MC Grain wrote:

Um, ok. So if a model gives me a release to use a photo in an advertisement, can I turn around and allow a third party to use that in their advertisement? I think that's what most people believe a release allows them to do, but I've never seen anything to confirm or deny that.

I mean a release that doesn't contain language to specifically allow that.

That would depend on the proper construction of the language in the release.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Than you can use it in that advertisement and thats all

I should specify that I mean a release that has wording saying that "the photos may be used in advertisements" without specifying who's advertisements.

Or something like "unlimited commercial exploitation". I can see how a photographer might believe that allows them to sell it to a third party for use in their advertisements.

When I said transferable before, I should have said assignable.

MC Grain wrote:

I should specify that I mean a release that has wording saying that "the photos may be used in advertisements" without specifying who's advertisements.

Or something like "unlimited commercial exploitation". I can see how a photographer might believe that allows them to sell it to a third party for use in their advertisements.

When I said transferable before, I should have said assignable.

This wording would allow that:

"They have the irrevocable, perpetual and unrestricted right and permission to take, use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included, in whole or in part, or composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or alterations, in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproductions thereof in color or otherwise, made through any medium at his/her studios or elsewhere, and in any and all media now or hereafter known, specifically including but not limited to print media and distribution over the internet for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising, trade, or [any other purpose whatsoever]."

Again it depends what the shoot is...if its TF I would never sign that.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
This wording would allow that:

"They have the irrevocable, perpetual and unrestricted right and permission to take, use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included, in whole or in part, or composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or alterations, in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproductions thereof in color or otherwise, made through any medium at his/her studios or elsewhere, and in any and all media now or hereafter known, specifically including but not limited to print media and distribution over the internet for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising, trade, or [any other purpose whatsoever]."

Again it depends what the shoot is...if its TF I would never sign that.

Basically nobody is gonna shoot me for free and then have unlimited neverending rights to sell or use my image for anything they want to....USUALLY for trade it would be limited to self promotion in a portfolio, online or print. And thats all....of course it really depends on the exact purpose of the shoot. 

Didnt mean to quote myself, lol

joephotonyc wrote:
I can still publish anything I  created (co-created) with other authors and myself and register it for copyright. I don't need anything else. If I were to sell the registered works then I may end up with a civil case with co author I guess but as I never sell anything its not an issue.

I have been in many court cases in courts and grand juries and every time I got asked did I take these photos etc and it did not matter what what documents were there to support the photographs.Just like a Medical Examiner has to testify about an autopsy they performed.

As if you read the complete thread many morph model releases with usage agreements also.

I also understand that photographers prefer to sign their ass away and get/ try to get the models to do the same and play the paranoid game, I am not one of them.

Back in past years, before going commercial,  I also did not sell imags so I was not concerned with releases. Now, looking back I wish to hell I had concerned  myself with releases because some of those images would be marketable as hell.

As for your court testiminy, you are exactly right,but I have no idea what showingphotos incourt has to do with our current topic. BTW, I did forensic photography for close to 17, taught it for a good 14 years the book I mentioned having been commercially published was a textbook on forensic photography, including both crime scene and surveillance techniques.   

As for morphing releases  and useage agreements, I'llagree wtih you on that. It can be a terrible and costly mistake.

As for photographers signing  "their ass away", maybe you are right, but I have not solicited a model for a good 10 years, so I've signed nothing away. The ladies I have worked with have solicited me. Maybe 5% of the ladies on my web site were models I solicited. http://www.distinctiveimages.com

With all of that experience with evidence, one would think you would listen when presented with evidence. But do it your way and I'll stick by my comments and about 50 years of experience. I wish you the best in your future.

Miracle_Man wrote:
I always get them signed.

does your release state "specifically" where and to whom the images are being released?

Richard Dubois wrote:

I've never used a model release.

+1
When I started shooting I use to get releases, but haven't for years.

If I lived in the States I probably would use them.

