michaelrowephotography wrote:
You dont need a release if you intend on useing the images for self promotion - ie: your book, website, comp cards or business cards.

So the cover of Vogue, Fashion, FHM etc. is self promotion as well. Just like using a tear for the back of your comp. The models don't need to sign a release???

Self promotion is a credit for everyone involved in the shooting process.

Every job I've worked on, photographers, Art Directors let the models sign a release. The models understand this because it's an industry standard practice.

michaelrowephotography wrote:
You dont need a release if you intend on useing the images for self promotion - ie: your book, website, comp cards or business cards.

Okay, I just did a TFP with a model and a photographer. She wanted to view the photos first, and "approve them". Now she refuses to sign a release because she doesn't like the way she was protrayed in the photos. She's the one who put on the fishnets and lingerie. She is claiming she has a reputation to uphold, and in some of the photos she thinks she looks fat and trampy (she weighed like 95lbs). I'm really pissed, because that was my time and energy on a Sunday afternoon away from my family to do a free shoot. The photog and I don't know what to do. Now she is not returning phone calls. That's just rude. If legally we don't need a release form then I'm posting her on my MM page, and the spoiled brat can kiss my ass.  Someone please let me in on the legallities of release forms.

Makeup by Jessica wrote:

Okay, I just did a TFP with a model and a photographer. She wanted to view the photos first, and "approve them". Now she refuses to sign a release because she doesn't like the way she was protrayed in the photos. She's the one who put on the fishnets and lingerie. She is claiming she has a reputation to uphold, and in some of the photos she thinks she looks fat and trampy (she weighed like 95lbs). I'm really pissed, because that was my time and energy on a Sunday afternoon away from my family to do a free shoot. The photog and I don't know what to do. Now she is not returning phone calls. That's just rude. If legally we don't need a release form then I'm posting her on my MM page, and the spoiled brat can kiss my ass.  Someone please let me in on the legallities of release forms.

If she won't sign I would have her then pay me my rate for that shoot.

Pazza_x_Trucco wrote:

If she won't sign I would have her then pay me my rate for that shoot.

I already thought of that. She's not returning e-mails or phone calls. I know where she lives, anybody wanna help me gang up on her?

make-up by omar wrote:

So the cover of Vogue, Fashion, FHM etc. is self promotion as well. Just like using a tear for the back of your comp. The models don't need to sign a release???

Self promotion is a credit for everyone involved in the shooting process.

Every job I've worked on, photographers, Art Directors let the models sign a release. The models understand this because it's an industry standard practice.

Using photos in most areas of straight self promotion is generally ok.  It gets grey in some areas, though.  Photos on your business card, website, demo reels, etc (ie, self contained stuff)...shouldn't be a problem.  Using photos in, say, a local or national ad for your services and such gets grey.  And selling photos for, say in the example above, a magazine cover...well...I think that's a moral breech and moves beyond self promotion.

I think that everyone has the right to stake their claim and revel in the finished product of a project.  Unless they sign that right away.  It gets grey here too.  Say you do makeup for Titanic II...is it assumed that posting a video clip from the movie on your site is legit?  The director might have said it's ok...or the lead MUA...or your manager.  But one might get a cease and desist from the studio.  The product's owner.

I had to deal with something related to this the other day.  I'm coordinating a photoshoot for my employer.  A friend offered some clothes from her line for wardrobe to use in exchange for photos.  I told her that we'd love to use her stuff...but blahblahblah my company will own all of the photos in the end.  You'll get copies, but fair use basically lies in straight self promotion(websites, business cards, post cards, etc)...ie, the images couldn't be sold by her or used in a local/national print or online ad or used on a 3rd party distributors site and etc.  If the rights were mine to give, she could do whatever she wanted with the output...run them up a flagpole...make a billboard out of them...whatever.  But they weren't mine to give, know what I mean?  She opted out and I understood.

