RKD Photographic wrote:

Nope - not even close...
In many countries - by simply turning up for an arranged photoshoot, the model has already giver her 'permission' to use the images in any way the photographer wishes (there is no 'right' as such) - in the UK and some other EU countries, the absence of a model release actually makes the photographer's position stronger, not weaker.

Which is why (as I and others mentioned earlier) you need not only a Model Release, but a Usage Agreement.

Um..., yes, very close. In the US, where the OP is writing from, this is absolutely not the case. As another photographer mentioned, agency models are not expected to sign model release on test shoots when considering that the images are intended for portfolio usage. In fact, most agency models are specifically told not to sign any release on a test shoot. Experienced freelance models here also follow that same advice.

On editorial shoots, the model releases are written to encompass the publication that the shoot is intended for and excludes advertising or other usage. Similarly, on catalog or advertising shoots model releases are structured to include the intended usage and duration for specified fees. I don't work in the EU, but I would be surprised to find out that the professional modeling industry operates in a greatly different manner.

Only in the non-professional web has the phenomena of all-rights model releases been expected of models on TFP shoots. I have been telling photographers I know that they are in for a big surprise if they expect to get all-rights/stock releases on TFP shoots from experienced models.

afplcc wrote:
I always require a release.  I also have a usage agreement for the model.  Makes no difference if it's TF or paid or whatever.

To me, not requiring would be like saying "if this were a paid shoot I'd behave like a professional, but since it's not paid therefore I won't act like a professional.  All rules are off."

Your policy and your response do not seem professional in any way to me. Your sentence is quotations sounds more like a petulant child. A professional, or at least an experienced practitioner, would realize that there is one level of value for personal portfolio or individual promotional images and a different level of value for commercial images for resale and that it would not be unreasonable for a model to operate with two different fee scales depending on the usage. Experienced web/freelance models and certainly agency models do this routinely.

If you have not experienced this, it doesn't take a genius to know that you have never worked with agency models on a professional project. What I don't understand is the pride in stating that you operate like a child.

That Italian Guy wrote:

Are your images worth less than cash?

Why would you feel the need to voluntarily limit your right to use your own images that you had paid a model to pose for?

The currency of payment is irrelevant - in fact most model releases don't even specify a sum, rather merely the phrase "valuable consideration".  That means, whatever the model has accepted as payment - ie. in the case of TF, images.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Amen

GNapp Studios wrote:
A model release gives the photographer the right to use the pictures for commercial purposes.

A smart model wouldn't give up that right without paid compensation.

By not signing a model release, the model protects his/her rights that the pictures won't appear in a magazine or billboard without the model being compensated.

Indeed. Most of the time I work tfp I will insist to add this to the release form>

"Both parties agree to hand over 50% (you can discuss other percentages, this is just an example) of any profit made from licensing Photos behind this agreement to the other party. Under no circumstances should photos be licensed unless price and compensation is agreed under a signed contract. Any party who wishes to license Photos for commercial use must pay the second party full compensation before distribution".

It is the most correct thing to do. We do a job too, just like the photographer. We invest many, many hours, we take risks, we do also invest money etc..

I often agree with the photographer that whoever manages to sell the Photos gets a higher percentage of the benefits. Because this person has invested much more time and work into getting them sold in first place.

If you are fair to your model and make up artist, they will be to you too. And you will receive the benefits of working this way in the long term.

Dan Howell wrote:
Um..., yes, very close. In the US, where the OP is writing from, this is absolutely not the case. As another photographer mentioned, agency models are not expected to sign model release on test shoots when considering that the images are intended for portfolio usage. In fact, most agency models are specifically told not to sign any release on a test shoot. Experienced freelance models here also follow that same advice.

On editorial shoots, the model releases are written to encompass the publication that the shoot is intended for and excludes advertising or other usage. Similarly, on catalog or advertising shoots model releases are structured to include the intended usage and duration for specified fees. I don't work in the EU, but I would be surprised to find out that the professional modeling industry operates in a greatly different manner.

Only in the non-professional web has the phenomena of all-rights model releases been expected of models on TFP shoots. I have been telling photographers I know that they are in for a big surprise if they expect to get all-rights/stock releases on TFP shoots from experienced models.

