DanK Photography wrote:

You claim to have shot many Agency models, playmates and pets tf all signing full releases yet I don't see any in your port.

Actually, I never said "many."

I said:

Greg Kolack wrote:
I have shot with agency models who have signed a full release without problems. Again - their choice.

And:

Greg Kolack wrote:
Quite a few of the models I have shot TF and who have signed full releases, work quite a bit and are incredibly intelligent and business savvy.

They have their reasons for signing, and I can tell you they do care and are not stupid.

And:

Greg Kolack wrote:
I do.

I have it just in case of many of the instances that have been mentioned in this thread.

I have never had a model turn down signing it, and most of them were TF shoots.

Earlier this year I shot TF with 2 models from Europe who have done many international Playboy and Penthouse shoots, and they didn't hesitate to sign it.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/437293
https://www.modelmayhem.com/896730
https://www.modelmayhem.com/779165

291 wrote:

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...

and are each of these documents [b]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?

See below quote.

"To many of us here this is a business not a hobby."

Trades seem to be such a dirty word around here and for the vaste majority of people they have no idea of the extent of what Trades really are or what doors and opportunities that they can open for all the team involved.

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?.

Two people? Wow. There ya go. You answered your own question about usage agreements and how you do your own business.

To each their own.

As for the word "Togs" being a perfectly valid shortcut and that it is a reflection of my pettiness I'll just have to take your word on that.

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


Invalid question. Unsolicitated critiques are not allowed.

-Koa- wrote:
Forms I use:

1) Model Release - Ten years down the road, I need the image commercially, I do not have the time to track down the model to get her/his permission. Heck, I had a model who I sent her images to just seven day's after the shoot and she had already moved. I have had lot's of models move. The Model release allows me to use the images in a manner I best see fit without having to get permission.

2) Liability Release Form - This is always a big one. My work is in the mountains/jungles. Last thing I need is a model to bust their ass (already happened several times) and then sue me later. The liability form they sign states  they have medical insurance and that they hold me harmless for anything that happens to the shoot, from the shoot and during the shoot.

Both forms are on my website. I have a button on my modeling page that goes straight to the forms. Nothing hidden here.

I intend for the images I make to be passed down to my son when I die. They have zero value without the model release.

-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com

Yeah, I have both of those things in my agreement as well as for pretty much the same reasons.

Stephen Markman wrote:

joephotonyc wrote:
Umm I can self publish a book anytime I own registered copyright to the shot I can use it.

Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
Huh lets see the case law council, 2 people have registered joint copyright of a collection and they cannot publish it ??
Or the law that forbids this ..

joephotonyc wrote:
If the laws changed tomorrow its not going to be applies to actions prior to that date of law being signed.

Wrong
-------------
Oh so the speed limit changes to 45 mph today and you can get a ticket for doing 46 last week when the prior speed limit was 55 mph
I know some times that is the  case the the the date of occurrence can be backdates per se but its far from the rule. And yes the new law may dictate certain age provisions
-------------

joephotonyc wrote:
You can have all the releases in the world but if it comes to court case , you would need to have the model in court to corroborate .

Wrong
-------------
You know better council and you know that I could easily drag a model/ whoever to validate a signature  to court or at least during discovery.
-------------

joephotonyc wrote:
How would you track down a model you shot 20 years ago who is on another country and married ?

Irrelevant if you do it right now
-------------
Again that would depend on the circumstance.
-------------

joephotonyc wrote:
A release helps protect the models / publishers interests NOT the photographer.

-------------
Wrong
hmm then you better explain that to a bunch around here.
-------------

joephotonyc wrote:
Even so publishing on the Internet is still not clear in the US.

Irrelevant
-------------
Say you
-------------

joephotonyc wrote:
Publishers have to sweat because there is no argument of commercial use for them.

Backwards?? or just Wrong
-------------
Lets not be vague council pick one
-------------

joephotonyc wrote:
Google does not seem to care

Wrong, Irrelevant . . . (take your pick)
-------------
Lets not be vague council I picked mine LOL
-------------

joephotonyc wrote:
I give any model who shoots with me  joint copyright as we both contributed equally to the art work.

Very nice/generous of you BUT, totally inconsistent with the first sentence you wrote AND totally inconsistent with the custom and practice of virtually every photographer in this country.
-------------
So what, I don't care about the customs and practice of others that's their business.
and you pick all the customs and practice of photography like the rule of 3 , light meters, have the sun behind you and all the others. Tennis players all wore white at one time , not anymore. That was a custom and practice of tennis.
-------------

joephotonyc wrote:
Thats what a model gets and deserves as far as I am concerned.

