, so with some people you can't win.

Taylor Photography wrote:

I always use one.  You can always just "not use it" if you don't intend to sell the images commercially.  However, if you decide later you want to sell, then having it on file already saves you a lot of headache.  Nothing like trying to track down a model from last year who has moved and/or changed phone numbers.

Exactly.  It's an insurance policy.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

Just curious if you would shoot a model TF if she said she wanted those images for her paid membership website?

Depends on the details: who she is, how much traffic her site gets, if she's going to give me a link exchange or not, etc.   As long as the arrangement is mutually equitable, no problems.

glamour pics wrote:
If she's working TF with a good photographer, the images she gets are worth a heck of a lot more than $1.

Eve if you're working with an average photographer, the images are worth more than $1.  What does Olan Mills charge?  Sears Portrait Studio?  Even a moderately competent photographer can produce something equal to or better than a mall studio's work.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
No release required for agency models or if there is clear written documentation showing the test is for portfolio use.

Limited release which does not allow commercial use for all others.

I do not require a commercial or full release for test shoots.

The only way an agency will send models to test is if that agency is booking work with clients of that photographer. If that's the case, someone else is paying everyone's bills and test images don't need to be salable (legally- they need to be commercial quality.)

TF* typically means there is no paying client for either party.

ddtphoto wrote:

didn't think so.

i think you could have held your ground unless you were receiving income directly via sales of said work.

i'm going to assume here that you must have used said images in some commercial form for it to have even gone this far.

Why would you ever want to go to court? If you can get the case dropped with prejudice you do so and move on.

ddtphoto wrote:
however, i say again...

i just want to hear from one person who went to court because of an image that they had not used commercially, and was saved by a model release.

http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/borat_NY8.pdf

Judge granted motion to dismiss 9/3/08 based on the release signed by plaintiffs.

Lumigraphics wrote:
The only way an agency will send models to test is if that agency is booking work with clients of that photographer. If that's the case, someone else is paying everyone's bills and test images don't need to be salable (legally- they need to be commercial quality.)

TF* typically means there is no paying client for either party.

Errr, the agencies test with me for the work I produce for them. They've never asked me for my clients, nor have I ever heard of that as a precursor to testing.

Digitoxin wrote:
There are many reasons why photographers want a release -- and want it worded as broadly as possible and to last as long as possible -- often, it has nothing to do with profit.

studio36uk wrote:
You know what Digitoxin? Everyone here on planet "Internet" has a sort of short sighted view of the release question, BUT, far, far away and in another galaxy we could call the "real world" and especially on the planets known as "Motion Pictures", "Television", and "Video", but also on the "Moon of Stills", a release is a whole other proposition. It will be made to cover every possible use now known or yet to be invented; it will be good for ever and ever; it will be written so that it can never be recinded, withdrawn or even seriously questioned; it will allow use of the goodies any time and anywhere "throughout the known and unknown universe"; it will be written by lawyers who know what the fuck they are doing and not continuously tinkered with, re-written, adjusted, added to or reduced, by everyone from the producer to the tea lady; and it will NOT be negotiable.

The End!

Studio36

End note: I use ONE single comprehensive form of releasing document. It is specific to the relevant law and MY needs or those of my clients. A model can sign it or not, but if they won't, I couldn't care less. There are hundreds more waiting outside the door and down the street that will.

Studio36:  I am not sure if you were agreeing with me or not but, I agree with you.  I get a broad release all the time.  My reasons for doing so may include profit but sometimes they may not.  So, why get a release?  Because I never know what the future will bring and when/where I will need to use the images and will need a release to be able to do so.  Hence, the book example.

I always provide my release (written by my IP attorney) to the model at the time of booking (i.e. well in advance of any shoot -- I never "stick it in his/her face for the first time" at the shoot).  If he/she does not wish to sign it, I hold no animosity, I just find another model. 

Do we agree?

Lumigraphics wrote:

The only way an agency will send models to test is if that agency is booking work with clients of that photographer. If that's the case, someone else is paying everyone's bills and test images don't need to be salable (legally- they need to be commercial quality.)

TF* typically means there is no paying client for either party.

Quite the opposite. Agencies send models for test all the time that is not commercial in nature.

1. Model test for her portfolio.
2. Client test of the model for a magazine or future commercial shoot.
3. Photographer test of new technique.

Those are all non commercial. Every test scenario I can think of is non commercial in nature.

Digitoxin wrote:
Studio36:  I am not sure if you were agreeing with me or not but, I agree with you.  I get a broad release all the time.  My reasons for doing so may include profit but sometimes they may not.  So, why get a release?  Because I never know what the future will bring and when/where I will need to use the images and will need a release to be able to do so.  Hence, the book example.

I always provide my release (written by my IP attorney) to the model at the time of booking (i.e. well in advance of any shoot -- I never "stick it in his/her face for the first time" at the shoot).  If he/she does not wish to sign it, I hold no animosity, I just find another model. 

Do we agree?

Yes, yes, yes... agreeing with you.

Going a bit further, as well, [sarcasm]> my post

Kristina J wrote:
Agency models I shoot with no release, everyone else has to sign it.  If anyone needs to negotiate particular point(s) in the release, I'm happy to renegotiate within reason.

I am really really curious about that. Why do agency models get by without signing your release but not anyone else? That seems really, ummm, inconsistent to say the least. So it's okay to make money off naive girls/boys, but not okay to make money off agency models? I really don't understand that... at all. Am I missing something??

It makes no sense to base a model release on who is in the image. It should be based on what the image will be used for.

Kristina J wrote:
TF is whatever you make of it and whatever all parties are happy with.
I'm very upfront about my TF terms and everything is negotiated beforehand. It works for me and the people I work with and that's what's important.

That's all that matters and is good enough for me