Thank you Dan! You're absolutely right.

huremics wrote:
When folks do TFP or TFCD shoots, do they use a model release form? I know such forms are standard in paid shoots, and I have a template that I use.

In TF shoots, since there's no money being exchanged, how do folks here approach image rights, usage, and release forms?

Thanks.

There's a great deal of confusion over what MR's are actually for. Broadly speaking they're for the model to sign off on any rights to the images produced so the photographer can sell or lease the rights to a third party. HOWEVER, state to state and country to country there are differences. Here in Nevada I have no use for MR's. I'm not selling or leasing to third parties and I don't sell more than 500 prints of any given photo. By those standards Nevada law exempts me from needing a model release.

Long story short, check your state's statutes and keep a copy on hand. Nevada has their statutes posted on line exactly as they're written in the most current law books. You should be able to find something similar.

GNapp Studios wrote:
A model release gives the photographer the right to use the pictures for commercial purposes.

A smart model wouldn't give up that right without paid compensation.

By not signing a model release, the model protects his/her rights that the pictures won't appear in a magazine or billboard without the model being compensated.

Allow me to respectfully disagree, at least as relates to MM.  I think that most "smart" (i.e. experienced) models are quite aware that the commercial possibilities for most of the shots taken in most TF sessions are limited at best.  You just don't see that many photographers, whatever their skill or artistic vision, that have the chops to successfully market them, looking for TF shoots on MM.

Therefore, the model will, in most cases, simply be reducing her opportunities to shoot with the people with whom she needs to shoot if she wants a top-of-the-line book, if she holds back on the release.  Moreover, I would expect most photographers would be more willing to give the best paid assignments to those models who are most cooperative in this regard.  So by doing so, the "smart" model you describe would be shooting herself in the foot more often than not.

Certainly, circumstances do alter cases and the situation might be different in the case of a test with an agency model, for example, but that's not likely to be the case in most TF shoots on MM.

All IMHO as always, of course.

XaXu wrote:
One aspect is the AGREEMENT between photographer and the subject.  The agreement can set out what each is permitted and/or not permitted to do with photos  (e.g, private/public use, commercial use, alterations, modifications, etc.) and/or what their expectations are from the photoshoot (e.g., compensation/prints/time/CD, etc) and/or certain representations by a party (e.g., that the subject is 18+) as well as other things.

A model's likeness rights release and a photographer's copyright license to the model ARE NOT agreements... They are a release of rights and obligations and a license to perform the rights of another... They additionally should always be separate documents.  What you are referring to is a contract which is neither a release nor a license and should not be confused or packaged with either other type of document.

XaXu wrote:
Another aspect is the DOCUMENTATION of the agreement.  For most folks, this may never be an issue.  But if someone submits a photo for publication or a photo to a stock photo website or even tries to print a picture at a commercial business, these other parties may likely request to see a copy of the release.  In the a litigious society like the US, documentation of an agreement between parties is extremely helpful (but, of course, not bulletproof).  In certain countries, which have strong moral rights protections, documentation of the agreement between parties would also be important to have.  Without documentation, it could quickly turn into a 'Liar, Liar, pants on fire' type situation.

The agreement (contract) would make no difference in any of these situations.  For publication on a stock site or use in commercials and endorsements you'd need a model's likeness released. Moral rights protections have nothing to do with any document and no document on earth will stop a zealous prosecutor from filing charges of violations of local law.

XaXu wrote:
As such, in many situations, it is helpful to include in the documentation the pertinent details of the arrangement including form of "compensation" (e.g. that it is paid arrangment and subject confirms receipt of the full payment, that this a TFP (prints) or a TFCD (disk) or a TFT(time)) as well as other agreements and expectations.

While documentation of expectations, duties, obligations and compensations is important, it is one document and it is called a CONTRACT

XaXu wrote:
This aspect of documentation is particularly important for those persons who do work that may implicate 2257 provisions.

A contract will not help in any way in a case involving a violation or alleged violation of laws collectively known as 2257, which are all about age verification and records keeping of producers of pornographic material.  The laws are so specific as to the requirements and methods that anything less than exact compliance is useless.