Irrelevant
-------------
To you not to me
-------------

joephotonyc wrote:
Yeah I know a bunch of you will get your panties in a twist about this, however take the models out of your shots what do you have?

Silly
-------------
No it's my point about the model having value in the photo. Also you quoting about customs and practice proved my point.
-------------

Totally irrelevant to every point raised in this thread.


Wrong
-------------
I did say maybe , being that someone could try that , it maybe far fetched but as you know it could be tried and won.
-------------
It's so helpful when people come in here and post long explanations of what the law is (or, in this case, a total misrepresentation and distortion of the actual law.)

-------------
Ok which law are you talking about ? Citation please.

Um I not quote a law.. now I did and its below.

In NY it would be Article 5 - Right of Privacy part 50 ?

As I do not sell any photos , photplays, books etc of my works , I don't believe I would violate any privacy laws.

Whilst I understand and respect you are Attorney, its your job to wordsmith the law.
However you know that postings here like many others are taken out of context and you also know that in  court I can object to all your " irrelevant "

My point is that I prefer to share copyright with the model.
Thats all..

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Mercy wrote:
Since there was some talk about there not being another models voice in it....

The people I shoot trade with could (not that they would) sell our images for 1mil or to a herpes company (I think that's the way it was put) and I wouldn't care. Why? Because the people I trade with are that fucking good. It would be worth it to have my photo taken by them. I've signed all exclusive releases before. I don't have that problem and it's not because I don't care, that I'm bad at business, or I'm stupid. I just know what I want and what I'm willing to risk to get it. I'd like to mention though that I highly doubt the herpes thing would happen as the people I want to trade with don't shoot stuff that's anywhere near that horrible.





I wonder if they knew this was gonna be used for this:



Or them??



Maybe they thought there sh*t was too good for it to ever happen too? Lmfao=D

Maybe you should actually try looking for something that isn't horrible. Btw my avatar was for trade. If that gets used for a herpes add not only will I be shocked as shit I'll probably die from laughter. If you're so worried about your image getting used for "inappropriate" things you might not want to EVER post on the net because memes like the last thing you posted are easily made from any picture. Have fun with that.

~Mercy

Mercy wrote:
Maybe you should actually try looking for something that isn't horrible. Btw my avatar was for trade. If that gets used for a herpes add not only will I be shocked as shit I'll probably die from laughter. If you're so worried about your image getting used for "inappropriate" things you might not want to EVER post on the net because memes like the last thing you posted are easily made from any picture. Have fun with that.

~Mercy

I love you...

DanK Photography wrote:
Thank you for the answers. Interesting about Zivity. Has that changed now? Togs making more or equal then the models?

Unless it was their first time doing nudes I don't believe 2.

It's not uncommon for a good shoot to come out of two people working together, resulting in the model getting more booked work.

I had a friend tell me her workload doubled after posting some photos from me. No idea why, they were not my best work to be honest. But one photo had double the views in 3 months, than her next highest one which had been up for 2 years.

That's also why she added me to her trade list

You may not believe it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

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?

I have a 50/50 ratio for releases, though most of them are usage agreements.

Pure Visions Photograph wrote:
Two people? Wow. There ya go. You answered your own question about usage agreements and how you do your own business.

To each their own.

As for the word "Togs" being a perfectly valid shortcut and that it is a reflection of my pettiness I'll just have to take your word on that.

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


Invalid question. Unsolicitated critiques are not allowed.

How would a release have helped me here? As I mentioned even without a release I could legally have put them up if I wanted to. As a person who claims not to be a fauxtographers should know this.

Stephen Markman wrote:

joephotonyc wrote:
Umm I can self publish a book anytime I own registered copyright to the shot I can use it.

Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
If the laws changed tomorrow its not going to be applies to actions prior to that date of law being signed.

Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
You can have all the releases in the world but if it comes to court case , you would need to have the model in court to corroborate .

Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
How would you track down a model you shot 20 years ago who is on another country and married ?

Irrelevant if you do it right now

joephotonyc wrote:
A release helps protect the models / publishers interests NOT the photographer.

Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
Even so publishing on the Internet is still not clear in the US.

Irrelevant

joephotonyc wrote:
Publishers have to sweat because there is no argument of commercial use for them.

Backwards?? or just Wrong

joephotonyc wrote:
Google does not seem to care

Wrong, Irrelevant . . . (take your pick)

joephotonyc wrote:
I give any model who shoots with me  joint copyright as we both contributed equally to the art work.