Miracle_Man wrote:
I always get them signed.  Everytime I don't, someone will want to buy the photos and I can't sell them (for commercial use) without the release.  Of course I get them signed and no one wants to buy the photos, so I'm just cursed like that.

Trade vs. Paid shouldn't matter in both cases you can't publish the photos in a commercial use with out one.

If the purpose of the shoot is for publication in a commercial sense and it happens to be trade?? The release should be worded that way, to whom/for what, not unlimited.  If its paid and agreed that the pay is worth unlimited, no problem.

Im not going to pose tf for portfolio work just to end up on a porn website or dvd cover because I signed it all away for a couple of pictures

Jessie Shannon wrote:

This wording would allow that:

"They have the irrevocable, perpetual and unrestricted right and permission to take, use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included, in whole or in part, or composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or alterations, in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproductions thereof in color or otherwise, made through any medium at his/her studios or elsewhere, and in any and all media now or hereafter known, specifically including but not limited to print media and distribution over the internet for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising, trade, or [any other purpose whatsoever]."

Again it depends what the shoot is...if its TF I would never sign that.

I don't think it does. I think the entity who the model is making the agreement with can do anything they want with it, but there's nothing that specifies they can allow a third party to use it in anyway.

There's no reference to the right to reassign the rights within the agreement. My question is what is the default when it's not specified.

MC Grain wrote:
I don't think it does. I think the entity who the model is making the agreement with can do anything they want with it, but there's nothing that specifies they can allow a third party to use it in anyway.

There's no reference to the right to reassign the rights within the agreement. My question is what is the default when it's not specified.

Oops left this out:

I hereby grant the following rights and permissions to Joe Photographer ("Photographer"), his/her heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, those for whom Photographer is acting, and [those acting with his/her authority and permission]

This is listed as a standard release.  The last part I think gives the right to assign

MC Grain wrote:
There's no reference to the right to reassign the rights within the agreement. My question is what is the default when it's not specified.

there's no need.  if one is reassigning a photograph it would go to owning that property to do so.  the release only acts as having approval to use the likeness within the property.

Pure Visions Photograph wrote:
I get contracts signed for all my shoots, including Trades.

*Model Release
*Usage Agreement
*Property Agreement

Trades does not mean that you stop using proper business protocol.

No trade doesnt mean that at all, and it depends of course on the intent of the trade, but I do believe a trade release, more often than not should be worded different from commercial release

Pure Visions Photograph wrote:
You can always tell a fauxtographer from a photographer from a person that does not realise the business side of what they are doing.

A few months or years from now I expect to see you in a Model Mayhem forum bitching and moaning about one of your models wanting you to take photos of themselves down and to never use them again, or someone using your images outside of what you want and you going into a big huff about it.

Then you will have people going: Fool. This is what you get for calling people in your profession "Togs" as well as not getting releases signed.

Use releases. Things change too quickly to be stupid about something you put time and effort into.

Plus, it is a bit bloody disrespectful to the people that you have worked with to not inform them of what they can and can not do with photos and leave it on a "we're friends, use them how you want" basis.

ahh the old straw man argument. I already had 2 models ask me to take down a photo. I did it no problem. I didn't have to even without a release. I had a model do a terrible retouch on my photo. I didn't care.

I use the word togs as I feel it is a perfectly valid shortcut. That it bothers you is a reflection on your pettiness and not me.

fear of the far fetched possibilities is not going to drive me to do something.

professional? My profession? Did you not look at my work?.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
Also, for TF* I include the model's usage agreement in the release.

then your document is something other than a model release.  a release shouldn't be filled with any clutter other than its intended purpose.  to be proper the release would refer to an appendix/attachment schedule pertaining to things such as usage, delivery and other considerations.

DanK Photography wrote:

ahh the old straw man argument. I already had 2 models ask me to take down a photo. I did it no problem. I didn't have to even without a release. I had a model do a terrible retouch on my photo. I didn't care.