XaXu wrote:
Please also recall that the importantce of having a release can extend beyond a model and could include other aspects of a picture.  For example, a set designer, costume/clothes designer, hairstylist/make-up artist, and property owner could also provide significant contributions to the finished image and may also have copyright protections.

While there have been some specific extreme examples (the costume/makeup designer for the Broadway production of CATS) in most cases none of those people can have any significant contribution to a work to the point of being considered a joint copyright... Particularly the property owner.  Unless the property owner is telling how to take the photos, where to position your camera, and what settings to shoot with, they're not a contributor.  What you're considering is a contract with each of those people identifying their duties and what they receive in exchange.  There would be no obligation to get a likeness rights (or any other type of rights) release from any of them, though a blanket liability waiver may be in order from you to the property owner to protect his/her liability in the case one of your crew or models falls and breaks their neck.

XaXu wrote:
There are web sites that have model release forms that can be used.  I respectfully disagree with those folks who do not use any release, as I believe that something is generally better than nothing.

With your lack of knowledge of how any of this work I respectfully state that your respectful disagreement with any professional who works at this on a day to day basis shouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

XaXu wrote:
Too much?  Hire a local attorney and discuss matter with him/her.  It is far cheaper to pay attorney's fee before something happens, than after the @#$$ hits the fan..

Be sure they're an attorney who has extensive litigation experience in the areas of Intellectual property, copyright, and likeness rights... and be sure they practice in the jurisdiction that your business is from, where your model is from, where any place the picture might be posted or seen is, and where you get your equipment and computers from... because lord knows you could be sued in any of those places.

Sarah Jane Photographie wrote:
I grabbed this TFP release form and altered it a bit to fit my needs.
...
As far as I know this document is legally binding, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If anyone knows of a better form or more professional way to go about this, feel free to message me because I'm still learning.

You went about it in a very good way.  On the matter of "legally binding"... any agreement signed by both parties is legally binding (the signature binds the person to what was said in the agreement by law), but I don't think even that form has been legally tested (had claims made against its terms and upheld, struck, or partially struck by a court).

Photographe wrote:
I've been shooting agency models on and off since 1990. I have never ever ever seen or used a model release in TF work.

The closest I have ever come, is e-mail confirmation to the agent, what is being provided for the model, that is all.

Also even with paid shoots with model agencies, I can't speak for my agent, but I personally have never seen or used any model signatures, again just work orders or written e-mail confirmations have always sufficed as a record of what is happening. The only time things get complicated, is with advertising campaigns or album covers.

People simply don't have time to get anal about TF or editorial work. It's why photographer's agents usually leave most of the magazine marketing to the photographer, there's simply not that much money involved for people to be worrying about it, agents would be going bust if involved in every last TF and editorial project.

Work is work, whether it is paid or not, as far as those involved are concerned, treat it like a job.

This.

I stopped using releases when I stopped listening to the internet fear mongering and realized that I did not need them. For the majority of typical usages, nothing is required for someone to post pictures of people on the internet. Being a photographer shooting a model doesn't change that. For the rest of the usages that would require permission, a 'model release' is nothing more than a tool to get that permission. That permission can also be granted verbally or by text and email (check with an attorney on your state law).

Until someone can provide actual case law showing an internet model suing model photographers that failed to get a signed release, I'll just write this off as internet folklore that's often circulated by GWCs attempting to look professional (not that there's anything wrong with that ).


I stopped using usage agreements when I realized the typical teen to early 20-something model is no attorney and all of those big words will just fly right over their heads (assuming they even read them to begin with).
These do absolutely nothing to stop models from cropping out watermarks and applying horrid instagram filters to images they post online.
If this sort of thing bothers you that much, you can still have the images removed, but for me personally, my time has become much too valuable to concern myself with the trouble of keeping track of everything I shoot and what the models do with the pics I give them.

KISS but YMMV.

JC Strick wrote:
Until someone can provide actual case law showing an internet model suing model photographers that failed to get a signed release, I'll just write this off as internet folklore that's often circulated by GWCs attempting to look professional (not that there's anything wrong with that ).

Epic fail.