Very nice/generous of you BUT, totally inconsistent with the first sentence you wrote AND totally inconsistent with the custom and practice of virtually every photographer in this country.

joephotonyc wrote:
Thats what a model gets and deserves as far as I am concerned.

Irrelevant

joephotonyc wrote:
Yeah I know a bunch of you will get your panties in a twist about this, however take the models out of your shots what do you have?

Silly

joephotonyc wrote:
Oh I don't photoshop either so every image is true representation.

Totally irrelevant to every point raised in this thread.


Wrong


It's so helpful when people come in here and post long explanations of what the law is (or, in this case, a total misrepresentation and distortion of the actual law.)

Stephen, as usual, you render a spot on analysis of the legal meanderings and misstatements in a post.

Mercy wrote:
Maybe you should actually try looking for something that isn't horrible. Btw my avatar was for trade. If that gets used for a herpes add not only will I be shocked as shit I'll probably die from laughter. If you're so worried about your image getting used for "inappropriate" things you might not want to EVER post on the net because memes like the last thing you posted are easily made from any picture. Have fun with that.

~Mercy

If you read my post right below that those pictures were a joke, as in all you seemed to pick up on was usage for herpes, even though that was just one example.  The fact is if you so willingly sign full commercial release for every picture you ever take, you should be aware that that picture can go to the heirs of the photographers, it can be assigned, and reassigned to anybody at anytime for any purpose, not just on "the net" at any time in the future.   As I said there is a good chance it will never happen, but it can to anyone.  Advising any model to sign a full release for just anything because "a photographer is that good" is poor advice.  If you do it that's great for you..The point is that you shouldn't have to, and photographers shouldn't be trying to get a full commercial release  from every test for portfolio work.

joephotonyc wrote:
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.

I'm still a bit confused as to what testimony in a criminal court concerning evidence photos has to do with copyright, releases or useage agreements. That's sort of like comparing apples with Buicks.

I'm also confused with your seeming to equate dual copyright with useage agreements. Many years ago a porn site stole three of my images for use as an intro to the porn site. I had an attorney contact the porn merchant/thief, advising him I was filing suit for copyright violation in Federal court and the model was filing suit in state court for privacy violation. He settled. The attorney got his fee, I received a very nice settlement and since he ran out of money, the model ended up with his 2 year old Chevy.

Why on earth would a photographer believe being a photographer makes him "anything special". Being a photographer is more pleasant and cleaner work than being a plumber. It's less boring than being a truck driver. But that's about it.

As for believing "models I work with have the same rights as me", I certainly have no problem with that, in fact that is what I give models who do trade shoots with me. In fact I print it right on the surface of the CD/DVD they receive," Model shown in this CD has unlimited rights to reproduce or use the images contained herein in any way". In other words the model has unlimited rights to use the images in any way she would like. No dual copyright needed, just unlimited useage rights.

I also agree about doing things for fun, not profit. I did that for many years. Then as time passed, one day I began to consider doing photography commercilly, for profit. One day several years later,one of my images came to the attention of an ad agency. Probaby because it was on a flier I mailed to them.

They wanted to use on on a flier for a plastic surgeon. Had I not gotten a release when I shot it 10 years before I could not have used it. Then the plastic surgeon decided he wanted to use it in a magazine ad. Then a spa waned to use it; another sale. The next year another plastic surgeon used it in a flier. Then a spa down in the Carribean. In short, that 10 year old image made my new business several  thousand well needed bucks. No release? That would have been gone. Getting releases is sort of like a family man having life and medical insurance. You might not need it now or even in the near future, but eventually, who knows?

BTW, that prticular image was shot as an art image and did  quite well in exhibition and print sales to collectors.

rp_photo wrote:
I thought most of those could easily be nullified if need be.

Ditto for most model releases.

George Ruge wrote:
Some people ain't got the brains God gave a duck!!:-))

Don't put yourself down like that. I am sure there are some ducks you are smarter than.

DanK Photography wrote:

Don't put yourself down like that. I am sure there are some ducks you are smarter than.

Haha, yeah!! But shooting without doing the paperwork first is still dumb!

George Ruge wrote:
Haha, yeah!! But shooting without doing the paperwork first is still dumb!

I guess I have to agree with that. After all it gives the photographer more rights. Nothing negative about more rights even if you never use them.  I just don't want to bother with the paperwork. I am fairly sure I will never use those rights.

For me the second part outweighs the first right now. Maybe I will get the Iphone app to make it easier.

