Damianne wrote:
I'm considering paying for some pictures and while I see a lot of templates for model releases, I don't see any for photographer releases.

I want to get a comprehensive template I can work with to tailor to my needs so I have complete rights to the photos.


Anyone have one?

I think you are looking for a Usage Agreement/License and/or a Shoot Contract.

Damianne wrote:
I'm considering paying for some pictures and while I see a lot of templates for model releases, I don't see any for photographer releases.

I want to get a comprehensive template I can work with to tailor to my needs so I have complete rights to the photos.


Anyone have one?

Photographers have complete rights to the photos. You can find forms for usage of photos.

ASTERCHILD wrote:

Photographers have complete rights to the photos. You can find forms for usage of photos.

That's why I need a form, because if I'm paying for them, I want complete rights to the photos.

Damianne wrote:

That's why I need a form, because if I'm paying for them, I want complete rights to the photos.

Damianne, without knowing it you have stepped into a mine field. There are many threads on MM that argue copyright vs. usage agreements. In  the US, photographers hold copyright to their photos and are very protective of that. A good professional photographer will generally not sell his copyright cheaply. A photographer will however generally sign an agreement for specific usage and the price will vary on the usage desired [type, media, length of time, etc].

You need to find a photographer and talk to them about their business model and find one that matches what you want to do for a price you are willing to pay.

Good Luck.

Merlyn Magic Photo wrote:

Damianne, without knowing it you have stepped into a mine field. There are many threads on MM that argue copyright vs. usage agreements. In  the US, photographers hold copyright to their photos and are very protective of that. A good professional photographer will generally not sell his copyright cheaply. A photographer will however generally sign an agreement for specific usage and the price will vary on the usage desired [type, media, length of time, etc].

You need to find a photographer and talk to them about their business model and find one that matches what you want to do for a price you are willing to pay.

Good Luck.

I just want a form.

I would of course discuss all of this with the photographer.

Damianne wrote:
I just want a form.

I would of course discuss all of this with the photographer.

See that's the thing, a generic form might not cover all the areas you'll need and without asking the photographer first about usage and rates and whatnot, just showing up with a form and asking a photographer to fill it in and sign it would be a waste of a sheet of paper and both your times. Not trying to be difficult here, just letting you know that some photographers will work with you to get you what you need/want and others will just say "next".

And, btw, some pros will already have the form for usage and you can look that over and see if it fits your needs, so talking to the photographer first would be my suggestion.

Merlyn Magic Photo wrote:

See that's the thing, a generic form might not cover all the areas you'll need and without asking the photographer first about usage and rates and whatnot, just showing up with a form and asking a photographer to fill it in and sign it would be a waste of a sheet of paper and both your times. Not trying to be difficult here, just letting you know that some photographers will work with you to get you what you need/want and others will just say "next".

And, btw, some pros will already have the form for usage and you can look that over and see if it fits your needs, so talking to the photographer first would be my suggestion.

Certainly. I simply like to be prepared and I am looking for something basic that I can tailor to cover the things that I won't be backing down on. I'm coming into it with specific requests that I want to be able to cover with my own legalities if the need arises.

This is like, I'm paying for the photos so I would require my permission to post them, I would be the only one allowed to sell them, I have control over the product.

That's not unreasonable and I'm really just looking for something I can tweak that means if the photographer doesn't have a release that fits that, I'm doing the work and not bothering him with it.

studio36uk wrote:
Paying to have the work done does not pay for the use of it. They are two different things. The later usually involving more money.

Clients [you in this case] sometimes speak about getting "all rights" but they seldom need "all rights", or, even more seldom, want to pay for them when they find out the cost.

Studio36

I don't really want to pay for photos in the first place, so if I decide to, I'm willing to put up more money to get what I want from it.

If I'm going to pay for it, I'm not going to half-ass it. I'll be securing the MUA, hair, and wardrobe for the shoot and I'm willing to pay to make sure I get the quality and rights I wanted from it.

Damianne wrote:
This is like, I'm paying for the photos so I would require my permission to post them, I would be the only one allowed to sell them, I have control over the product.

That's not unreasonable

Actually, I think you will find that most professionals will think it is.

