ML Ph0t0graphy wrote:
Okay so I tried posting something similar before but got no responses.

New question

If you're doing a shoot with dogs and models, what type of release form (general one) would you give the owner to sign? It's a TF, and I'm letting them use the photos for almost anything but not to sell. But that's not the issue, just want to know if there's a type of form, especially since the models are also in the photo, not just their dogs.

To shoot with an owners pet you would need a property release.

ML Ph0t0graphy wrote:
Okay so I tried posting something similar before but got no responses.

New question

If you're doing a shoot with dogs and models, what type of release form (general one) would you give the owner to sign? It's a TF, and I'm letting them use the photos for almost anything but not to sell. But that's not the issue, just want to know if there's a type of form, especially since the models are also in the photo, not just their dogs.

I would give the owners a PROPERTY release to sign (in the US) -- as dogs are personal property and I would provide the owners with a USAGE LICENSE for them to use the resulting images in the manner(s) that were agreed before the shoot.

Digitoxin wrote:

I would give the owners a PROPERTY release to sign (in the US) -- as dogs are personal property and I would provide the owners with a USAGE LICENSE for them to use the resulting images in the manner(s) that were agreed before the shoot.

I need a license also? What if they only sign a release, that can't include what usage I allow?

Digitoxin wrote:
I would give the owners a PROPERTY release to sign (in the US) -- as dogs are personal property and I would provide the owners with a USAGE LICENSE for them to use the resulting images in the manner(s) that were agreed before the shoot.

ML Ph0t0graphy wrote:
I need a license also? What if they only sign a release, that can't include what usage I allow?

If your release includes a usage license, that is fine (although I don't recommend it). 

I am concerned that you may be mixing the USAGES that are granted to you in a Release (the rights to use the subject's likeness) with the USAGES YOU will grant in a USAGE LICENSE (the rights to use the images in a certain manner).

Digitoxin wrote:

Digitoxin wrote:
I would give the owners a PROPERTY release to sign (in the US) -- as dogs are personal property and I would provide the owners with a USAGE LICENSE for them to use the resulting images in the manner(s) that were agreed before the shoot.

If your release includes a usage license, that is fine (although I don't recommend it). 

I am concerned that you may be mixing the USAGES that are granted to you in a Release (the rights to use the subject's likeness) with the USAGES YOU will grant in a USAGE LICENSE (the rights to use the images in a certain manner).

I guess I was hoping I could put both. But yea that's true I guess I should make two. Just need to put a usage license together then.

Life Is Great Images wrote:
"I would give the owners a PROPERTY release to sign (in the US) -- as dogs are personal property and I would provide the owners with a USAGE LICENSE for them to use the resulting images in the manner(s) that were agreed before the shoot."



I just checked with my dog and he disagrees.   He does not consider himself property and he wants a regular model release.

HAHAHA that is so cute.
I have a property release form now, just need to find a usage license. I found one online which I'm trying to fix around to my terms, but it's so hard to read that I'm worried I might change the wrong thing...I hate all the technicalities!

Life Is Great Images wrote:
I just checked with my dog and he disagrees.   He does not consider himself property and he wants a regular model release.

neither does Pie Bear.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/100000

Digitoxin wrote:

neither does Pie Bear.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/100000

that's hilarious

ML Ph0t0graphy wrote:
If you're doing a shoot with dogs and models, what type of release form (general one) would you give the owner to sign?

the answer is, it depends.

first, animals do not have privacy rights.  second, unless the dog is trademarked then no release would be required.

while dogs may be considered "property" the only resultant damages that could arise would be if the dog was presented under false light that could also do harm to the owner through loss of potential marketability of the dog and its associated brand.

lassie would be one such example.  if a collie is photographed and presented as timmy's best friend then there may be cause for action as lassie is a trademarked brand.  even though the original lassie is dead, the association between the collie and the name remains under trademark.  take a picture of a collie with no such association then it's just a picture of a collie and can be presented without a release.

another example "might" be dogs with potential breeding at stake such as champions, but again it would go to presenting under false light that might limit and/or distort value.

woof!

空 wrote:
I checked into this with a lawyer in NY several years ago and was told I could have a case if someone tried to use images of my dogs without permission.

BINGO!!