Then again it is also dumb for models to sign many of these releases for all uses for a couple of mediocre photos as well.

DanK Photography wrote:

I guess I have to agree with that. After all it gives the photographer more rights. Nothing negative about more rights even if you never use them.  I just don't want to bother with the paperwork. I am fairly sure I will never use those rights.

For me the second part outweighs the first right now. Maybe I will get the Iphone app to make it easier.

Then again it is also dumb for models to sign many of these releases for all uses for a couple of mediocre photos as well.

Again - it's not dumb for models to sign a release if that's what gets them the shoot they want, which often is the case.  Many, if not most photographers won't work with a model who won't sign their release as it stands.

Regarding the Iphone release app, realize that many users may not accept electronic releases - many of the stock companies for example.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Again - it's not dumb for models to sign a release if that's what gets them the shoot they want, which often is the case.  Many, if not most photographers won't work with a model who won't sign their release as it stands.

Regarding the Iphone release app, realize that many users may not accept electronic releases - many of the stock companies for example.

Most just sign without thinking it through. Its not dumb if that is what they want to do and they think it through. I don't think many of them appreciate the value of there likeness.

While most MM togs grossly overestimate the value of there copywrite.

I know if I was a model there is little chance I would sign that with most of the Joe Schmoes on this thread for just tf.  After all we all get photos for port work anymore then that it is rarely an even trade.

Of course I would hope to be a good model that people want to shoot. Like our friend Jessie.

The dumb thing would be the togs who would never even use the photos outside of a use that doesn't need a release refuse to shoot with me.

Dan K Studio wrote:

That's right, now keep that same logic going and reread what you originally wrote.

I did, and they're two different things.
Your example would invalidate years of model releases, which will never happen. That's like saying every contract signed for a credit card is invalid and the card holder no longer owes the money. (While that can happen on an individual basis, it wouldn't happen across the board).

What I said is that if a high court decides that putting a photo online on a portfolio constitutes publication and a commercial use, then websites would require a model release for any photos put up.

Vito wrote:
I did, and they're two different things.
Your example would invalidate years of model releases, which will never happen. That's like saying every contract signed for a credit card is invalid and the card holder no longer owes the money. (While that can happen on an individual basis, it wouldn't happen across the board).

What I said is that if a high court decides that putting a photo online on a portfolio constitutes publication and a commercial use, then websites would require a model release for any photos put up.

They are both very unlikely scenarios that are not going to happen. I don't run my life based on unlikely what ifs.

DanK Photography wrote:

They are both very unlikely scenarios that are not going to happen. I don't run my life based on unlikely what ifs.

Dan???!!!  What if 20 years from now Vogue wanted to publish that pic of the girl and the cat??!!!

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Dan???!!!  What if 20 years from now Vogue wanted to publish that pic of the girl and the cat??!!!

Oh don't worry. I made sure the cat signed the release.

DanK Photography wrote:
Most just sign without thinking it through. Its not dumb if that is what they want to do and they think it through. I don't think many of them appreciate the value of there likeness.

I think they give it more thought that you give them credit for.  They realize their likeness only has value to most photographers (or the photographer's client) if that likeness can be used, so they sign the release.  They don't need to know all the issues related to release to understand their service is valueless to most photographers without a release.

DanK Photography wrote:
The dumb thing would be the togs who would never even use the photos outside of a use that doesn't need a release refuse to shoot with me.

I don't think that's dumb.  Few can say with absolute certainty they will never desire a release, and since most models know that photographers need their release signed, it's easy enough to just pass on the odd model who won't sign in favor of the vast majority who will.  (or shoot another subject matter that does not require a release)  I find models who question signing a release are likely to have other issues as well.  Better to just pass...

DanK Photography wrote:
They are both very unlikely scenarios that are not going to happen. I don't run my life based on unlikely what ifs.

No so unlikely as YOU may think. The US Copyright Office takes a position that mere display of an image on the Internet is not necessarily publication, because, according to their reasoning it does not amount to transfer of the/a copy of the work that is viewed on a website.

In the first case the judge ruled that it is not publication at least in respect to non-US works published outside of the US on the Internet; In the more recent case the judge reached the exact opposite conclusion.

Moberg
v.
33T LLC,
666 F. Supp. 2d 415 -
Dist. Court, D. Delaware
2009,
Judge Hillman

comment: Judge Hillman articulated three reasons for rejecting the proposition that publishing a work on the Internet “automatically, instantaneously, and simultaneously causes that work to be published everywhere in the world.”