You are asking to control their property (that is what copyright means).

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Actually, I think you will find that most professionals will think it is.

You are asking to control their property (that is what copyright means).

I think I'll be getting the form I want... Now I'm super curious as to why?

W Lawrence Stevens wrote:
What you need to be thinking about is a written agreement which specifically states that the photographer is creating a specially commissioned work under the engagement; the work is being done solely on a "work for hire" basis; to the extent that the work for hire provisions of the copyright act do not apply, the photographer irretrivably transfers any and all rights (including copyright) to the photos to you as the party engaging his services, in perpetuity. 

If you pay, you should own completely.  Follow the above and you will.

Besides a bit of glamour photography, I am also an intellectual property lawyer.  (See, WeinLawGroup.com.)

Cheers!

Steven

Why thank you very much. So I'm looking to make this specifically "work for hire", and mention that the rights are transferred to me?

JohnStJohn Photography wrote:
Good question!!!!

I'll pm you...

Photographs for hire.   But then the creative side has to be yours..  just tell the photographer when to click the shutter..  where to put the lights,   even how to retouch.  Then the complete rights could (Maybe) be totally yours..

Harold Rose wrote:

Photographs for hire.   But then the creative side has to be yours..  just tell the photographer when to click the shutter..  where to put the lights,   even how to retouch.  Then the complete rights could (Maybe) be totally yours..

Well if I'm going to tell them exactly how to make a photograph happen, I might as well just get my boyfriend to do it and then do the editing myself.

I might do that, but aren't I paying for the photographer's ability to make photos happen?

SouthFLpix wrote:
What you want is the photographer to sign over his copyright. I do not think you realize how expensive it is going to be to secure that from an established photographer.

There is no 'template' form that you can download simply because this rarely happens in the real world. Most clients get usage rights to the photos, but the photographer still retains the copyright.

You don't need a long winded and complex template either. This is fine....

I _________ (photographer) agree to hand over copyright of the photos that I was commissioned to take on _______(date) by _________ (client), in exchange for the following consideration _________ (fee paid).


You should listen to the advice above that all you need is a usage license. To outright buy copyright is going to cost twice to three times as much as just securing a usage license. It's really just not worth it. Why throw money away? Use it for other stuff that can help your career.

What is the difference between usage and copyright for us?

Damianne wrote:
Well if I'm going to tell them exactly how to make a photograph happen, I might as well just get my boyfriend to do it and then do the editing myself.

I might do that, but aren't I paying for the photographer's ability to make photos happen?

What they are saying is that the photographer owns the copyright because it is his art, his thought process, and his work therefore he owns it.

If you think that your boyfriend, assuming he isn't a photographer, can just snap you up some professional photos and then you can just professionally edit them then do that.

The way you come off on this thread is holier than thou. If you have no respect for photographers as professionals and artists then they shouldn't have respect for you as a 'model'. Don't act like you are doing a photographer a favor by paying them, you aren't. That is the definition of a professional, someone that gets PAID. If you want professional then pay for it, if you don't then get your boyfriend to do it.

Damianne wrote:
What is the difference between usage and copyright for us?

Copyright means you 'own' the photos. This gives you the right to sell them to clients either as prints, or as commercial images to be used in the promotion of services or products.

Unless you are a celebrity who's name is a 'money making label' it's just not worth it to buy the copyright for yourself. Basically copyright is for people that want to sell  photos.

Anything else other then selling the photos, you can do with an appropriate usage license.

SouthFLpix wrote:
What you want is the photographer to sign over his copyright. I do not think you realize how expensive it is going to be to secure that from an established photographer.

To outright buy copyright is going to cost twice to three times as much as just securing a usage license.

+1

SouthFLpix wrote:
Basically copyright is for people that want to sell  photos.

Anything else other then selling the photos, you can do with an appropriate usage license.

as part of the usage license she can also buy the rights to make prints and sell them without buying full copyright if that's what OP is looking for.

There are models who gain an income from selling prints and coffee table books  or use on paid websites and etc, so such situations aren't uncommon if the OP is looking to hire a photographer and gain control of the work.

Damianne wrote:
What is the difference between usage and copyright for us?

