Michael Broughton wrote:

it does if they want to be taken seriously as a model. maybe you should focus less on other people's terrible advice and more on your own.

He didnt suggest a model never sign a release, just pointed out that it doesnt actually HELP her do anything if she does, like the person he was responding to insinuated.

I sign whatever is required of me, but if someone doesnt shove a paper into my hands its really no skin off MY back. Everything is on them.

Dan K Photography wrote:
Terrible advice? Everything I wrote is 100% accurate. The vast majority of MM photographers have no real need to have a model release. They do so because they want to pretend they do. Oh you never know the model may get famous and you can hit the jackpot with your images.  lol.

the vast majority of modeling has nothing to do with mm.

Dan K Photography wrote:
Aside from that I never told her or anyone not to sign a release. I just said that a model release is for a photographers benefit and not a models unlike what the person she quoted told her.

no, what you said was "signing a release does not help the model in any way." this is patently false. a willingness to sign over rights in exchange for some form of payment is an important part of a successful career in modeling.

Dan K Photography wrote:
"Wants to be taken seriously as a model"  lol you are funny.  Do a test through an agency and tell them there models will never be taken seriously when they don't sign your release.

there's more to modeling than test shoots. their models won't be taken seriously if they don't sign releases for commercial clients.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Youre mixing model releases and image useage agreements into the same document.

Its actually in a models best interest to NOT sign a release because it disallows you from doing everything under the sun with the images. Its absolutely not her responsibility to remind you if you forget to have one/have her sign it. I shoot all the time without doing paper work (their preference, not my refusal). It doenst hurt ME at all.

If Im shooting TF I absolutely DO want to sign a usage agreement though, because it tells me where and how Im allowed to use the images of me.

Your terms of who can use what images and how, is your usage agreement. Thats an entirely separate ballgame than the model releasing the use of her likeness.

We are talking US.
NO my TF releases is also use as an agreement some new model don't like the word releases. It should only matter how or what I use when someone reading. I can make as many forms as I like
L2

Virtual Studio wrote:
It's a shame that the court didn't do similar research before making the binding case law which means that in many TF cases the model owns the copyright.

which case are you talking about?

L2Photography net wrote:
If you don't sign a llama release and the photographer uses them in a way you don't like what can you do about it.. It becomes a he said she said. My llama release is more of an agreement on a TF shoot saying we will only use the in our ports and not for profit. I can't sell them nor can the llama. I won't shoot a llama with out a sign a llama release. Why would you shoot with a photographer with out one.
L2

.......?

What?

No. A llama release isn't there to protect us. A llama release is to help the photographer.

The usage license is what helps us.

Michael Broughton wrote:

Dan K Photography wrote:
Terrible advice? Everything I wrote is 100% accurate. The vast majority of MM photographers have no real need to have a model release. They do so because they want to pretend they do. Oh you never know the model may get famous and you can hit the jackpot with your images.  lol.

the vast majority of modeling has nothing to do with mm.
no, what you said was "signing a release does not help the model in any way." this is patently false. a willingness to sign over rights in exchange for some form of payment is an important part of a successful career in modeling.

there's more to modeling than test shoots. their models won't be taken seriously if they don't sign releases for commercial clients.

The vast majority of modelling talk on MM is about modelling through channels like MM.

Most MM models dont have commercial clients. Most MM models are hobbyists who do nothing but trade shoots.

Of the MM models who are working models, Im sure most of them DO sign releases, but are not mistaken that theyre actually saving themselves anything by signing them. Our paying "clients" are photographers(with the exception of the rare agency signed MM model who actually books through this site at all)  only SOME of which have any hope of ever doing something commercial with our images. The rest are hobbyists with disposable income, so they need not use a release if they dont feel like it, some of which dont. Ive done some paid shoots with no release.