Long story short, every job has different nuances.  If it's a questionable point, then get it in writing before you work.  The more value something has and the more hands it goes through, the more problems you may run into.

michaelrowephotography wrote:
You dont need a release if you intend on useing the images for self promotion - ie: your book, website, comp cards or business cards.

correct.  If it's your portfolio of work and you are using it ONLY to promote youreself  you dont need a release.  Heaven forbid I would have to drag around releases with me to every job! 

I just dont work with the kinds of people that have these kinds of issues.... The models and photographers I work with get paid well and they just arent the kinds of people looking to sue an artist for usage....I'm sure these types exsist but I assume they are the amatuer types that sit around pondering extra ways to make money or waves because they are broke and not working.   Thats just an assumeption because I've been in the business over 20 years, I work at least 5 days a week on paid jobs and havent run across this issue yet.

Pazza_x_Trucco wrote:

If she won't sign I would have her then pay me my rate for that shoot.

You didn't get copies of the photos or you didn't get sign-off from the model to use the photos?  If she signed a release that says she didn't get the right to approve anything, then I think you've basically got the right to use them for self promotion. 

I think morally I'd probably keep them out of public media outlets...MM and the like. 

But beyond that, they can always go in your book.  You can always email them to a prospective client.  You can always hide them behind a password or something.....keep them out of the public domain.  Know what I mean?

Makeup by Jessica wrote:

I already thought of that. She's not returning e-mails or phone calls. I know where she lives, anybody wanna help me gang up on her?

I'd use them...if she wanted to start anything legal it's 2 vs 1 and since it was agreed (all parties being able to use the photos in their port.)at the begining, even though it wasn't in writting...either the judge says...the MUA/Photog. have the right to use them & it's over OR....have each person be paid for their time or each one learn from this and get things signed before starting.

Scott_La wrote:
Always, and I mean "Always" get a release from the Model and Photog BEFORE the shoot. Do an internet search and fined out the best release form that best meets your needs. ALWAYS!

Yeah, I learned a very valuable lesson. Just because the shoot was fun, and the model seemed really cool, I still need to cover my ass. Never leave without that piece of paper. 

Scott, thanks for the compliment.

Scott_La wrote:
Always, and I mean "Always" get a release from the Model and Photog BEFORE the shoot. Do an internet search and fined out the best release form that best meets your needs. ALWAYS!

Yes, I agree. I've learned this the hard way... a couple of times. And when they don't sign BEFORE the shoot, I pack up and go home.

It only takes a couple of times of being ripped off or scammed and then people saying to you "Well you shoulda, woulda, coulda done this and that and so forth..." before you take very strong stand.

michaelrowephotography wrote:
You absolutley dont need a release unless you are selling the images.   I work in a TOP celebrity photo agency, i deal with some of the biggest celebrity photographers, publicist and agents, TRUST ME.  I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.  NO RELEASE NEEDED TO USE YOUR OWN WORK FOR SELF PROMOTION - IE: PORTFOLIOS, WEBSITE ETC.

Thank you, great information. I'll have her images up in no time.

michaelrowephotography wrote:
You absolutley dont need a release unless you are selling the images.   I work in a TOP celebrity photo agency, i deal with some of the biggest celebrity photographers, publicist and agents, TRUST ME.  I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.  NO RELEASE NEEDED TO USE YOUR OWN WORK FOR SELF PROMOTION - IE: PORTFOLIOS, WEBSITE ETC.

This is true but some of the nuts we deal with will never be a top celebrity but act like they are.  These are the nuts you better have a release on.  It never fails that this particular person you work with doesn't want you to use the photos for some reason and it may be your best photo to date.  That person wants to take all the credit or they are just plan stupid and come up with some BS.

Just CYA... have a release.

michaelrowephotography wrote:
You dont need a release if you intend on useing the images for self promotion - ie: your book, website, comp cards or business cards.

Are you kidding?  What color is the sky in your world?  Here, on Earth, we have copyright laws that prohibit use without permission.  The sole exception that I'm aware of would be educational use...I think it'd be a "stretch" to consider the uses you mentioned, "educational use".