It is obvious you don't understand.  You're thinking how you think it should be, as oppose to how it is.

PLEASE read http://www.newmodels.com/Releases.html to understand Model Releases and http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html to understand Usage Licenses. 

You can buy the copyrights, but as everyone has said, it will be extremely expensive to buy a photographer's intellectual property.  All you truly need is a Usage License.

Christy - Lynn wrote:

What they are saying is that the photographer owns the copyright because it is his art, his thought process, and his work therefore he owns it.

If you think that your boyfriend, assuming he isn't a photographer, can just snap you up some professional photos and then you can just professionally edit them then do that.

The way you come off on this thread is holier than thou. If you have no respect for photographers as professionals and artists then they shouldn't have respect for you as a 'model'. Don't act like you are doing a photographer a favor by paying them, you aren't. That is the definition of a professional, someone that gets PAID. If you want professional then pay for it, if you don't then get your boyfriend to do it.

My boyfriend is a photographer, and a damn good one, he just likes shooting product shots instead and I'm enjoying running around town collaborating with others.

I'm really not trying to be "holier than thou". I just thought that if I was paying for shots (and I definitely respect both sides of this work) then I should be getting the rights to them.

I don't think I'm doing anyone a favor, I'm just trying to protect everyone involved. I want to be able to use the photos for whatever I deem necessary, and sell them if that ever comes up. I want to be able to publish them if that seems like something I feel like doing.

Please don't assume I don't respect the photographers I work with. I really do, and I would of course discuss everything with the photographers I'm considering working with, and tweak this form to tailor the situation. If it's usage rights that fit my needs, then that's what I'll come to it with. I just think it's polite to do the work to make the form and print it out and bring it if I'm concerned about getting something specific together, rather than discussing it and expecting the photographer to have a release that fits our shoot specifically.

W Lawrence Stevens wrote:
What you need to be thinking about is a written agreement which specifically states that the photographer is creating a specially commissioned work under the engagement; the work is being done solely on a "work for hire" basis; to the extent that the work for hire provisions of the copyright act do not apply, the photographer irretrivably transfers any and all rights (including copyright) to the photos to you as the party engaging his services, in perpetuity. 

If you pay, you should own completely.  Follow the above and you will.

Besides a bit of glamour photography, I am also an intellectual property lawyer.  (See, WeinLawGroup.com.)

Cheers!

Steven

Would you sign that agreement, Steven?

D Magi Visual Concepts wrote:
It is obvious you don't understand.  You're thinking how you think it should be, as oppose to how it is.

PLEASE read http://www.newmodels.com/Releases.html to understand Model Releases and http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html to understand Usage Licenses. 

You can buy the copyrights, but as everyone has said, it will be extremely expensive to buy a photographer's intellectual property.  All you truly need is a Usage License.

Ok... so I need a super in depth usage license.

I don't really have a problem with the photographer using photos I paid for as self promotion (obviously, why would I restrict any exposure) but most of the issue is paying for the photos.

When I do a TF* shoot or I'm paid for a shoot, I sign a release that allows me to use my photos for self promotion and I ask permission for things like comp cards (never been an issue). I also am very clear that if anyone wants to buy a print of that photo, I will be either communicating with the photographer to make sure he is included as much as he/she cares to be or the deal is done with the photographer. This hasn't come up yet but I of course have a quick exchange to make sure they know I understand this.

I want to make sure that if I paid for the photos and the photographer sells them at some point or uses them say in an advertisement for themselves and publishes them, I am compensated.
Since I paid for them, they are mine, that's what I'm trying to get here.

Would I be able to use a usage license for that or would I need to purchase the copyrights?

Damianne wrote:
Ok... so I need a super in depth usage license.

I don't really have a problem with the photographer using photos I paid for as self promotion (obviously, why would I restrict any exposure) but most of the issue is paying for the photos.

When I do a TF* shoot or I'm paid for a shoot, I sign a release that allows me to use my photos for self promotion and I ask permission for things like comp cards (never been an issue). I also am very clear that if anyone wants to buy a print of that photo, I will be either communicating with the photographer to make sure he is included as much as he/she cares to be or the deal is done with the photographer. This hasn't come up yet but I of course have a quick exchange to make sure they know I understand this.