I use the word togs as I feel it is a perfectly valid shortcut. That it bothers you is a reflection on your pettiness and not me.

fear of the far fetched possibilities is not going to drive me to do something.

professional? My profession? Did you not look at my work?.

Dank "Tography". lmao

Dan K Studio wrote:
I don't bother with them as I don't plan to do any commercial usage out of them. I notice many who are in my position do anyways.



models do most of the togs make you sign?

Model Releases should be called: "Cover your Ass" releases....

Whether you're doing commercial work or not, you should always be protected.

A model release is a LEGAL Binding agreement, between you and the model. Without one, things could get ugly for YOU as the photographer.  And if the Model decide to do "Commercial" Work with you're photographs, what can you say? All you want and you have nothing legally saying he or she couldn't use them for commercial use....

Think about Protection and not about "Commercial usage"....

My .02

Pure Visions Photograph wrote:
You can always tell a fauxtographer from a photographer from a person that does not realise the business side of what they are doing.

A few months or years from now I expect to see you in a Model Mayhem forum bitching and moaning about one of your models wanting you to take photos of themselves down and to never use them again, or someone using your images outside of what you want and you going into a big huff about it.

for mayhem?  all that is needed is consent and that can be nothing more than an agreement to shoot for portfolio development (verified through private messaging).

as for the other business sense...

Pure Visions Photograph wrote:
I get contracts signed for all my shoots, including Trades.

*Model Release
*Usage Agreement
*Property Agreement

Trades does not mean that you stop using proper business protocol.

and are each of these documents defined in specificity?  does the model know exactly where the likeness will be used?  what about you knowing exactly where the usage will be used?

Pure Visions Photograph wrote:
I get contracts signed for all my shoots, including Trades.

*Model Release
*Usage Agreement
*Property Agreement

Trades does not mean that you stop using proper business protocol.

+1
To many of Us/Photographers, this is a Business and not a hobby....

CSDewitt Photo wrote:
+1
To many of Us/Photographers, this is a Business and not a hobby....

same question to you...

and are each of these documents defined in specificity?  does the model know exactly where the likeness will be used?  what about you knowing exactly where the usage will be used?

291 wrote:
then your document is something other than a model release.  a release shouldn't be filled with any clutter other than its intended purpose.  to be proper the release would refer to an appendix/attachment schedule pertaining to things such as usage, delivery and other considerations.

I think people really just want a blanket release in case of all the "in case ofs" in the future. Without that necessarily being the initial intent of the shoot or maybe the implied intent of the shoot.  Not cool in my book, but that seems to be the general idea in all the threads on this topic.  And a lot of people seem to want all that TF too.  Lets be clear everyone, majority of the releases here for MM use are for portfolio work and should be used and worded as such, and at the very least protects the photographers from a model going nuts down the road and trying to make you remove pictures of them so they should be used, but used correctly:)


Actually I should have said it protects you from crazy boyfriends down the road asking you to remove the pictures=D

Dan K Studio wrote:
probably its better to be safe then sorry. But this is not a discussion thread on the merits of it. I am asking if there are many like me. If they wish to say why that is fine to.

I do feel safe. I can't imagine how I wouldn't' be.

In the litigious and bureaucracy heavy / regulation crazed U S of A, you can't imagine how you would not be safe without a release? 

I sure as hell can. 

I always get one.

But to each his own....

CSDewitt Photo wrote:

Model Releases should be called: "Cover your Ass" releases....

Whether you're doing commercial work or not, you should always be protected.

A model release is a LEGAL Binding agreement, between you and the model. Without one, things could get ugly for YOU as the photographer.  And if the Model decide to do "Commercial" Work with you're photographs, what can you say? All you want and you have nothing legally saying he or she couldn't use them for commercial use....

Think about Protection and not about "Commercial usage"....

My .02

that is a usage agreement not a model release.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:

In the litigious and bureaucracy heavy / regulation crazed U S of A, you can't imagine how you would not be safe without a release? 

I sure as hell can. 

I always get one.