I didn't even have to google it. How about the recent case of WalMart suing the widow of a photographer who shot pictures of the Walton family for decades. The photography studio has no model releases or paperwork and may have to surrender over negatives and prints now.

Here's an article about a model suing a photographer who shot nude photos of her. Only consent was verbal:

http://www.splc.org/news/report_detail. … edition=26

Here is one closer to the topic at hand. Model signs an improper universal model release, does a TFP shoot with a photographer, images are then sold to porn sites and she's now suing because of their verbal agreement.

http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/ … us_ph.html

And here is why a simple model release is not a smart move. You need to issue a usage license, even if it's just for a simple TFP shoot.

http://rising.blackstar.com/photographe … ights.html



The list goes on and on dude. Just spend 5 minutes in Google and you'll find all the case citations you want on this matter.

Shot By Adam wrote:

Epic fail.

I didn't even have to google it. How about the recent case of WalMart suing the widow of a photographer who shot pictures of the Walton family for decades. The photography studio has no model releases or paperwork and may have to surrender over negatives and prints now.

Here's an article about a model suing a photographer who shot nude photos of her. Only consent was verbal:

http://www.splc.org/news/report_detail. … edition=26

Here is one closer to the topic at hand. Model signs an improper universal model release, does a TFP shoot with a photographer, images are then sold to porn sites and she's now suing because of their verbal agreement.

http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/ … us_ph.html

And here is why a simple model release is not a smart move. You need to issue a usage license, even if it's just for a simple TFP shoot.

http://rising.blackstar.com/photographe … ights.html

None of these are settled cases yet, and in several of them the legal arguments will likely fall apart on appeal if they're decided the way they're being argued now.

The first one is a case of money vs. no money... it has nothing to do with rights.  The Waltons are trying to claim copyright over something that they don't have any claim to copyright over.  The only reason they can sue is because they have the money to sue.  Every rights group is jumping up and down to help the photographer's family for free.  ACLU, EFF, ASMP, PPA, a bunch of copyright organizations.  I would be surprised at the end of the day the RIAA didn't get involved in telling the Waltons to stuff it.

The second one:

In June, a nude figure model sued Columbia College in Chicago and its student-run magazine, claiming her privacy was violated when she was photographed for an article without providing her consent.

The model appeared in two photographs in the Winter/Spring 2003 edition of ECHO magazine in conjunction with an article about nude modeling. One depicts her from behind from the waist down. The other photograph focuses on a student's drawing with the model pictured in the background slightly out of focus.

The model clearly had no expectation of privacy.  She is photographed in a group of people who she is obviously knowingly posing for nude, she is not in a dressing room, bathroom, or her own private residence in the nude... she's nude and expects people to see her nude.  Additionally there's no identification of the subject made in the photos (she's not identifiable) so there can be no claim to likeness rights or any other thing along those lines (which is likely why they didn't try for that and they're solely arguing expectation of privacy).  And finally, it's an illustration for a news report... her presence in the photos is incidental to the news article.

The Clevland one goes to prove my constant point... these agreements are over broad and will likely get thrown out the way most of them are written... but

The agreement was not in writing, however, the lawsuit said. Instead, Forni signed a "Universal Adult Model Release for All Agencies" document.

She obviously didn't read what she signed and if she doesn't generate enough sympathy from the court for the judge to rule part of the document invalid, then she'll be up a creek.

Shot By Adam wrote:

Epic fail.

I didn't even have to google it. How about the recent case of WalMart suing the widow of a photographer who shot pictures of the Walton family for decades. The photography studio has no model releases or paperwork and may have to surrender over negatives and prints now.

Here's an article about a model suing a photographer who shot nude photos of her. Only consent was verbal:

http://www.splc.org/news/report_detail. … edition=26

Here is one closer to the topic at hand. Model signs an improper universal model release, does a TFP shoot with a photographer, images are then sold to porn sites and she's now suing because of their verbal agreement.

http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/ … us_ph.html

And here is why a simple model release is not a smart move. You need to issue a usage license, even if it's just for a simple TFP shoot.

http://rising.blackstar.com/photographe … ights.html



The list goes on and on dude. Just spend 5 minutes in Google and you'll find all the case citations you want on this matter.