L2Photography net wrote:

We are talking US.
NO my TF releases is also use as an agreement some new model don't like the word releases. It should only matter how or what I use when someone reading. I can make as many forms as I like
L2

Contrary to my current location Im an american having worked as an american model for 6 years and can also discern the locations of the people in this thread so yes Im familiar with the country in which we're speaking about.

You certainly CAN write out any piece of paper you like, but its probably not at all legally binding if you do. Intellectual property lawyers exist for something.

Your paperwork, if the same document is used to release the models likeness to you as well as spell out what each party may and may not do with the images and/or what the compensation for the shoot is, is absolutely mixing two or more documents into one, and is not a model release alone.

WCR3 wrote:
Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

Everything else in your post aside...this part is full of lulz.

Jhono Bashian wrote:
you can avoid all of this by ALWAYS getting a release form signed.  how hard is it, seriously??

Signing a release doesnt mean hes gonna post the photos he took, which is the OPs problem.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Contrary to my current location Im an american having worked as an american model for 6 years and can also discern the locations of the people in this thread so yes Im familiar with the country in which we're speaking about.

You certainly CAN write out any piece of paper you like, but its probably not at all legally binding if you do. Intellectual property lawyers exist for something.

Your paperwork, if the same document is used to release the models likeness to you as well as spell out what each party may and may not do with the images and/or what the compensation for the shoot is, is absolutely mixing two or more documents into one, and is not a model release alone.

You certainly CAN write out any piece of paper you like, but its probably not at all legally binding if you do. lol
More so then if you have no paper work and why when some on get on here and says the photographer, model or MUA did give me or do, does everyone say what did you have in writing before the shoot?

L2Photography net wrote:

You certainly CAN write out any piece of paper you like, but its probably not at all legally binding if you do. lol
More so then if you have no paper work and why when some on get on here and says the photographer, model or MUA did give me or do, does everyone say what did you have in writing before the shoot?

I hope this isnt how youve written your contracts. I have no idea what youre saying.

WCR3 wrote:
There's a little bit of good information in this thread and a whole lot of bad. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

1. In the U.S., the photographer owns all rights to the photograph the minute he creates it. Unless he assigns his rights to someone else or it is a work made for hire (which doesn't mean what it sounds like it means), he and only he has the right to reproduce the work in copies, prepare derivative works based on the original work, distribute copies of the work by sale, rental, lease or lending, and display the work publicly.

2. In many U.S. states, and Texas is among them, OP, the subject of a photograph, if living, has certain publicity rights under the common law as explained in the link early in this thread. If the photographer appropriates a person's likeness for its value rather than its newsworthiness, and the person can be identified from the publication of that likeness, and if the photographer receives an advantage from the appropriation (typically commercial though not necessarily monetary), then an infringement of the subject's right of publicity has occurred. The subject of the photo can sue, but will have to prove damages. If the subject of the photo is not someone famous, it will almost certainly not be worth filing suit.

3. A model release is typically a document in which the model gives the photographer permission to use his or her likeness, essentially waiving his or her right of publicity. Most releases are very far reaching, and give the photographer the right to do just about anything, commercial or otherwise, that he might want to do with the photos.

4. Model releases are usually, but not always, signed by the model as consideration for something -- either a modeling fee or images to use in his or her portfolio, travel expenses, etc.

5. If a photographer intends to sell the images, say, for an ad campaign, the client of the photographer will, unless he is a complete idiot, require that the photographer has gotten a release from the model to protect him, the client, from a lawsuit by the model claiming his or her rights to publicity have been misappropriated.

6. Often a photographer, who owns all the rights to the photographs, will grant the model a usage license to use some or all the photographs. The license may be very broad, giving the model the right to reproduce and sell the images, but it is more likely to be restricted. For example, the license may give the model the right to use the photos for personal use on social media, and/or on the model's Web site for self-promotion. Often the model is restricted from selling the images.

7. The OP wanted to know if the photographer can use the images without a model release. Yes, he can, subject to the model's possible claims of misappropriation of his or her right to publicity.