I want to make sure that if I paid for the photos and the photographer sells them at some point or uses them say in an advertisement for themselves and publishes them, I am compensated.
Since I paid for them, they are mine, that's what I'm trying to get here.

Would I be able to use a usage license for that or would I need to purchase the copyrights?

If you are paying the photographer, you should get a usage license.  He would need for you to sign a model release in order for HIM to  "use them say in an advertisement for themselves and publishes them".  If you don't want him to be able to sell them, don't sign a model release! 

I don't know of any photographer who would require a model release if he's getting paid by the model for the shoot.

D Magi Visual Concepts wrote:

If you are paying the photographer, you should get a usage license.  He would need for you to sign a model release in order for HIM to  "uses them say in an advertisement for themselves and publishes them".  If you don't want him to be able to sell them, don't sign a model release! 

I don't know of any photographer who would require a model release if he's getting paid by the model for the shoot.

So I have implicit rights to my image?

Damianne wrote:

I think I'll be getting the form I want... Now I'm super curious as to why?

Why would most professionals consider it unreasonable?

Because it is their property. What you are paying for is very limited rights unless you are paying this photographer thousands of dollars (likely over ten thousand).

The agreement Steven suggested? I would never sign. Wouldn't sign a similar agreement with Conde Nast publications, certainly not going to sign it with a model. When I shot advertising and catalogs, no client ever asked me to sign such an agreement. They were paying for me to get the shot they wanted and then for limited usage of the photographs (single advertising usage in 3 national magazines, one year use in a catalog, single cover of a trade magazine, etc.). I'd guess that all of them were paying a lot more than you are. That is how professional photography for publication is usually priced, by usage. A photographer who signed the agreement suggested is putting themselves into the position of quickly getting a reputation of not knowing how to look out for their own rights.

Damianne wrote:

So I have implicit rights to my image?

That is a separate issue.  Don't confuse that with copyrights and Usage Licenses.

Damianne wrote:
So I have implicit rights to my image?

Under privacy statutes, you have a right that your image not be used commercially without your permission. That is why advertising use, catalog use, stock use... all require model releases.

I used to use a model release in my tests that allowed for stock sales and gave the model a percentage of the selling price should such a sale occur. It was a win-win. Allowed me to place the images with my stock agency for potential income, allowed the model to make money if the image sold.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Why would most professionals consider it unreasonable?

Because it is their property. What you are paying for is very limited rights unless you are paying this photographer thousands of dollars (likely over ten thousand).

The agreement Steven suggested? I would never sign. Wouldn't sign a similar agreement with Conde Nast publications, certainly not going to sign it with a model. When I shot advertising and catalogs, no client ever asked me to sign such an agreement. They were paying for me to get the shot they wanted and then for limited usage of the photographs (single advertising usage in 3 national magazines, one year use in a catalog, single cover of a trade magazine, etc.). I'd guess that all of them were paying a lot more than you are. That is how professional photography for publication is usually priced, by usage. A photographer who signed the agreement suggested is putting themselves into the position of quickly getting a reputation of not knowing how to look out for their own rights.

Well stated.

ASTERCHILD wrote:
Photographers have complete rights to the photos. You can find forms for usage of photos.

Damianne wrote:
That's why I need a form, because if I'm paying for them, I want complete rights to the photos.

If you are wanting complete rights, you will need a copyright assignment from the photographer.  You can accomplish that with one or two sentences.  Understand however that I would normally not shoot under those terms (many others will not either).  But, if I did, my rates would triple or even quadruple. 

Do you really want copyright or do you just want full commercial usage?

Those are two different things.  If you want commercial usage, I would just charge you my commercial day rate.

Digitoxin wrote:

ASTERCHILD wrote:
Photographers have complete rights to the photos. You can find forms for usage of photos.

If you are wanting complete rights, you will need a copyright assignment from the photographer.  You can accomplish that with one or two sentences.  Understand however that I would normally not shoot under those terms (many others will not either).  But, if I did, my rates would triple or even quadruple. 

Do you really want copyright or do you just want full commercial usage?

