Laura UnBound wrote:

Yes and no. I wasnt necessarily disagreeing with his practice, I understand the reason for wanting it done at the beginning of the shoot, but its not in the models best interest do a) do it at all, and b) to do it before the shots are taken.

Ultimately, both parties working together should be acting professionally and able to have some degree of trust. Unfortunately, this isnt always the case.

For example, Model A and Photographer B have discussed that she only wants to do implied nudes. She signs the release before the shoot starts.

Photographer B then has the release to sell all the nude images he took of her between poses that he swore he would delete, all the nip-slips, etc. Even after the first shutter click that made her feel uncomfortable she walked out on the shoot, he still has the release for whatever he managed to shoot before that happened.

Or, another example, Photographer B is supposed to be paying the Model A. She signs the release when she gets there, but he holds the money till the end of the shoot (makes sense, she hasnt done what shes being paid for yet. If you pay her at the beginning of the shoot, she can take your money and run). Then decides to short her on cash. Hes got the release, she doesnt have all her money. It would be in the models best interest to wait until the end to sign a release. No money? No release.


As I said, I wasnt necessarily disagreeing with the practice, Ive certainly done both without complaint, I just think its interesting that what benefits the photographer is the polar opposite of what benefits the model when it comes to how one handles the release.

Yeah fair examples. Sux if that shit happens.

Stack Studios wrote:

Yeah fair examples. Sux if that shit happens.

Heh, have you SEEN the forums? It does...

Laura UnBound wrote:

My post was more in reference to when the release is signed, than whether or not one is signed at all.

Understood.

What I was commenting on was that there are reasons to ask a model to sign a release and fill out 2257 paperwork even in situations where neither would seem to apply by any reasonable understanding of the law(s) or the use.

I do these at the beginning of the first session even though the rights I'm asking a model to sign away do not even apply to the images whose creation is started in the session.

GeorgeMann wrote:

If he was as you said, wouldn't a package of condoms be the proper place for his photo??

HMMMmmm I dind't think of that but YEAH good point! LOL

Creative Studio One wrote:
What is going on with keeping thing legal around in photography? (I realize outside North America it may not be needed)

There are all sorts of models & photographers on MM, of widely varying skill & experience.  Some here earn their living through photography, but many are just hobbyists.

There are lots of photographers here who want to pinch every penny, who do not want to pay models (for whatever reason), and who don't earn any money through their photography.  For them, it's all about the photography, and paperwork just gets in the way.

On the other hand, a photography business is 10% photography and 90% business.  These are the people who keep the appropriate documentation, because such documentation is necessary to earn revenue.

IrisSwope wrote:
I've never used a release.
For commercial work, it's the clients duty to get one signed.



It is, especially if they want to have any say over the images, lol

.....+ 1

Aaron Cota wrote:
So far I only have 2 signed releases out of all the people I've worked with. I don't have any intention of selling any of my photos, and if I did, it wouldn't be hard for me to get one signed.

In many cases it would be hard or impossible to get a release signed later. Models move, get married, become devout and religious, move overseas, disappear, die, etc.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Or, another example, Photographer B is supposed to be paying the Model A. She signs the release when she gets there, but he holds the money till the end of the shoot (makes sense, she hasnt done what shes being paid for yet. If you pay her at the beginning of the shoot, she can take your money and run). Then decides to short her on cash. Hes got the release, she doesnt have all her money. It would be in the models best interest to wait until the end to sign a release. No money? No release.

Well, strictly speaking, if the model isn't compensated, the release becomes invalidated.  Nearly all releases I've seen start out with language that says something like "In exchange for compensation, the model hereby grants the photographer...".  The better ones even list what, exactly, is the compensation.

Some models want to be paid in cash; I prefer to pay them by check, or failing that, by money order.  Why?  Because paying in cash typically leaves no audit trail.  I pay in cash if the model insists, but now I'm thinking that if/when I do, I need to collect a receipt of some kind.