8. Others have raised the issue of the value of signing a release by the model. The model really has nothing to gain by signing the release, except that most photographers who know what they're doing won't go forward without a signed release. So if he or she doesn't sign the release, he or she won't work and won't get paid, whether cash or trade.

9. The wise photographer, even one who is purely a hobbyist, will always require a release from the model. Who knows, some day the hobbyist photographer will be discovered as the true artist he is and his photographs will become valuable. If an ad agency decides it really wants that image of Suzy Creamcheese the photographer took years ago, but the photographer never got a release, then the ad agency will go elsewhere. It never hurts to require a release, and all but the most naive rookie models will sign one without question because that's just part of the way business is done.

10. What I've said here applies to the U.S. I understand that Canada's laws, and those of many other countries, are quite different. Y'all foreigners need to do your own homework.

Question to you.. Would to do a TF shoot with a model with out a release or agreement something in writhing the you both could look back on at a later date?

WCR3 wrote:
There's a little bit of good information in this thread and a whole lot of bad. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

1. In the U.S., the photographer owns all rights to the photograph the minute he creates it. Unless he assigns his rights to someone else or it is a work made for hire (which doesn't mean what it sounds like it means), he and only he has the right to reproduce the work in copies, prepare derivative works based on the original work, distribute copies of the work by sale, rental, lease or lending, and display the work publicly.

2. In many U.S. states, and Texas is among them, OP, the subject of a photograph, if living, has certain publicity rights under the common law as explained in the link early in this thread. If the photographer appropriates a person's likeness for its value rather than its newsworthiness, and the person can be identified from the publication of that likeness, and if the photographer receives an advantage from the appropriation (typically commercial though not necessarily monetary), then an infringement of the subject's right of publicity has occurred. The subject of the photo can sue, but will have to prove damages. If the subject of the photo is not someone famous, it will almost certainly not be worth filing suit.

3. A model release is typically a document in which the model gives the photographer permission to use his or her likeness, essentially waiving his or her right of publicity. Most releases are very far reaching, and give the photographer the right to do just about anything, commercial or otherwise, that he might want to do with the photos.

4. Model releases are usually, but not always, signed by the model as consideration for something -- either a modeling fee or images to use in his or her portfolio, travel expenses, etc.

5. If a photographer intends to sell the images, say, for an ad campaign, the client of the photographer will, unless he is a complete idiot, require that the photographer has gotten a release from the model to protect him, the client, from a lawsuit by the model claiming his or her rights to publicity have been misappropriated.

6. Often a photographer, who owns all the rights to the photographs, will grant the model a usage license to use some or all the photographs. The license may be very broad, giving the model the right to reproduce and sell the images, but it is more likely to be restricted. For example, the license may give the model the right to use the photos for personal use on social media, and/or on the model's Web site for self-promotion. Often the model is restricted from selling the images.

7. The OP wanted to know if the photographer can use the images without a model release. Yes, he can, subject to the model's possible claims of misappropriation of his or her right to publicity.

8. Others have raised the issue of the value of signing a release by the model. The model really has nothing to gain by signing the release, except that most photographers who know what they're doing won't go forward without a signed release. So if he or she doesn't sign the release, he or she won't work and won't get paid, whether cash or trade.

9. The wise photographer, even one who is purely a hobbyist, will always require a release from the model. Who knows, some day the hobbyist photographer will be discovered as the true artist he is and his photographs will become valuable. If an ad agency decides it really wants that image of Suzy Creamcheese the photographer took years ago, but the photographer never got a release, then the ad agency will go elsewhere. It never hurts to require a release, and all but the most naive rookie models will sign one without question because that's just part of the way business is done.

10. What I've said here applies to the U.S. I understand that Canada's laws, and those of many other countries, are quite different. Y'all foreigners need to do your own homework.

definitely written like a laywer

Virtual Studio wrote:

You're Canadian - research this one. No release in Canada means that for many TF shoots the unless the model signs a release then she owns the copyright to the pictures!.

