TXPhotog wrote:

Nice try, but no cigar.  This is a classic case of where the word, as used in the law and interpreted by the courts, is quite different from the dictionary definition.

Next?

lol..sorry no law book on hand..only google..

TXPhotog wrote:
Nice try, but no cigar.  This is a classic case of where the word, as used in the law and interpreted by the courts, is quite different from the dictionary definition.

Next?

But it sounded good and her intentions were good as well.

ei Total Productions wrote:
But it sounded good and her intentions were good as well.

Thanks..I would love to hear it from the laws side..I like to learn..

Barney D - FSP wrote:
A model does not really "own" their likeness so much as they have a right to privacy. The law is kind of ambiguous though.

A model release is just written permission to do what would otherwise be considered invasion of privacy. One point of interest though, is that it doesn't apply to magazines/newspapers/news reports but anything else it generally does.

The general rule is that if it's for a magazine/etc. it can be used without permission because it's news, but for bilboards/banner ads/report covers or anything else that isn't "news" then it's an invasion of privacy.

Hope that helps.

It would have helped.... had it been correct.  But its not.
Your generalization is way off. Most images CAN be used for things other than news, if they are of an editorial nature.  But, that too is vague.  Best for the OP to ask a copyright attorney, and for others, myself included, to NOT make incorrect and in accurate assumptions...

The problem comes with publishing.. Without the models consent the image cannot be published in any way. (Unless they are a celebrity or the images is "News worthy" in which case a whole nother set of rules aply)

As someone who works in the news business, especially dealing with celebrity news, I often encounter the issue of whether I need a release for selling an image to a magazine. The test is whether the image is being used in an editorial way.

First we need to define what is meant by editorial. In the modeling world, editorial often refers to fashion modeling, where as commercial refers to advertisement modeling. In the news world, editorial refers to a use that is meant to disseminate information.

For example, assume you have a photo of a celebrity giving a keynote speech at a charity fundraiser. On the podium is a brand name bottle of water. If I write an article about the charity event for a magazine and use that photo with the article, that photo is being used in an editorial way. No model release is required. In fact, I can resell a usage license to many publications of that photo many times for other news stories that happen to mention or involve that celebrity, and I still do not need a model release.

Now assume that the maker of that bottle of water sitting on the podium wants to use that same image, that was already published many times in many magazines, to use in an advertisement for their products. I cannot sell them a usage license for that image unless I get a model release. The reason is that the manufacturer is using the image for personal gain to advertise a commercial product. Additionally, just having a celebrity in the photo next to a product implies an endorsement of the product by that celebrity.

Basically, an advertisement that uses a likeness of someone implies an endorsement of that product by that person. This is in contrast to an image used to tell a fact based story.

TXPhotog wrote:
A little thought experiment:

It's hard for models to get good, professionally useful commercial/lifestyle image.  Very few photographers know how to do them, and those that do tend not to do them for free.

Good thought experiment Roger.

Okay, let me rephrase my "should" statement, or rather ask you a question. When a commercial release is needed, don't you think it's more appropriate/professional to offer the model the opportunity to provide you his/her rates or to negotiate a non-monetary value exchange? I don't see a whole lot of negotiating. It's usually the photographers who decide what the value is to the model in exchange for a signed commercial release. Shouldn't it be the model deciding what the value is worth to him/her?

Edit: Of course, sometimes you might have to tell a model what the job pays (monetary or value exchange) and a model can accept it or not. So there's the answer to my own question!

Kelly Watkins wrote:

Good thought experiment Roger.

Okay, let me rephrase my "should" statement, or rather ask you a question. When a commercial release is needed, don't you think it's more appropriate/professional to offer the model the opportunity to provide you his/her rates or to negotiate a non-monetary value exchange? I don't see a whole lot of negotiating. It's usually the photographers who decide what the value is to the model in exchange for a signed commercial release. Shouldn't it be the model deciding what the value is worth to him/her?

She or he does ( model does)-- they can accept or say no. I have clients that have shot something I need and In return I give them something they need like a commercial headshot.

They can accept or they can decline. No money changes hands and everyone gets something they need.

Kelly Watkins wrote:
I don't see a whole lot of negotiating. It's usually the photographers who decide what the value is to the model in exchange for a signed commercial release. Shouldn't it be the model deciding what the value is worth to him/her?

Models always have the right to accept or reject any offer, or to counter-offer.  Or, as we often see (sigh . . .) simply not show up for the shoot.  Both sides have their understanding of the value proposition; each is free to act as they see fit.

TXPhotog wrote:

Models always have the right to accept or reject any offer, or to counter-offer.  Or, as we often see (sigh . . .) simply not show up for the shoot.  Both sides have their understanding of the value proposition; each is free to act as they see fit.