But to each his own....

you have a a more vivid imagination then I do.

DanK Photography wrote:

you have a a more vivid imagination then I do.

If I ended up on a sex hotline website when I thought it was for port/mag pub or whatever Id sue=D.

But seriously we should take a poll of how many people have actually been taken to court, over model release/or lack of release, how many people actually file copyright etc etc

Doug Lester wrote:
With all of that experience with evidence, one would think you would listen when presented with evidence. But do it your way and I'll stick by my comments and about 50 years of experience. I wish you the best in your future.

I wrote about testimony because folks think that a release etc is a road paved with gold. Any breach makes it easy to defend. As I said prior any agreement is as only strong as your or their ability to defend.

That is not the case with copyright in fact depending on value of the object it can be a felony in the US.
Tell me which is more powerful.
Dude continue to use my image and you are committing a felony.
Dude I have a usage agreement which says blah and I will see you in civil court.
Registered copyright works have specific damages , anything else is contested damages.
Much easier to find an attorney to work for a 30% settlement fee than a civil case..LOL
I doubt I would ever pursue a copyright infringement anyhow

For those who think that being in the photography business makes them anything special is the whole debate is nearly as silly as saying all golfers need to be in the PGA and play by all the PGA rules.
There are people who do stuff for fun and are not financially motivated.
I believe that models I work with have the same rights as me , that's my right to do that. If you don't like that that's your issue but don't tell me I cannot or should not do it.
I just started another business venture with a model and the first thing she signed was an NDA.
That's business different deal.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
Forgive me if I'm not as experienced, but wouldn't a changed law only apply to NEW works?

I was under the impression that retroactive laws are frowned upon.

At least potentially, it could apply to new *uses* of works, including old ones.  So the picture in the window of your studio stays, but you can't put it in a new ad for your studio, or whatever.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

If I ended up on a sex hotline website when I thought it was for port/mag pub or whatever Id sue=D.

But seriously we should take a poll of how many people have actually been taken to court, over model release/or lack of release, how many people actually file copyright etc etc

poll? I couldn't get this thread to stay on topic past the op.

joephotonyc wrote:
That is not the case with copyright in fact depending on value of the object it can be a felony in the US.

ok, just stop.  your lack of knowledge shovel is digging you into a deeper hole.  go learn the difference between a civil and criminal infraction and how each might apply to copyright infringement.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Dank "Tography". lmao

I like the sound of that.

Dan K Studio wrote:
I don't bother with them as I don't plan to do any commercial usage out of them. I notice many who are in my position do anyways.



models do most of the togs make you sign?

You never know when you might have a need for a shot that you did not expect.  I always get a release.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
You never know how a photograph will be used and what will be required to use it.  Get the darn release.

I get the release signed before the first exposure. It reminds the model that if she shouldn't show the photographer anything she doesn't want photographed.

This is a different matter, and one of the most frustrating things I see around here on an ongoing basis.

Trust is, to me, an essential part of the artistic process.  I don't publish (in any sense) images the model isn't comfortable with.  To follow the bolded policy above would make shooting nudes, or even implied nudes a problem, since "accidents happen."  For that matter, I've had "unscheduled appearances" in fully clothed shoots. 

Something like this (18+) can easily happen, and if the model isn't comfortable with it being used, they should certainly be able to trust that it won't be:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 3#19468943

Similarly, this model didn't want nude (topless) images published, but she was comfortable with "nude on set" which allowed for a much more relaxed and productive shoot:

DanK Photography wrote:

poll? I couldn't get this thread to stay on topic past the op.

Yeah I hear ya, nobody would respond anyway Im sure because Im sure it rarely happens

ddtphoto wrote:
I guess my problem with model releases is that the law should be specific and uniform on this. I've never understood why I can shoot a stranger on the corner and have more freedom in using that image than a model who comes to my studio. You think Robert Capa was running around Normandy getting model releases? "Here, sign this before you die."

Public vs private.

Editorial vs commercial. 

Etc.