I will call your epic fail and raise you a total fluster cuck

Those pending cases ≠ precedent.
Typical model and typical model photographer = posting pics online.

The latter ≠ WalMart lawyers or selling to porn sites.

Weathers Photography wrote:
If I am shooting something that I know I am going to use, even if it is TFCD I will pay the model $1.00. This makes it a binding agreement as something of value has changed hands. If you give a model a copyright release, she owns all the files outright. If you use them for any purpose, you must get her permission. In order to prevent this, use a license of rights, which gives the model specific rights to use the files in ways  on which you both agree.
Otherwise you could accidentally give away your rights to the file you created.
I give $1.00, because in the '80's a photographer successfully argued in court that he did not owe Alabama state sales tax because the tax law specified tax was accrued on things of value, and since people did not want photos of people they did not know, the photos were without intrinsic value. This in effect rendered portraits as having no value as far as the state was concerned. The next year the tax law read that tax was accrued on " all tangible property". In most states something of value must change hands for the contract to be valid. If you use a standard model release that can be downloaded anywhere, and a license of rights to give the model permission to use the photos, you should be covered in most cases. Also, let's be real, very few of the photos we shoot are going to wind up on the cover of National Geographic. If it is something of great importance it probably would be worth sitting down with a lawyer and finding out exactly the wording of the laws that apply to you in your state.
I don't even want to get into Fed 2257 requirements.
Happy shooting, it's supposed to be fun!
Mike

OH HOLY CRAP!

No! No no no and NO!

"This makes it a binding agreement as something of value has changed hands" an agreement (contract) is binding regardless of monetary value.

"If you give a model a copyright release, she owns all the files outright." A copyright license is an enumeration of things another person is allowed to do with a photograph created by the owner of the copyright.  In the case of a copyright license from a photographer to a model, you're completely free to license any or all rights under copyright or any part of those rights or none of them, and you're completely free to reserve those rights for yourself while licensing someone else to perform them as well. Try to educate yourself a little... http://copyright.gov

"If you use them for any purpose, you must get her permission."  a model's likeness rights release may be what you're referring to, and the question of if you need one is, depending on who you ask, a matter of local law, or a matter of not needing one so long as you communicate the use prior to the use.

"if you use a standard model release that can be downloaded anywhere, and a license of rights to give the model permission to use the photos, you should be covered in most cases." - NO absolutely NONE of the boilerplate out on these issues has been tested in court.

Photographe wrote:
I've been shooting agency models on and off since 1990. I have never ever ever seen or used a model release in TF work.

The closest I have ever come, is e-mail confirmation to the agent, what is being provided for the model, that is all.

Also even with paid shoots with model agencies, I can't speak for my agent, but I personally have never seen or used any model signatures, again just work orders or written e-mail confirmations have always sufficed as a record of what is happening. The only time things get complicated, is with advertising campaigns or album covers.

People simply don't have time to get anal about TF or editorial work. It's why photographer's agents usually leave most of the magazine marketing to the photographer, there's simply not that much money involved for people to be worrying about it, agents would be going bust if involved in every last TF and editorial project.

Work is work, whether it is paid or not, as far as those involved are concerned, treat it like a job.

JC Strick wrote:
This.

I stopped using releases when I stopped listening to the internet fear mongering and realized that I did not need them. For the majority of typical usages, nothing is required for someone to post pictures of people on the internet. Being a photographer shooting a model doesn't change that. For the rest of the usages that would require permission, a 'model release' is nothing more than a tool to get that permission. That permission can also be granted verbally or by text and email (check with an attorney on your state law).

Until someone can provide actual case law showing an internet model suing model photographers that failed to get a signed release, I'll just write this off as internet folklore that's often circulated by GWCs attempting to look professional (not that there's anything wrong with that ).


I stopped using usage agreements when I realized the typical teen to early 20-something model is no attorney and all of those big words will just fly right over their heads (assuming they even read them to begin with).
These do absolutely nothing to stop models from cropping out watermarks and applying horrid instagram filters to images they post online.
If this sort of thing bothers you that much, you can still have the images removed, but for me personally, my time has become much too valuable to concern myself with the trouble of keeping track of everything I shoot and what the models do with the pics I give them.

KISS but YMMV.

+1



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com