Anybody who plans to use an image which they do not hold the copyright to, should have written permission to use it from the copyright holder...which in most instances, is the photographer. 

A perfect example is currently rumored to be in the courts.  Jennifer Anniston, according to the rumor,  is currently being sued.  Allegedly, he paid a photographer to photograph her and make her one print.  She, allegedly,  duplicated that image hundreds of times and used it for "self-promotion" and submitted it with a resume and it was eventually used for part of the selection process which landed her a job on Friends.  The photographer now feels that he was not adaquately compensated for hundreds of duplications of his image (just one), and that she benefitted immensely from unauthorized use his image.  He's now sueing her for part of the benefits she gained....which is in the millions of dollars.

Bottom line, is if you aren't an attorney, cover your butt....get written permission.

Mike

michaelrowe photography wrote:
You absolutley dont need a release unless you are selling the images.   I work in a TOP celebrity photo agency, i deal with some of the biggest celebrity photographers, publicist and agents, TRUST ME.  I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.  NO RELEASE NEEDED TO USE YOUR OWN WORK FOR SELF PROMOTION - IE: PORTFOLIOS, WEBSITE ETC.

How are you supposed to tell other photographers this without them thinking negatively and maybe not working as hard on your shoot?

Ed Sukach wrote:
The Model Release is a contract, where the photographer and model agree to what is / has been, done.  It assures both parties to fair and reasonable benefit -- usually monetary -- for their work.  It is not a "license to kill" - as in all contracts, good faith can easily override the words themselves.

There was a case where a model posed for what she thought would be "mattress/ bedding" ads ... she was in a flimsy negligee', on a bed (to be expected).  She was compensated for her work as agreed, and signed an (unlimited) model release. Some time later, she visited her local Video Store, aand to her shock found an image from that session, not in a mattress ad, but on the cover of an XXX-rated Video.
She sued the photographer - BIG TIME, and won. The court agreed with her suit, "good faith" had been breached. Even though she had signed the release, the work had not been used as she had understood it would be.

Another case would be where a model works for a small-time photographer, with the usual small-time compensation, and the image is sold and used in a BIG-time advertising campaign.  One would do well to give the model extra money, so that she is compensated REASONABLY for her work.  I've done that - and I'll confess that I am happy to.  It is a kick to have someone else share in the success.

One other thing to consider: I had worked with a model - quite a few times - doing figure studies .. nudes, completely with her consent. I had compensated her (I always pay my models - it serves to establish a professional relationship) and had her sign the necessary releases.
Some time later, she maried a guy who was a **brittle** relgious fundamentalist.  She contacted me, DEMANDING that I turn over ALL the work - contact sheets, exhibition prints, negatives - everything, because her new husband did not want anything like that "out there". These demands became greater and greater - I finally consulted my lawyer, who reviewed everything, and advised me that everything I had was mine, and I was well within my rights to keep it all - and exhibit those images, as specifically stated in the releases.  I stood my ground and did not turn anothing over to her.  She/ they must have consulted their own attorney, for the demands ceased abruptly.  Clearly, I was operating within the bounds of "good faith" and the model release was prima facie evidence of her consent to the modeling sessions.
Still, I haven't used any of those images since the demands. I know that to do so will - or may - cause her grief - and I refuse to cause grief to ANYONE, knowingly.  I have better things to do with my time.

One has to be careful with model releases, especially the "boiler plate" releases found in books and on the web.  There is usually language in those that will invalidate them - most usually for being too "broad". Words like, "I consent to any and all uses of these images, no matter how degrading, humiliating, whether or not they violate a law, no matter how adversely they affect me or my reputation", will cause the realese to go down in flames, in any court, again for violating the principles of good faith.

very good post!!!!!  I agree with your position on this stuff.... having the legal "right" to do something doesnt always make it right.

Jorma wrote:
As a male nude model I like the following information so it's all clear up front for the photographer and myself:

Models name, address, and Date of Birth with added verification like State Drivers license etc.

