Augustine York wrote:
Did the photographer send you what they want you to be signing?

But I'll say that yeah, a model release is about the modeling signing off rights so that the photographer can use the photo for x,y,z. Not about what the model can do. That would be a usage agreement.

I'll also say that when I've shot TF I've rarely had to sign releases. Maybe twice? The rest of the time we just shoot in good faith. Never had an issue, but I'm also very picky about who I trade with.

I shoot TF and rarely have a model sign a release unless she wants it for her purpose.  I also don't restrict my models from using any of the pics anyway she wants.  I know I have the copywrite, but choose not to use it since i'm a hobbyist.   So, your question in most cases is correct, but it also depends on what the release says.

Honolulu Deb wrote:
Sorry if this is a silly question (yeah, you can blame the newbie!)...I thought model releases were more to protect the photographer?

This came up because I recently did a TF shoot, and liked one of the pictures so much I wanted to use it on my profile here (duh, that was kinda the point!). I didn't sign a release, and have no problem doing so. However, when I told the photographer about using the photo here, they got rather upset and insisted I needed to sign a release--RIGHT AWAY. The tone of the email exchange was one of "slapping my hand because I'm such a newbie and how dare I post a picture without signing a release" type of thing.

I've since taken the picture down, and am meeting with the photographer to sign a release. But for my own piece of mind, am I over-reacting? I felt so hurt, because I've been trying to do things the right way and not infringe on anyone's business/rights/photgraphs.

Thanks for the advice!

you are right, he sounds like an idiot

Mike Kelcher wrote:
A model release is not a contract. There's no need for a photographer to sign a model release. In a model release, the model gives a photographer various rights to use his/her image. Essentially, it's the model's "gift" to the photographer. Often the model receives compensation for that 'gift", but a model release never needs to be signed by a photographer....unless the photographer is also a model. A model release is a "uni-lateral" agreement. ("Uni-" meaning "one person").

When a photographer modifies a model release, or "creates" a document in which the photographer agrees to anything, then that document is a contract. A contract is a "bi-lateral" agreement. ("bi-" meaning two or more people).

Without a model release, a photographer is usually limited in terms of what can be done with the images. If the "model release" is actually something drafted or modified to include any promise of any sort by the photographer, then it's really a "contract" (a bi-lateral agreement), and almost worthless for any sort of sale to another party, licensing to another party, and in most cases, any sort of publication. No publisher that I've heard of will accept a bi-lateral "contract" in lieu of a uni-lateral "model release".  The reason for this is that there's too much "gray area" in a bi-lateral contract, and it's difficult to ascertain that the photographer met their contractual obligations....which if they didn't...would render the contract viod.

Likewise, without permission from the photographer who owns the copyrights, models can't do  much with images either, usually. The document that allows the model to use the images, is generally called a "usage license". That too, is a uni-lateral agreement.

My advice to model and photographers is to avoid contracts. They are messy. They generally are amateur modifications of what was once a good legal document. Since contracts require both parties to uphold their related parts of an agreement, it can easily become void. Publishers seldom accept contracts in lieu of a model release.

Using another separate sheet of paper so that there can be one uni-lateral use license and one uni-lateral model release solves numerous problems that would otherwise exist with contracts, and it really doesn't waste that many trees.

You have an interesting view of contract law.  Without sounding offensive, you need to do a little bit of research.

ei Total Productions wrote:
You have an interesting view of contract law.  Without sounding offensive, you need to do a little bit of research.

Except that his points are essentially correct. (I'm not commenting upon the definitions of uni-lateral and bi-lateral contracts [I'm not an attorney], as that kind of debate just really obfuscates the otherwise fairly accurate statements for no real purpose but to argue minutia on the forums).

Honolulu Deb wrote:
This came up because I recently did a TF shoot, and liked one of the pictures so much I wanted to use it on my profile here (duh, that was kinda the point!). I didn't sign a release, and have no problem doing so. However, when I told the photographer about using the photo here, they got rather upset and insisted I needed to sign a release--RIGHT AWAY.

Kind of odd and interesting.  It sounds to me like the two of you didn't hash out who gets what and all of that.  Your "duh" isn't really so, as the photographer may not have felt the same way.  But he DID share it with you.  He "gave" it to you, did he not?  Were there restrictions written in the email sent to you?  Legally, I'd say you could use it, but what do I know?  I'm not a lawyer.