Having recently emerged from five years of civil disputes, I am leery of any new legal entanglements.  (Yes, I won my disputes, but even when you win, you lose).  I recently had a very bad reaction when a model wanted to add a handwritten amendment to the release.  We had worked together before, doing nudes, but for our second time together, we agreed to do no more than "implied".  She wanted to write into the release that we would only do "implied" images.  I reacted badly.  She wanted "protection", I balked at two untrained & inexperienced people playing lawyer, we went our separate ways.  Too bad -- I enjoyed working with her last time.

Sorry -- see:  we touched my panic button.  But my bottom line is this:  If a model doesn't trust me, or if I am uncomfortable with a model, it's probably best if we didn't work together. 

I want the release signed before the first exposure, so that the model is reminded not to show the photographer anything she doesn't want photographed.

I pay at the end of the session, just like I pay for dinner at the restaurant after I've eaten the meal. 

I prefer check or money order.  If I pay cash, I'm thinking that I want some kind of receipt that I can staple to the release form.

I'm thinking that I should look for a modified release that...
   ...  allows me to specify what the model's compensation is,
   ...  that perhaps has language that limits the release to the images made that day.

Dekilah wrote:
People who have me sign releases:
- those who want to submit the photos for publishing somewhere
- those who generally shoot clients (mostly portraiture/weddings)
- those who shoot a lot of fetish or erotic work
- those who are newer
- those who are paying me

People who often do not have me sign releases:
- people shooting for fun/as a hobby (although some of them are very talented)
- people who have shot with me multiple times
- people who are more about creating art for the sake of art (sorry that probably isn't a very good description)

...  I'm a hobbyist.
...  I have a web site, and I display my images there.
...  I accept voluntary donation.
...  I have a business license.
...  I pay taxes on those donations.
...  I want no confusion in the future -- no release, no photography.

I have to admit that the release form that I use has no language that limits the release to images made at a specific time.  According to the release's language, one release seems to cover the current & future sessions with that model.  Thus, I have only gotten a model to sign a new release only when I change the template that I've been using to date.  I suspect that I'll need to correct that.

DennisRoliffPhotography wrote:

I wonder if Cameron Diaz will star in the movie version of this?

Is Diaz signed with the mob or scientology? The only way that crap would happen, if it is not urban legend.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
The easiest way to lose a friend or wind up in a lawsuit is to "not worry" about executing the appropriate legal documents at the time one is performing any activity where specific approval is needed or even merely prudent.  Memories fade in time, and the things "I would never" do become "Of course I will!"  "I don't mind" becomes "How could you!" when one is in a different situation socially, romantically or financially.

I always get (and give) a combined general release/usage agreement and if anything more specific is required in order to satisfy any of my concerns or the model's concerns, we deal with that on the spot.

I've never had a model refuse to sign a release, and since I build in usage restrictions on a picture by picture basis where needed, I've never had a problem satisfying any concerns any model has stated.  I certainly would not shoot with any model who stated up front that she was unwilling to sign my release, and I certainly would not release any pictures or other payment to one who refused to sign at the end of the shoot.  I can only assume that anyone on either side of an agreement that can't comfortably sign a normal document intends to renege at some future point.  Far better to simply kill the arrangement immediately than to sit around waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Only once have I had a TF* model insist on a complex payment clause in the event that I sold any of her pictures.  I added it to our agreement and when she was gone noted my file "For Portfolio Use Only".  I'll just never market the pictures.  Frankly, I have plenty of equally usable pictures, easier to just file the pictures away and assuage her ego.

All IMHO, as always.

Works for you, generally more trouble then it is worth for me. However I would add that since you go to that much trouble to cover all bases, you should NOT combine release and usage license. Not from personal experience, but from comments of many people who seem to know, and some are Intellectual Property Lawyers. If you really need it, it is best not to confuse things.

Now I admit that the 'models release' is permissive/restrictive to the photographer, and the usage agreement is permissive/restrictive to what the model can do with her images.

If what you meant was that in your models release you include restrictions as to what you can do with the images, then that makes sense. In mine I have the usual Getty style of release (overkill) and a couple of blank parag. in case something needs to be added. I automatically include that these images will not be used for Adult Web Sites, to my knowledge. Too many dancers and athletes have asked for it, so it's simpler to just have it. As the legal eagles put it, it is KISS.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

...  I'm a hobbyist.
...  I have a web site, and I display my images there.
...  I accept voluntary donation.
...  I have a business license.
...  I pay taxes on those donations.
...  I want no confusion in the future -- no release, no photography.