Please provide a link to that.

I've signed maybe a total of 4 model releases and all I do is TF work now and I don't own any of my images....

DarcieK wrote:

Please provide a link to that.

I've signed maybe a total of 4 model releases and all I do is TF work now and I don't own any of my images....

Paul Couvrette Photographs v. The Ottawa Citizen et al.(1985), 7 C.P.R. (3d) 552 (Ont. Prov. Ct.)

Unless you have explicitly assigned rights over the copyright to those photos to the photographer then - depending on the exact nature of the pre-shoot communications - you do actually own those images.

It's more or less the opposite of how it works in the USA. No damage there - do you drive on the left or right? doesn't matter so long as everyone knows the rule - but where there are issues is when people just assume that US law applies, sometimes local rules are very very different.

L2Photography net wrote:
Question to you.. Would to do a TF shoot with a model with out a release or agreement something in writhing the you both could look back on at a later date?

I really don't understand what you're asking. Would you please try to word it another way?

DivaEroticus wrote:

Everything else in your post aside...this part is full of lulz.

It was meant to be. :-)

WCR3 wrote:

I really don't understand what you're asking. Would you please try to word it another way?

Do you shoot TF with out a release?

Charger Photography wrote:

+10000000000000000000000000000000

The voice of experience...

That's all I will say...

L2Photography net wrote:

Do you shoot TF with out a release?

I do.

Greg Kolack wrote:

The voice of experience...

That's all I will say...

LOL

L2Photography net wrote:

Do you shoot TF with out a release?

No, I always get a release. But then again, I'm a lawyer and I know the importance of it.

WCR3 wrote:

No, I always get a release. But then again, I'm a lawyer and I know the importance of it.

Thank you..

WCR3 wrote:
There's a little bit of good information in this thread and a whole lot of bad. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

1. In the U.S., the photographer owns all rights to the photograph the minute he creates it. Unless he assigns his rights to someone else or it is a work made for hire (which doesn't mean what it sounds like it means), he and only he has the right to reproduce the work in copies, prepare derivative works based on the original work, distribute copies of the work by sale, rental, lease or lending, and display the work publicly.

2. In many U.S. states, and Texas is among them, OP, the subject of a photograph, if living, has certain publicity rights under the common law as explained in the link early in this thread. If the photographer appropriates a person's likeness for its value rather than its newsworthiness, and the person can be identified from the publication of that likeness, and if the photographer receives an advantage from the appropriation (typically commercial though not necessarily monetary), then an infringement of the subject's right of publicity has occurred. The subject of the photo can sue, but will have to prove damages. If the subject of the photo is not someone famous, it will almost certainly not be worth filing suit.

3. A model release is typically a document in which the model gives the photographer permission to use his or her likeness, essentially waiving his or her right of publicity. Most releases are very far reaching, and give the photographer the right to do just about anything, commercial or otherwise, that he might want to do with the photos.

4. Model releases are usually, but not always, signed by the model as consideration for something -- either a modeling fee or images to use in his or her portfolio, travel expenses, etc.

5. If a photographer intends to sell the images, say, for an ad campaign, the client of the photographer will, unless he is a complete idiot, require that the photographer has gotten a release from the model to protect him, the client, from a lawsuit by the model claiming his or her rights to publicity have been misappropriated.

6. Often a photographer, who owns all the rights to the photographs, will grant the model a usage license to use some or all the photographs. The license may be very broad, giving the model the right to reproduce and sell the images, but it is more likely to be restricted. For example, the license may give the model the right to use the photos for personal use on social media, and/or on the model's Web site for self-promotion. Often the model is restricted from selling the images.

7. The OP wanted to know if the photographer can use the images without a model release. Yes, he can, subject to the model's possible claims of misappropriation of his or her right to publicity.