I like this language:

1.  My images may be reproduced for art and portfolio presentation, including photographic and/or electronic formats, in galleries, museums, internet sites, fine art books/magazines and all other non-comercial and commercial uses unless specified herein.
2.  My images may be used in the advertising and/or publicity for the work of the Photographer.
3. I _ will _ will not, allow nude, physique-oriented "Body Images" image that may include full-length exposure of my back and sides, but may or may not include frontal exposure, as specified in Paragraphs 5 and 6.
4.  I _ will _ will not allow "Frontal Nudes" in which my genitals appear in the final image.
5.  I _ will _ will not allow "Altered Frontal Nudes" in which my genitals are permanently shadowed or hidden from view in a post-development process, and do not appear in the final image.
6.  I understand that I may exercise control over image content at the time of the Session, but they become the property of the Photographer once created, and may be used by him, as detailed and agreed, herein.
7. Images provided to me from the Photographer may be used by me in the course of my self-promotion; these images may not be used for commercial purposes in which I receive payment.
8.  My consent may be extended to commercial uses of my image, with the attachment of a Commercial Use Addendum, which shall make no other changes to the terms of this Release, except as specifically noted.  (This is a release section on sale of photos by photographer or the model commision at the end like 10%). A model can be your best sales person so cut them in on the referrals.
9.  My images may be used to create drawings, paintings, murals, airbrush paintings for art and portfolio presentation, including photographic and/or electronic formats, in galleries, museums, internet sites, fine art books/magazines and all other non-comercial and commercial uses unless specified herein.
10. Other terms:
a.  I want not only high res but some web ready shots.  So I ask for 25 high res and 25 web ready, which allows you some duplication for the photographer if a set if not great.
b.  Any disbutes will be decided in the State of _____(one which photographer resides).

No contact is any good without a date of signature by the model and photographer in most states.  Also the model and photographer both have to get a copy.

Comments?

Jorma

Several comments on the things in bold.  Let's go through them one by one:

1.  art and portfolio presentation:  The term "portfolio" is ambiguous.  Arguably it allows for a collection of pictures on an Internet pay porn site.  From Webster:

Main Entry: port·fo·lio
Pronunciation: pOrt-'fO-lE-"O, port-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -li·os
Etymology: Italian portafoglio, from portare to carry (from Latin) + foglio leaf, sheet, from Latin folium -- more at BLADE
1 : a hinged cover or flexible case for carrying loose papers, pictures, or pamphlets
2 [from the use of such a case to carry documents of state] : the office and functions of a minister of state or member of a cabinet
3 : the securities held by an investor : the commercial paper held by a financial house (as a bank)
4 : a set of pictures (as drawings or photographs) either bound in book form or loose in a folder

Under defintion 4, and your allowing use on the 'net, this can be construed more broadly than you intend.  Bear in mind, in case of ambiguity the general rule is that the issue is resolved against the person who wrote the language.  That means you lose.

2.  and all other non-comercial and commercial uses unless specified herein.  You've just given permission for the pictures to be used on milk cartons, on porn sites or to advertise gay cruises.  That's what "all other . . . commercial uses" means.

3.  I may exercise control over image content at the time of the Session, You can understand anything you like, but it's not clear what legal significance it has.  Sign the agreement at the conclusion of the session and leave this out.

4.  My consent may be extended to commercial uses of my image  Too late, it already has been.  See item 2.

5.  (This is a release section on sale of photos by photographer or the model commision at the end like 10%). A model can be your best sales person so cut them in on the referrals.  This stuff has no business being in an agreement; I assume you are including it as a commentary to the reader of this post, not in something you'd have a photographer sign.

6.  and commercial uses  Here we go again . . .

7.  I want not only high res but some web ready shots.  So I ask for 25 high res and 25 web ready, which allows you some duplication for the photographer if a set if not great.  You want.  You "ask for".  You get it or you don't.  Since the wording is not phrased as a mandatory deliverable, it has little or no legal force.  And the second part of the sentence shouldn't be in an agreement.

8.  in the State of _____  Generally it's advisable to put in the state whose laws apply as well.  If the case is tried in North Dakota but under the laws of New York, you are in a much stronger position.