I have to admit that the release form that I use has no language that limits the release to images made at a specific time.  According to the release's language, one release seems to cover the current & future sessions with that model.  Thus, I have only gotten a model to sign a new release only when I change the template that I've been using to date.  I suspect that I'll need to correct that.

From what I have been reading, a court is likely to deem that a release is good only for the shoot on the day it was signed. Unless it is a blanket release, which I am not sure is legal, since on day 1, you could be shooting for Sears, and on day 2 it could be a fetish porn site. So the best course seems to be a new release for each and every shoot.

Herman Surkis wrote:
From what I have been reading, a court is likely to deem that a release is good only for the shoot on the day it was signed. Unless it is a blanket release, which I am not sure is legal, since on day 1, you could be shooting for Sears, and on day 2 it could be a fetish porn site. So the best course seems to be a new release for each and every shoot.

Yes - you need a release for each[ shoot...

Creative Studio One wrote:
I had a conversation with a model who freaked out about signing a release... she said she had never signed one... then she starts asking me if her pictures are going to end up on erotic sites or what the heck I am going to do with the photos. Off course my natural response was, without a release the photos are useless for me, so why would I even shoot you. When I say there are a lot of amateur models here people start attacking me.

So I asked the model I was working with today if that's the norm. She said most photographers don't ask for it.

What is going on with keeping thing legal around in photography? (I realize outside North America it may not be needed)

I completely agree with you.  Without a release the photos are useless to me.  She's obviously not a pro, not will she ever be one with an attitude like hers.  And the photographers she's shot with are also true amateurs.  They are all in their own league.  Good luck to them.  They should all be booted off model mayhem and sent to some amateur site.

Tom Silk Photography wrote:
I completely agree with you.  Without a release the photos are useless to me.  She's obviously not a pro, not will she ever be one with an attitude like hers.  And the photographers she's shot with are also true amateurs.  They are all in their own league.  Good luck to them.  They should all be booted off model mayhem and sent to some amateur site.

I agree. How on earth could a 'model' end up in a shoot without knowing about a release? It should never happen.

It COULD be avoided with the addition of an 'induction' area for new models and photographers. IF a photographer chooses a model from that area of the site they do so at their own risk.
We also have a new area called 'grievances' where posts like this can be made.

The op chose a model who is clearly not a professional. Every model and photographer have to start somehwere BUT they should learn the code of professional conduct and things like no flaking, signing release forms, etc etc. BEFORE commencing work here. Otherwise it reflects badly on all of us; particularly when these klinds of threads are so prolific.

Yesterday one poster, a photographer who had no model pics in his port, said he couldn't find a single reliable model in Chicago. There are 6700. Half will be amateurs or wannabes or inactive. But that still leaves 3000 odd models with some experience of all kinds. Ten minutes of searching revealed some of the best model ports I have ever seen. Most of them were also Agency signed. Some newcomers with really tremedous potential; some genre specialists and some great journeymen.

So these 'model knocking' threads all over the place undermine the professionalism of the site and the reputation of highly professional models here. We are entitled to ask what you want the images for; but will expect to sign a model release form. Anybody who is a professional model will expect that.

We can't get rid of these models; but we should give them some tuition in this kind of thing by putting them in an induction forum if they have no experience where they can learn the ropes. And gripes about MM models (or photographers) that are related to using such amateurs in what is supposed to be a site for professionals reflects badly on us all: so a forum area for that would be good.

Herman Surkis wrote:

From what I have been reading, a court is likely to deem that a release is good only for the shoot on the day it was signed. Unless it is a blanket release, which I am not sure is legal, since on day 1, you could be shooting for Sears, and on day 2 it could be a fetish porn site. So the best course seems to be a new release for each and every shoot.

I've also read there are some good reasons to get a release for each day, but I'll also point out many of the stock agencies do not require that, allowing a single release for multiple shoots.  I doubt they would have that practice if their lawyers thought it notably increased their potential for litigation.

George Ruge wrote:
No sign-y, no click-y, you go now!:-))

Where my twenty five dollar?