8. Others have raised the issue of the value of signing a release by the model. The model really has nothing to gain by signing the release, except that most photographers who know what they're doing won't go forward without a signed release. So if he or she doesn't sign the release, he or she won't work and won't get paid, whether cash or trade.

9. The wise photographer, even one who is purely a hobbyist, will always require a release from the model. Who knows, some day the hobbyist photographer will be discovered as the true artist he is and his photographs will become valuable. If an ad agency decides it really wants that image of Suzy Creamcheese the photographer took years ago, but the photographer never got a release, then the ad agency will go elsewhere. It never hurts to require a release, and all but the most naive rookie models will sign one without question because that's just part of the way business is done.

10. What I've said here applies to the U.S. I understand that Canada's laws, and those of many other countries, are quite different. Y'all foreigners need to do your own homework.

I largely agree with this except that I will comment that the right to privacy and the right to publicity vary by state.  As an example, the poster says that if a model's right to publicity is violated, she will have to prove damages.  That will vary by state.  By way of example again, California provides for statutory damages.  What that means is that a model doesn't have to prove damages to collect.  She merely needs to prove that her likeness was used commercially without consent.  Therefore, even if she has no damages at all, she can still collect statutory damages so long as she can demonstrate commercial use without consent. 

In California a model can also attack the profits made as a result of the improper use.  That will be in addition to basic statutory damages.  California is not the only state to have statutory damages.

Likewise, not all states recognize either the right to publicity nor the right to privacy.  North Dakota is a good example of that.  If you shoot an image in North Dakota and then publish it in North Dakota, you may not need the consent of the subject at all (unless, of course, the images are defamatory or shed false light).  On the other hand, if you shoot the image in North Dakota but then sell the image to a publisher in New York, you probably will.

Unlike copyright, the right to privacy and the right to publicity are state laws, not federal.  One has to be careful to put everything in the context of the state where they apply.

In the case of the OP, it is an interesting combination of law.  Texas has a well recognized "common law" right to publicity for those that are living.  On the other hand, it has a statutory right to publicity for those that are dead.  I believe it is the only state that handles the issue that way.

Kelly Anne-Marie wrote:

That depends how you look at it in my opinion.

What exactly do you think changes about it?

ei Total Productions wrote:
I largely agree with this except that I will comment that the right to privacy and the right to publicity vary by state.  As an example, the poster says that if a model's right to publicity is violated, she will have to prove damages.  That will vary by state.  By way of example again, California provides for statutory damages.  What that means is that a model doesn't have to prove damages to collect.  She merely needs to prove that her likeness was used commercially without consent.  Therefore, even if she has no damages at all, she can still collect statutory damages so long as she can demonstrate commercial use without consent. 

In California a model can also attack the profits made as a result of the improper use.  That will be in addition to basic statutory damages.  California is not the only state to have statutory damages.

Likewise, not all states recognize either the right to publicity nor the right to privacy.  North Dakota is a good example of that.  If you shoot an image in North Dakota and then publish it in North Dakota, you may not need the consent of the subject at all (unless, of course, the images are defamatory or shed false light).  On the other hand, if you shoot the image in North Dakota but then sell the image to a publisher in New York, you probably will.

Unlike copyright, the right to privacy and the right to publicity are state laws, not federal.  One has to be careful to put everything in the context of the state where they apply.

In the case of the OP, it is an interesting combination of law.  Texas has a well recognized "common law" right to publicity for those that are living.  On the other hand, it has a statutory right to publicity for those that are dead.  I believe it is the only state that handles the issue that way.

All good points. I was trying to keep it brief (at which I failed miserably) and keep a Texas perspective since the OP was from Texas.

It is true that statutory damages, i.e. those available because legislators passed a law, are only available IN TEXAS to the heirs of a person who has died, not a living person, to allow the heirs to benefit from the deceased person's fame and stature.