空 wrote:
I checked into this with a lawyer in NY several years ago and was told I could have a case if someone tried to use images of my dogs without permission.

Would he have taken it on contingency?

In New York the only possible relevant law that I can find is Civil Rights law articles 50 and 51, neither of which seems to apply to dogs.  What was the cause of action?

Again, please - anyone - find me a case where anything like this has actually happened.  The only lawyer I know who specializes in this stuff says they are not necessary.

TXPhotog wrote:

Would he have taken it on contingency?

In New York the only possible relevant law that I can find is Civil Rights law articles 50 and 51, neither of which seems to apply to dogs.  What was the cause of action?

Again, please - anyone - find me a case where anything like this has actually happened.  The only lawyer I know who specializes in this stuff says they are not necessary.

Try and use my dog and see what hell I can make your life for a few years. (For example that is.) Win or lose.

von mcknelly wrote:
Try and use my dog and see what hell I can make your life for a few years. (For example that is.) Win or lose.

Chest thumping really isn't helpful. 

What cause of action would you use in pleading the case in court?

TXPhotog wrote:
Would he have taken it on contingency?

In New York the only possible relevant law that I can find is Civil Rights law articles 50 and 51, neither of which seems to apply to dogs.  What was the cause of action?

Again, please - anyone - find me a case where anything like this has actually happened.  The only lawyer I know who specializes in this stuff says they are not necessary.

they are not, I had hired some animals for a commercial shoot, the owners of Animal "models" are extremely protective of the animal and will not let it be shot outside of the job, mainly because they know that they have no protection, we had no release for a major campaign at the time, and the lawyers would have known as would the animal agency if it were needed. 

While it would be nice to think they have some protection, they really do not.  Kind of like shooting a bird in the wild, just happens to be owned, you can still use the image all you want.     

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

TXPhotog wrote:
I would be obliged if anyone can find for me an example of an animal (or at least an animal which was not already famous and branded) which was used in a photo and the person publishing it was successfully sued.  I know of no such case, and of no legal requirement for any kind of release.

Yes, I know that there are those who seem to feel that a "property release" is required . . .  but I can't find any case law justification for it.

I also note that one attorney who frequently writes on these matters agrees with me.  Please see the article on property releases here:  www.photoattorney.com/2006_05_01_photoa … chive.html

Thanks for the link Roger. I liked this line a lot: "While it is safer to get a release, it is even safer to keep your camera in the bag. Don't let fear inhibit your photography."

TXPhotog wrote:

Chest thumping really isn't helpful. 

What cause of action would you use in pleading the case in court?

What I'm saying is how complicated could I make your life if I was to drag you into court. (win or lose)

von mcknelly wrote:
What I'm saying is how complicated could I make your life if I was to drag you into court. (win or lose)

By that same logic, I could sue you over your avatar, win or lose and complicate your life as well.  You are aware there are potential issues with doing things like that right?  Most courts frown upon people wasting their time and bringing frivolous lawsuits.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

von mcknelly wrote:
What I'm saying is how complicated could I make your life if I was to drag you into court. (win or lose)

Oh horseshit.

I guarantee you I would countersue your ass for abuse of process and get my legal fees paid. 

That's nothing but empty posturing, for which there is no foundation whatsoever.  We really don't need that kind of blatant nonsense on the forums.

TXPhotog wrote:
We really don't need that kind of blatant nonsense on the forums.

I would hide it, but then both our posts would make no sense, and I would get yelled at by members in site related for abuse and censorship 

 


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

StephenEastwood wrote:

I would hide it, but then both our posts would make no sense, and I would get yelled at by members in site related for abuse and censorship 

 


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Easy solution.  Hide everything relating to his silly post.

Swank Photography wrote:

To shoot with an owners pet you would need a property release.

Untrue. This is the second thread you have posted this incorrect information...please stop posting this or cite the law which makes your assertion correct.

TXPhotog wrote:

Easy solution.  Hide everything relating to his silly post.

Only if you were going to spend the next week with them in SR explaining why and also pointing out that I cannot censor them since I don't work for the government, But they never understand any of it in there. 


