GML Images wrote:
I think you are right about calling and having a verbal discussion about it. Sometimes communication through text and email just isn't the same.

Verbal/oral, email, and text are so hit and miss.

GML Images wrote:
And I will check into the customizable apps that are available. I was actually just reading about them online today. That would be so much easier than carrying the paper around.

What happens when your camera gets lost, broken, or stolen?

It's really not inconvenient to carry a stack of model releases in your camera bag along with your camera, batteries, and memory cards. I use the ASMP release.  After the model signs it, you can photograph it if you want an electronic copy. Keep the paper original in a binder and store the electronic copy with the images. Have the model sign two copies and let her keep one.

Kalt Model Release Cards are smaller than a 3x5 card and can easily be carried in your shirt pocket for street photography, etc.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ … Cards.html

GML Images wrote:
I had recently done a TFP shoot with an aspiring young model whose mother had come along as well. The model was a minor. We had verbally agreed to do a TFP shoot for each others portfolios. I had purchased some wardrobe for the shoot for a concept that I was going for and also agreed to shoot with their own wardrobe. I drove 2 1/2 hours the day before to scout a location and met them there the next morning. Everything was fairly lax and friendly. We did the shoot and I said I would send them the files once I was completed with the photos. I know I should have had a model release form with me beforehand since I do want to use some of the photos in my portfolio, website, etc. but for some reason I did not have it and the shoot went on anyway. Some days later I sent them some low resolution samples as a preview and said that the rest were soon to come. They loved the photos I shared with them and then started saying that they wanted to submit sets of them to various magazines, and that I would not be able to use them until they were either published or rejected. None of this was in the agreement of doing a TFP shoot. At that point I felt I should get a release form signed, and probably too late, I know. But nonetheless I sent them a release form for minors and now the mother says she will sign it but keeps beating around the bush and pressuring me to get the rest of the photos to them. I want them to have the photos, but I also want the release form signed so that I can use the photos as well. This has been going on for days now and I have no release form signed nor do they have all of the photos. I am hoping someone might be able to help me with some advice.

Do you know who you had a verbal agreement with?
it was the parent right? Not the child....

NatLight Studios wrote:
.....goes beyond your initial agreement.

I think if his initial agreement was with the child only,
that he does not have an agreement.

GML Images wrote:
The model was a minor. We had verbally agreed to do a TFP shoot for each others portfolios.

Mark Salo wrote:
What happens when your camera gets lost, broken, or stolen?

It's really not inconvenient to carry a stack of model releases in your camera bag along with your camera, batteries, and memory cards. I use the ASMP release.  After the model signs it, you can photograph it if you want an electronic copy. Keep the paper original in a binder and store the electronic copy with the images. Have the model sign two copies and let her keep one.

Kalt Model Release Cards are smaller than a 3x5 card and can easily be carried in your shirt pocket for street photography, etc.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ … Cards.html

The model release apps provide multiple backup options (email copies to both parties, Dropbox, etc). Obviously that's not foolproof because you need cell service to send and backup but it is a great option if you forget to bring a printed release.

NatLight Studios wrote:
Every time I see a question about a model release, like the OP's, I immediately look for what state the people are in.  State law, not federal, governs the need for and the required form of a model release.  The differences in the law among the  states often lead to quite different results even though the factual contexts seem to vary only a little.   

Missouri's laws relating to the need for a model release generally follow most of the nation.  For photographers working in Missouri, the following article may be helpful:  https://www.pcblawfirm.com/legal-issues … ng-people/

Note that, of all of the issues raised by the above article about Missouri law, the one that applies most to the OP's situation is the right of publicity, which in Missouri has been developed by the courts rather than by a statute. [Many other states have statutes as well as court-developed law.]  And note, too, that in Missouri the use to which the photo will be put significantly impacts whether a model release is needed at all.  Photos that are displayed as "art" may not require a release, whereas photos used for plainly commercial purposes clearly do.  This brings to mind the famous DiCorcia case in New York, where a photograph of a Hasidic Jew was deemed art, protected by the First Amendment, and thus no release was required.  Don't assume that New York's DiCorcia decision will be followed in all states.

Photographing a minor adds another layer of complexity, depending upon the age of the minor.  In some states, the age of majority for signing an agreement is less than 18, but in most states the release for anyone under 18 needs to be signed by the parent/guardian. 

