WesleyNorman UltraShots wrote:
The shoot was TFP, as long as you recieve a CD or Prints, and you signed the release, he can do what he wants with the photos, he is the artist, you are the model. Being an artist, such as a music artist or painter.
Consider this: If you were modeling for a painting, and paid just $1. Would you demand more money if the artist sold the painting for $20 million dollars?
Because there is an exchange of valued items (The prints or CD is considered payment) If I charge you $50 per edited images and there 4 images I give you, thats $200 of value we exchanged for your time being a model.
This is Law 101:
TFP is considered Mutual Consideration:
Mutual Consideration (The mutual exchange of something of value)
In order to be valid, the parties to a contract must exchange something of value. In the case of the sale of a piano, the buyer receives something of value in the form of the piano, and the seller receives money.
This makes me think of young Brook Shields doing nude shoots at 12 years old, now days, photographers would go to prison for a shoot like this but check this story out... She and her mother signed the contract, they are the photographer property.
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/ … ary-gross/
This isn't quite how the law works. A release does not always allow the photographer to do "whatever he wants", and a release does not have to be structured as a contract (mutual exchange of something of value).
A lot depends on exactly what the release said. Models have rights to publicity and privacy that vary from state to state. There are also laws against defamation of character. If the release didn't address one or more of these issues, then the photographer may not be allowed to use the image in a way that violates one of those rights.
A release that allows full commercial use of the image, may not allow the model to be painted in a false light. Perhaps the advertisement was for a product that removes skin discolorations. You might retouch a photo to add spots to the model's face as an example of someone who needed the product. In this case you might need permission to alter the image to present the model in a false light as well as permission for commercial use of the model's likeness. If use on a porn site gives the false impression that the model is a prostitute, then a simple commercial release may not sufficient.
Many releases prepared by attorneys address these issues. Many releases written by photographers do not.
Releases may be structured as a contract (In exchange for ... I give permission...) or as a simple waiver of rights (I give permission...). There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Sometimes the contract is the preferred form and sometimes the waiver. In Florida, a minor's signature on a contract is generally not binding, however a minor's signature on a waiver can be valid. It turns out that the Florida courts have ruled that the law preventing minors from entering into contracts, is limited to "contracts". A model release structured as a waiver, may be valid and binding if signed by a 17 year old.
As to nudes of a minor, this is not illegal in the US. What is illegal is child pornography. Although most porn involves nudity, nudity is not a requirement for an image to be pornographic, nor does the presence of nudity automatically make something porn. An obvious example would be an image of a naked newborn baby. The image is of a naked minor, but is probably not porn and probably not inherently illegal.
The real "Law 101" lesson is that the law is complicated. There are no simple rules that apply to all cases. There are many rules of thumb, but you have to remember that there are typically lots of exceptions. Your best bet in getting an answer to a legal question is to consult an attorney.