It is also true IN TEXAS that a living person whose likeness has been used without permission may recover a variety of damages, including exemplary damages if the usage was egregious and caused serious harm to the subject's reputation. I didn't mention this originally, again because I was trying to be reasonably brief and cover several topics that seem to confuse people.

I appreciate the very worthwhile clarifications on behalf of all our readers.

WCR3 wrote:
There's a little bit of good information in this thread and a whole lot of bad. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

1. In the U.S., the photographer owns all rights to the photograph the minute he creates it. Unless he assigns his rights to someone else or it is a work made for hire (which doesn't mean what it sounds like it means), he and only he has the right to reproduce the work in copies, prepare derivative works based on the original work, distribute copies of the work by sale, rental, lease or lending, and display the work publicly.

2. In many U.S. states, and Texas is among them, OP, the subject of a photograph, if living, has certain publicity rights under the common law as explained in the link early in this thread. If the photographer appropriates a person's likeness for its value rather than its newsworthiness, and the person can be identified from the publication of that likeness, and if the photographer receives an advantage from the appropriation (typically commercial though not necessarily monetary), then an infringement of the subject's right of publicity has occurred. The subject of the photo can sue, but will have to prove damages. If the subject of the photo is not someone famous, it will almost certainly not be worth filing suit.

3. A model release is typically a document in which the model gives the photographer permission to use his or her likeness, essentially waiving his or her right of publicity. Most releases are very far reaching, and give the photographer the right to do just about anything, commercial or otherwise, that he might want to do with the photos.

4. Model releases are usually, but not always, signed by the model as consideration for something -- either a modeling fee or images to use in his or her portfolio, travel expenses, etc.

5. If a photographer intends to sell the images, say, for an ad campaign, the client of the photographer will, unless he is a complete idiot, require that the photographer has gotten a release from the model to protect him, the client, from a lawsuit by the model claiming his or her rights to publicity have been misappropriated.

6. Often a photographer, who owns all the rights to the photographs, will grant the model a usage license to use some or all the photographs. The license may be very broad, giving the model the right to reproduce and sell the images, but it is more likely to be restricted. For example, the license may give the model the right to use the photos for personal use on social media, and/or on the model's Web site for self-promotion. Often the model is restricted from selling the images.

7. The OP wanted to know if the photographer can use the images without a model release. Yes, he can, subject to the model's possible claims of misappropriation of his or her right to publicity.

8. Others have raised the issue of the value of signing a release by the model. The model really has nothing to gain by signing the release, except that most photographers who know what they're doing won't go forward without a signed release. So if he or she doesn't sign the release, he or she won't work and won't get paid, whether cash or trade.

9. The wise photographer, even one who is purely a hobbyist, will always require a release from the model. Who knows, some day the hobbyist photographer will be discovered as the true artist he is and his photographs will become valuable. If an ad agency decides it really wants that image of Suzy Creamcheese the photographer took years ago, but the photographer never got a release, then the ad agency will go elsewhere. It never hurts to require a release, and all but the most naive rookie models will sign one without question because that's just part of the way business is done.

10. What I've said here applies to the U.S. I understand that Canada's laws, and those of many other countries, are quite different. Y'all foreigners need to do your own homework.

FANTASTIC!

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:

I didn't know a release allowed the model to sell them?

Mine sure as hell doesn't!

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Come on. Nobody caught on to this yet? This isn't about signing and/or needing a release. Nor is it about the photographer having an issue with a signed faxed copy of the llama's signature.

He's trying to set up a meet so they can sign the release in person. He's doing the equivalent of the 'ol "I left my reflector at your place" move.

The guy is a genius and nobody is picking up on it.

On a side note, who still uses a fax machine? If you need a signature in the absence of the person, create a pdf, send the attachment and get a digital signature.

No, that is not the reason... sent me a PM and I'll tell you what the deal is... I'm the photographer the OP is talking about....