Those are two different things.  If you want commercial usage, I would just charge you my commercial day rate.

Well I seem to not need copyright for what I want, I guess beyond the typical usage I want to be involved in publications or sales involving the photos I paid for.

Would commercial usage be what I'm looking for?

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Why would most professionals consider it unreasonable?

Because it is their property. What you are paying for is very limited rights unless you are paying this photographer thousands of dollars (likely over ten thousand).

The agreement Steven suggested? I would never sign. Wouldn't sign a similar agreement with Conde Nast publications, certainly not going to sign it with a model. When I shot advertising and catalogs, no client ever asked me to sign such an agreement. They were paying for me to get the shot they wanted and then for limited usage of the photographs (single advertising usage in 3 national magazines, one year use in a catalog, single cover of a trade magazine, etc.). I'd guess that all of them were paying a lot more than you are. That is how professional photography for publication is usually priced, by usage. A photographer who signed the agreement suggested is putting themselves into the position of quickly getting a reputation of not knowing how to look out for their own rights.

Alright well I don't need to pay for the right to use their copyright for my own uses, I don't want that.

It's the images I'm concerned with... I'm sure if I sold one of their images or published it and wanted to use their watermark on it so everyone could ooh and aah over how I got to work with such a fantastic photographer, we could discuss the specific case.

Damianne wrote:
I don't think I'm doing anyone a favor, I'm just trying to protect everyone involved. I want to be able to use the photos for whatever I deem necessary, and sell them if that ever comes up. I want to be able to publish them if that seems like something I feel like doing.

Please don't assume I don't respect the photographers I work with. I really do, and I would of course discuss everything with the photographers I'm considering working with, and tweak this form to tailor the situation. If it's usage rights that fit my needs, then that's what I'll come to it with. I just think it's polite to do the work to make the form and print it out and bring it if I'm concerned about getting something specific together, rather than discussing it and expecting the photographer to have a release that fits our shoot specifically.

What you need is a useage agreement.  You can do everything you want with a useage agreement and still save yourself a ton of money vs buying the copyright outright.

The difference would be you paying a photographer 500 for a useage agreement and 5000 for a copyright.  That's on the cheap side depending on what level of talent you pay for.
You won't find this form at office depot,  it isn't a 200 buck online divorce.  Your asking an individual to give up rights to his intellectual property.

The work for hire option was mentioned before.  I'm not as familar with that as i should be.

You should be negotiating with the photographer over the phone and via email. Don't be afraid to negotiate, haggle or wheel and deal.  You are in a  position to do something we photographers do all the time with models.  You get to say. "Next"  Until you find one and negotiate an acceptable agreement.

Damianne wrote:
I want to make sure that if I paid for the photos and the photographer sells them at some point or uses them say in an advertisement for themselves and publishes them, I am compensated.
Since I paid for them, they are mine, that's what I'm trying to get here.

Would I be able to use a usage license for that or would I need to purchase the copyrights?

A simple contract between you and the photographer that spells out the terms of the deal would be fine (he can't sell images for revenue).  You pay him and you get a usage license to use the images in the manner that you wish. 

Understand however that if you wish to use the images to generate revenue for yourself, you will be paying the photographer a much higher fee than just a testing rate.  You will pay a full commercial rate.

Does that make sense??

Cain Quixote wrote:

What you need is a useage agreement.  You can do everything you want with a useage agreement and still save yourself a ton of money vs buying the copyright outright.

The difference would be you paying a photographer 500 for a useage agreement and 5000 for a copyright.  That's on the cheap side depending on what level of talent you pay for.
You won't find this form at office depot,  it isn't a 200 buck online divorce.  Your asking an individual to give up rights to his intellectual property.

The work for hire option was mentioned before.  I'm not as familar with that as i should be.

You should be negotiating with the photographer over the phone and via email. Don't be afraid to negotiate, haggle or wheel and deal.  You are in a  position to do something we photographers do all the time with models.  You get to say. "Next"  Until you find one and negotiate an acceptable agreement.

Certainly. I have no problem with deciding not to pay for a shoot if we're not on the same page.

I'm trying to do the leg work and find out what I'm asking for, rather than coming into it sounding like an idiot.