Yes, I just edited my post and answered my own question. Just thinking out loud here!

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:

With almost 18k posts I would say you spend alot of time TALKING..  So keep talking,  I'm going to go get some work done

He knows what he is talking about!!!

TXPhotog wrote:

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
I am just curious as to why people think models own their likeness, where does that come from.

Chris Macan wrote:
What exactly do you think the model release is for???

Exactly the right question.  And I have no idea how Mr. Sweeney would answer it, since a release seems to serve no purpose if the model doesn't have rights to use of her image.

In part this question arises from sloppy research by Mr. Sweeney:

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Take the case of Vanessa Williams and the Penthouse photos, she challenged it in court and lost so if a model owns the rights to her likeness then how come Penthouse could print those photos and the courts ruled for Penthouse.

Because she signed a freaking release!!!!!


http://books.google.com/books?id=jQhxvB … &ct=result

Partly it is because Mr. Sweeney looks at bottom line outcomes and does not consider the reason for the outcome.  Consider the issue of President Bush controlling his image.  Think about that one for a while.  Think hard.  Can you, perhaps, find a reason why he may not be able to have control over his image, but other people can?  If not, think harder.

And partly it is because Mr. Sweeney has never actually looked at a law that grants models rights to their images.  That in itself is astounding, given the number of posts he has made making claims about the law, and how many times he has told us of the excellence of his attorney.


Please, Mr. Sweeney, read a few of these, since you are unable, apparently, to find them on your own:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/c … -3346.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind … 08#0540.08

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/il … licity+Act

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/t … 6/ch1.html

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/391-00/170.PDF

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/214-3a.htm

http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002002000
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002004000
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002003000

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-597. … S597Sec770

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2741

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/T … 9-1-28.HTM
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/T … 1-28.1.HTM

http://www.preslaw.net/prpa.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/txcodes/p … 26.00.html

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE45/htm/45_03_000300.htm

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 … od+8.01-40

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.050

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0995.pdf

Thank you Roger, for providing those links - I too have been lazy in my own research.

Scott Doctor wrote:

As someone who works in the news business, especially dealing with celebrity news, I often encounter the issue of whether I need a release for selling an image to a magazine. The test is whether the image is being used in an editorial way.

First we need to define what is meant by editorial. In the modeling world, editorial often refers to fashion modeling, where as commercial refers to advertisement modeling. In the news world, editorial refers to a use that is meant to disseminate information.

For example, assume you have a photo of a celebrity giving a keynote speech at a charity fundraiser. On the podium is a brand name bottle of water. If I write an article about the charity event for a magazine and use that photo with the article, that photo is being used in an editorial way. No model release is required. In fact, I can resell a usage license to many publications of that photo many times for other news stories that happen to mention or involve that celebrity, and I still do not need a model release.

Now assume that the maker of that bottle of water sitting on the podium wants to use that same image, that was already published many times in many magazines, to use in an advertisement for their products. I cannot sell them a usage license for that image unless I get a model release. The reason is that the manufacturer is using the image for personal gain to advertise a commercial product. Additionally, just having a celebrity in the photo next to a product implies an endorsement of the product by that celebrity.

Basically, an advertisement that uses a likeness of someone implies an endorsement of that product by that person. This is in contrast to an image used to tell a fact based story.

Bravo and well put!  You've elaborated on "editorial vs. commercial" in a way that even I can understand!

Kelly Watkins wrote:
But I do agree that models need to be careful about what they are signing and who they are shooting with. I also agree that models should be paid for projects requiring a commercial release. Photos being provided to models in lieu of monetary compensation is a bunch of BS if you ask me.

How much does a good portfolio session cost from some photographers?

So if they offered a portfolio shoot in trade for a signed release for some commercial project, that is BS?

Kelly Watkins wrote:
Good thought experiment Roger.

Okay, let me rephrase my "should" statement, or rather ask you a question. When a commercial release is needed, don't you think it's more appropriate/professional to offer the model the opportunity to provide you his/her rates or to negotiate a non-monetary value exchange? I don't see a whole lot of negotiating. It's usually the photographers who decide what the value is to the model in exchange for a signed commercial release. Shouldn't it be the model deciding what the value is worth to him/her?

Edit: Of course, sometimes you might have to tell a model what the job pays (monetary or value exchange) and a model can accept it or not. So there's the answer to my own question!

Kelly, the model DOES decide; whether or not the photographers gives them a rate or asks them for a rate.

By accepting the job, they have decided.

By refusing/counter-offering, they have decided.

I see no reason why a photographer/client should be obligated to ask someone for their rate.