9.  No contact is any good without a date of signature by the model and photographer in most states.  Also the model and photographer both have to get a copy.  This isn't a contract, it's a release.  There is nothing in it that a photographer is bound to do, and typically photographers don't sign releases.  Even if he did, I don't see how it changes the force of the document.  There is no law in most states (any that I am aware of) requiring both the model and the photographer to get copies, and saying so doesn't make it so.  Finally, although it's very advisable to get a date on the document, it isn't absolutely required - and you shouldn't say it's required in the document.

Jessica Steele wrote:
The photographer owns the rights to all of the pictures if s/he has a release from the subject (though said subject may be under contract from agency- which them endows them with commercial rights). All images can be used by all parties as personal promotion. Period.

Neither of these statements is true as a matter of law.

Agencies have no "commercial rights" to images of their models, other than the non-exclusive right to use the images of their models in promoting the model and the agency.  That in no way influences the rights of anyone else.

And for a discussion of your claim that "All images can be used by all parties as a matter of personal promotion. Period," that is false as a matter of law.  I just wrote a long post on that, above.

Le Roux wrote:
As a make-up artist, say I did a TFCD shoot...You're saying I can't make hard copies to submit anywhere without getting them from the photog?...Unless he gives me written permission to do so?  I need a waiver from him?

Legally, that's correct.  However, the more professional photographers won't worry about it.  Print shops might (those who don't customarily deal with things like comp cards especially), so it's always a good idea to get that written permission.  Photographers are seldom asked (I've only been asked three times in 30 years) but they should never object if they don't have to do any work.  Just have the form for them to sign at the shoot - and make sure the photographer gets a release for the model, and that your license form includes that you are using his authority under that release.

If a photog submits a photo and makes money off of a print, do I get a cut?

Probably not, although an interesting case could be made that you should, especially for extensive painting or artwork.  I've never seen a case that pushed the issue, but arguably you are a joint copyright holder with the photographer.  Still, that would be  a very unpopular position to take, and shouldn't be taken except under extreme provocation.

michaelrowephotography wrote:
You dont need a release if you intend on useing the images for self promotion - ie: your book, website, comp cards or business cards.

Mary wrote:
correct.  If it's your portfolio of work and you are using it ONLY to promote youreself  you dont need a release.

This is the legally more realistic view.

theda wrote:
According to strict legal minutia, anyone who is not the copyright holder should obtain a copyright waiver to reproduce the images in any form and possibly to dsiplay them in an  online profile or portfolio.  In reality, only a complete douchebag of a photographer would actually object to someone using their work in a portfolio context.

TXPhotog wrote:
Short form advice:  get a release from the model and a copyright waiver or license from the photographer.  If you don't, you are at potential peril in the future when the model changes boyfriends or the photographer gets real strapped for cash and decides he needs money more than he needs a good reputation.

People seem to think that self-promotion isn't commercial because they are not selling the photos or using it to endorse a product.  The fact is they are using the photos to endorse a product; their own photography, stylist or modeling services!  The goal is to have people look at the photos as representations of their work and as a result, book them.  Different people have had different views on this and the courts haven't published any decisions as yet.  However, the general concensus seems to be that promotional use may be construed as commercial if an action were filed.

I have offered this link before, I will do it again:  http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

Dan Heller has offered a very cogent and enlightening tutorial on model releases and when they are needed.  For a stylist to display images provided to her by a photographer, he/she would properly need a license by the photographer to display the image and a release from the model allowing the stylist to use his/her likeness to endorse her work.

As a practical matter, most photographers and models are happy to have their work on display.  If they are not, you will usually get a cease and desist letter before anyone takes action against you.

I have never understood though why photographers don't just carry a two paragraph form setting out the terms under which they provide images.  The release signed by the model to the photographer probably gives him the authority to let a stylist display the images on her site.

I agree, there is little risk when you display images for promotional purposes, but the risk is greater than zero.  My question is why would you want to expose yourself when you can protect yourself so easily?