This all comes back to the "safe harbor" approach of always getting a release signed, preferably in advance.  The other posts address this, no need to repeat that advice.  But, even having a release can raise some issues, especially if compensation is mentioned in the release.  If a dispute arises, the burden is often on the photographer to prove that the compensation was paid.  And, remarkably, some subjects have later claimed that the signature on the release is not theirs. Another problem that arises is that some subjects have been known to produce false ID's - usually a minor claiming to be an adult although there have been other fact scenarios.  To minimize risk on these issues, one approach is to take a photo of the subject holding their ID and the signed release.  This is typically more useful, should a dispute arise, than simply taking a picture of the release alone.

Let's go back to the OP's question about the mother wanting to have the photographs published in magazines.  That requires a usage license, and most releases do not include such language.  The need for a usage license stems from the fact that the photograph owns the copyright in the photograph. It is a right completely distinct from the need for a model release, and is based on federal copyright law.  Virtually all legitimate magazines understand that they cannot publish a picture without verifying that the person submitting the picture is either the owner of the copyright, or has received a usage license.  In the fact circumstance posed by the OP, the mother apparently does not understand this issue, but she is highly likely to run into it head-on if she tries to submit images to a magazine for publication.  Usage licenses can vary quite a bit:  one time only, a period of time in a specific publication, all publications for a period of time, and countless other variations.  And, in some cases such as a new photographer seeking to build a reputation, the usage license may simply require that the photographer is credited in the publication.

OP, I would suggest that you tell the mother that she will only receive the images when she provides the signed release.  Beyond that, deciding what scope of usage license to grant depends entirely on what you think you deserve in return for allowing a use of the photographs by the model that goes beyond your initial agreement.

Good luck.

Pretty much a good summary of what has been said over and over in many, many threads.
The lack of specificity is precisely what makes this comment most useful.

And in Canada, it is also a province by province matter.

The only thing that tends to be country wide is "copyright". Canada and the USA are now very similar, and close to European Union.

But as has been stated often, in the UK, you are generally better not to go the model release, as this is suddenly more restrictive than general rights (this may have changed).

417 Photo Art wrote:
I'd let her send them to magazines etc. Why Not? If they get publisher as a result of her finding a publisher then you get positive exposure

People already explained about the photographer copyright issue with magazines.

417 Photo Art wrote:
I'd let her send them to magazines etc. Why Not? If they get publisher as a result of her finding a publisher then you get positive exposure

You claim to be a professional photographer and you don't even understand kindergarten-level usage rights for photos? SMH

Mark Salo wrote:
It's really not inconvenient to carry a stack of model releases in your camera bag along with your camera, batteries, and memory cards. I use the ASMP release.  After the model signs it, you can photograph it if you want an electronic copy. Keep the paper original in a binder and store the electronic copy with the images. Have the model sign two copies and let her keep one.

I tried all the different apps and have found them to be pretty much worthless. There is some novelty there and the concept sounds good on paper (no pun intended) but in application, they don't work well. At the end of the day, having paper releases in the camera bag and in my glove compartment in my SUV is truly the best method, especially when it comes to working with multiple models on one shoot. I'm really big on using tech to make my life easier but the model release apps do the opposite.

Shot By Adam wrote:

I tried all the different apps and have found them to be pretty much worthless. There is some novelty there and the concept sounds good on paper (no pun intended) but in application, they don't work well. At the end of the day, having paper releases in the camera bag and in my glove compartment in my SUV is truly the best method, especially when it comes to working with multiple models on one shoot. I'm really big on using tech to make my life easier but the model release apps do the opposite.

I've never had a problem carrying printed model releases!

JBP Graphics wrote:
The app I use has a field for the models photo, taken with the device the model release is filled in on. Signatures for model, guardian, witness and photographer if required. All aspects are customizable so one can build a commercial Release, TFP Release etc. Who goes on a shoot without a phone these days.

The end result is a PDF (@320k in size) with legal language, signatures and models photo sent to whom ever you want.

I don't use an app on the advice of noted IP attorney Ed Greenberg, who says quite rightly that such apps are not necessarily accepted in all courts, and in fact are easily discredited by asking you or any other photographer if they are familiar with PhotoShop, then inquiring how difficult it might be to forge a release in PhotoShop.

You are welcome to do as you please, and if you find that app convenient, knock yourself out. I find Ed's opinion worth noting, and hope yours is never put to the test in court. Actually, I hope nobody here ever gets sued over any issue. But I know that that hope is unlikely of realization. Somebody, somewhere, someday . . . .