My first thought is he sent you UNEDITED images for you to look through and pick your favorites for editing.  He would NOT want you to use one of those on your profile, he'd want you to wait and use an edited (and likely watermarked) image.  Now I personally send unediteds in an album that is only viewable, not downloadable.  I only send the finished product by email.

It's good to have usage spelled out prior to a session, usage for BOTH of you.  It is a trade.  I'm sorry this TF hasn't gone as well for you as it could.

ei Total Productions wrote:
You have an interesting view of contract law.  Without sounding offensive, you need to do a little bit of research.

John Allan wrote:
Except that his points are essentially correct. (I'm not commenting upon the definitions of uni-lateral and bi-lateral contracts [I'm not an attorney], as that kind of debate just really obfuscates the otherwise fairly accurate statements for no real purpose but to argue minutia on the forums).

I would agree with you but I think his diatribes about contracts are just wrong and misleading.  The basic premise of what a release is for, what a usage agreement is for, etc, is fine.  When he starts to give a lecture on the law, one which is largely incorrect, I have an issue.

ei Total Productions wrote:
You have an interesting view of contract law.  Without sounding offensive, you need to do a little bit of research.

Perhaps I was unclear about something. It's not that I don't understand, it's possible that I wasn't clear somewhere, but if you have some objection that makes you feel I made some sort of error, I'd be interested in discussing it.  It wasn't my intent to "lecture on the law".  I don't think I mentioned any law.

Honolulu Deb wrote:
Sorry if this is a silly question (yeah, you can blame the newbie!)...I thought model releases were more to protect the photographer?

This came up because I recently did a TF shoot, and liked one of the pictures so much I wanted to use it on my profile here (duh, that was kinda the point!). I didn't sign a release, and have no problem doing so. However, when I told the photographer about using the photo here, they got rather upset and insisted I needed to sign a release--RIGHT AWAY. The tone of the email exchange was one of "slapping my hand because I'm such a newbie and how dare I post a picture without signing a release" type of thing.

I've since taken the picture down, and am meeting with the photographer to sign a release. But for my own piece of mind, am I over-reacting? I felt so hurt, because I've been trying to do things the right way and not infringe on anyone's business/rights/photgraphs.

Thanks for the advice!

I read the whole thread before posting and all I can say is wow.

First off, Deb, congrats, because it sounds like you had a better idea of how things work than that photographer and quite a few photographers in this thread.

Yes, you are correct, in the USA, the model release is all about protecting the photographer.  (In other countries that may be different, in Canada for example, a model release may also often contain wording to clarify who owns copyright, but that is not the case for the USA since the copyright is the photographer's except in limited circumstances.)

Now, why the photographer got upset, that is a different question.  As one person mentioned, we don't know if you uploaded photos that were proofs/not retouched/not released yet, or if it was simply a case that the photographer is not very knowledgeable about what is going on, and we only have a limited part of one side of the story to go off of.

1) model signs release for photographer so photographer has permission to use model's likeness.  In some states, it is a really good idea to have this even for portfolio use, and IMHO, it is always better to have such things in writing. 

2) photographer (in USA) owns copyright to image when photo is taken (a few exceptions, none really relevant here for USA.)

3) photographer provides finished images to model, it is normally assumed/implied that the model has usage rights for portfolio purposes.

4) for both photographers and models, it is good to have things in writing, for photographers it is good to have written model release, and for models, it is good to have a usage agreement where the photographer is specifying the model has the rights to use the image.  Such releases may be for portfolio use only or they may give more rights, up to the parties involved what they agree to.

That is it in a nutshell, other than that proofs should never be made public without the photographer's permission, and really no photos should be posted/used without the photographer's permission.  Even a model seeing a photo on the photographer's page, it is not appropriate to "snag" the image and upload it to your portfolio.  Yes people do that, but it isn't right, AND it may give you a lower quality image when you re-upload it, AND the photographer may have had a reason why it was not given to you yet.   (For example, some photographers may upload an image to MM (or linked through MM) to have a retoucher look at, or someone else look at as proof or critique but the image is not intended to be public yet, thus just taking images and using them without asking isn't really professional behavior.)

Kent Art Photography wrote:
OP, maybe your photographer knows as little about model releases as some of the photographers in this thread...

I hope your meeting goes well, and you get your usage rights.

This ^
The amount of wrong, bad and generally misleading information in this thread is simply staggering given the number of times this subject has been discussed on this forum. (Kent, ei Total and Doug B excepted... )

Images by MR wrote:
Why are you the photographer signing a model release ?

KelliOnLineGlamourNude  wrote:
I don't think that's what was said.

L2Photography net said it.