/hijack 



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

StephenEastwood wrote:

By that same logic, I could sue you over your avatar, win or lose and complicate your life as well.  You are aware there are potential issues with doing things like that right?  Most courts frown upon people wasting their time and bringing frivolous lawsuits.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Oh and life is fair and people love each other no matter what in perfect harmony? There are sorts out there that make a living off of this sort of thing. Sometimes they win sometimes they don't. If you don't believe that....

TXPhotog wrote:

Oh horseshit.

I guarantee you I would countersue your ass for abuse of process and get my legal fees paid. 

That's nothing but empty posturing, for which there is no foundation whatsoever.  We really don't need that kind of blatant nonsense on the forums.

Who is pounding their chest now?

If the suit has even a decent base to it and I was told it would,
then good luck getting your legal fees paid.

You would likely be paying mine.

von mcknelly wrote:

Oh and life is fair and people love each other no matter what in perfect harmony? There are sorts out there that make a living off of this sort of thing. Sometimes they win sometimes they don't. If you don't believe that....

I do believe that, but absent good faith, you can be counter sued and lose for bringing false court cases.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

ML Ph0t0graphy wrote:
Okay so I tried posting something similar before but got no responses.

New question

If you're doing a shoot with dogs and models, what type of release form (general one) would you give the owner to sign? It's a TF, and I'm letting them use the photos for almost anything but not to sell. But that's not the issue, just want to know if there's a type of form, especially since the models are also in the photo, not just their dogs.

The pawprint will do.

空 wrote:
Who is pounding their chest now?

If the suit has even a decent base to it and I was told it would,
then good luck getting your legal fees paid.

You would likely be paying mine.

What is that "decent base"?  What is the cause of action?  Which tort?

I can find no case law - none, zero, zilch - which supports your lawyer's position.  That is particularly true in New York, where you are, since there is NO right of privacy other than Civil Rights laws 50 and 51.  No common law cause of action at all, for people, let alone for dogs.  If you can find any justification for that alleged statement by your lawyer, I'd really like to see it.  Otherwise I have to believe one of the following:

1.  He was willing to take your money to file a meritless suit (not unheard of among lawyers)

2.  There is more to the story you haven't told us that somehow made for a cause of action other than the obvious one

3.  You misunderstood or misremembered

4.  He was incompetent in this area of the law.

von mcknelly wrote:
Oh and life is fair and people love each other no matter what in perfect harmony? There are sorts out there that make a living off of this sort of thing. Sometimes they win sometimes they don't. If you don't believe that....

I believe any advice given on this forum about legal requirements for something ought to have some basis in law, not just the perversity of the human soul.  Yours has none.  If you want to make the case that you personally are something of an ass who would abuse the legal system with a meritless lawsuit, at least say that is what you are doing, instead of acting as though somehow it answered the OP's question.

StephenEastwood wrote:

I do believe that, but absent good faith, you can be counter sued and lose for bringing false court cases.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

OK say that is true. If I make a living out of taking people to court, I have the best lawyers and a false name. Find me if you can. We can be taken by surprise any time anywhere. Get a release no matter what is my rule.

StephenEastwood wrote:

Only if you were going to spend the next week with them in SR explaining why and also pointing out that I cannot censor them since I don't work for the government, But they never understand any of it in there. 


/hijack 



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

In effect you just said (and I concur, by the way) that this shining new MM capability is of zero value, since moderators will never have the courage to use it.

von mcknelly wrote:
OK say that is true. If I make a living out of taking people to court, I have the best lawyers and a false name. Find me if you can.

That's easy.  We don't have to find you.  We serve your lawyer.

You really, seriously don't understand this stuff, do you?

von mcknelly wrote:
We can be taken by surprise any time anywhere. Get a release no matter what is my rule.

For all I care you can also have a rule to bay at the moon on alternate Thursdays.  But if you are going to give advice to someone else, you'd damned well better have a good reason for it . . . and you don't.

TXPhotog wrote:
In effect you just said (and I concur, by the way) that this shining new MM capability is of zero value, since moderators will never have the courage to use it.

No, some use it, I did at first, and had a shitstorm occur over hiding two posts of LOL cat photos and one gif of samuel L jackson.  So I decided to ask what the members preferred, they said leave it and brig, so I will.  But that is me, from the SR threads I see, some claim other mods are abusing it.....  You cannot win.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com