---

KERNAL RECORDS OY, Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY Z. MOSLEY p/k/a TIMBALAND; et al., Defendants.
Case No. 09-21597-CIV-TORRES.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
June 7, 2011.

"... The issues presented for our determination in this case are (1) whether AJE was first published on the Internet and if so, (2) whether that act constituted simultaneous worldwide publication which would make AJE a "United States work" subject to § 411(a)'s registration requirements. We answer both questions in the affirmative. ..."

comment: The proposition that US works include ANY work, foreign or domestic, first published on-line anywhere in the world might seem at first a little surprising, but in reality (and as the court notes) the practical effect is small. Foreign authors already have an incentive to register a copyright in the US to pursue statutory damages or receive evidentiary benefits. At most, it adds one additional step before a foreign author can sue in a US court.

BUT there is a time element to US registration of published works to secure that maximum protection and benefit

As to Kernel Records, though they had eventually registered the copyright, the court ruled that it was too late.

Keep in mind that under US law registration [of US works] must occur within 90 days of first publication. In that, it appears that, based on this ruling, if posting a work to the internet IS publication, then ANY work published on the Internet, a US work -OR- a foreign work on a US -OR- foreign website, without distinction, would be subject to US registration -AND- within the time limits established.

Not doing so APPEARS to eliminate any possibility of securing statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs, though a case might still go ahead on actual damages of profits [a conventional Berne claim] which, for any such work, is likely going to be a "get out of jail free" card for the infringer.

C'est la guerre; C'est la vie

Studio36

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I think they give it more thought that you give them credit for.  They realize their likeness only has value to most photographers (or the photographer's client) if that likeness can be used, so they sign the release.  They don't need to know all the issues related to release to understand their service is valueless to most photographers without a release.


I don't think that's dumb.  Few can say with absolute certainty they will never desire a release, and since most models know that photographers need their release signed, it's easy enough to just pass on the odd model who won't sign in favor of the vast majority who will.  (or shoot another subject matter that does not require a release)  I find models who question signing a release are likely to have other issues as well.  Better to just pass...

I disagree most photographers on MM do not need a release for what they do with the images. So in reality the pictures have the same used value with or without the release.

From my experience and the threads like these most models and photographers here don't even know what a release is for. I am also rarely asked many questions that models should ask before shooting with me. I am fairly generous so I never have a problem but I can see how it could happen. So no, I do not give them the credit you seem to give them. I would appreciate your experience on how you came to that conclusion.

Well yes, a person who has a problem with signing a release is smarter and more aware of her value so I can see why you would like to skip them. I am not making fun of you it is usually easier when they just do as you say and don't question anything. It may not be the best for them but it does make it easier.

I mentioned before but just because the vast majority does something does not make it smart or right.

studio36uk wrote:

I fail to see the relevancy of either case.

Published is not the sole criteria that would make one need a release. A work can be published in a newspaper or online without it needing a release.

the second one I assume is referencing the time period that one can copy-write there works once published? So as to be able to get maximum damages in a infringement case.

What does that have to do with this?

DanK Photography wrote:

studio36uk wrote:

I fail to see the relevancy of either case.

Published is not the sole criteria that would make one need a release. A work can be published in a newspaper or online without it needing a release.

I'll let someone else "splain it to you. Maybe Vito will do it.

Vito wrote:
What I said is that if a high court decides that putting a photo online on a portfolio constitutes publication and a commercial use, then websites would require a model release for any photos put up.

Studio36

DanK Photography wrote:
Well yes, a person who has a problem with signing a release is smarter and more aware of her value so I can see why you would like to skip them. I am not making fun of you it is usually easier when they just do as you say and don't question anything. It may not be the best for them but it does make it easier.

Maybe. 

Or, maybe she's following the advice of someone who has no idea what they're talking about, but who is good at spreading misinformation.

studio36uk wrote:

DanK Photography wrote:

studio36uk wrote:

I fail to see the relevancy of either case.

Published is not the sole criteria that would make one need a release. A work can be published in a newspaper or online without it needing a release.

Vito wrote:
What I said is that if a high court decides that putting a photo online on a portfolio constitutes publication and a commercial use, then websites would require a model release for any photos put up.

Studio36

ahh so you got nothing and doing the "I hope someone else is deluded enough to think I have a point" trick.

Art of the nude wrote:

Maybe. 

Or, maybe she's following the advice of someone who has no idea what they're talking about, but who is good at spreading misinformation.

Right, the ones who just sign are following the misinformation spread by people whos best interest it is for them to sign it. Glad you see it my way.