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
I don't use an app on the advice of noted IP attorney Ed Greenberg, who says quite rightly that such apps are not necessarily accepted in all courts, and in fact are easily discredited by asking you or any other photographer if they are familiar with PhotoShop, then inquiring how difficult it might be to forge a release in PhotoShop.

You are welcome to do as you please, and if you find that app convenient, knock yourself out. I find Ed's opinion worth noting, and hope yours is never put to the test in court. Actually, I hope nobody here ever gets sued over any issue. But I know that that hope is unlikely of realization. Somebody, somewhere, someday . . . .

Paper documents and signatures can also be forged.  At some point it boils down to your word against hers as to whether the document you present to the court is the document she signed.

Michael Fryd wrote:

Paper documents and signatures can also be forged.  At some point it boils down to your word against hers as to whether the document you present to the court is the document she signed.

some pphotographers take a photo of the model holding the signed release up to her face. As to the photo some cameras have a feature to prove that the photo has been unchanged. I don't know about other cameras, I know my Nikon d300 has such a feature.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
some pphotographers take a photo of the model holding the signed release up to her face. As to the photo some cameras have a feature to prove that the photo has been unchanged. I don't know about other cameras, I know my Nikon d300 has such a feature.

Yes, all of these things are helpful to show that the release is legitimate, but none are definitive.

In particular, a jury may assume a photographer to be an expert in photoshop.  Give me a photo of the model holding an 8x10 grey card, and I can send you back an image of that model holding my release.

Yes, many cameras do have the option of cryptographically signing a raw file.  Try to explain what that means to a judge and/or jury.   More importantly, you need to prove the reliability of that cryptographic signature.   My understanding is that with at least some brands, the security has been broken, and it is possible to mark altered files as being unaltered. 

Of course, these sorts of cryptographic signing of images are easy to get around.  Take my photoshopped image of the model holding my release, and make a print.  Set the date on your camera to the date of the shoot.  Now take a photo of the altered print.  You now have an "unedited" photo of the girl holding my release.

The trick is presenting enough evidence to convince the judge/jury that the model actually signed the release you are showing to the court.   If the model denies it, it may very well boil down to who is more convincing.  After all, you are the evil photographer who manipulates images for a living.

Michael Fryd wrote:

Yes, all of these things are helpful to show that the release is legitimate, but none are definitive.

In particular, a jury may assume a photographer to be an expert in photoshop.  Give me a photo of the model holding an 8x10 grey card, and I can send you back an image of that model holding my release.

Yes, many cameras do have the option of cryptographically signing a raw file.  Try to explain what that means to a judge and/or jury.   More importantly, you need to prove the reliability of that cryptographic signature.   My understanding is that with at least some brands, the security has been broken, and it is possible to mark altered files as being unaltered. 

Of course, these sorts of cryptographic signing of images are easy to get around.  Take my photoshopped image of the model holding my release, and make a print.  Set the date on your camera to the date of the shoot.  Now take a photo of the altered print.  You now have an "unedited" photo of the girl holding my release.

The trick is presenting enough evidence to convince the judge/jury that the model actually signed the release you are showing to the court.   If the model denies it, it may very well boil down to who is more convincing.  After all, you are the evil photographer who manipulates images for a living.

Very few of these cases reach a trial. they settle out of court or resolve in motions such as motions for summary judgment aka 'MSJs.'

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
Very few of these cases reach a trial. they settle out of court or resolve in motions such as motions for summary judgment aka 'MSJs.'

Yes, people frequently settle out of court.  They estimate what they think the court is likely to do, and may decide to take the lower risk of settling.   For instance, if you use photo in an advertisement, and you don't have a release, you may be willing to settle.  If you have an iron clad release, witnessed, and notarized, you might not.   

In fact, most situations never get as far as a law suit.  If you use a photo without a required release, the model may ask you to stop using it, or ask for compensation.  You agree, and the issue is resolved.   The important cases are those where the parties don't agree.  These are the ones that end up in court.  By the time they end up in court, the two parties might hate each other.

Motions for summary judgement are for situations where there are no relevant questions of fact.  For instance, everyone agrees that there was no release, and everyone agrees that the image was used in an advertisement.

The question I was addressing is what happens if the model denies she signed a release, while you insist she did.  In that case, there will be no summary judgement, as there are "facts" for the court to determine.  While having a photo of the model holding a release may be helpful, it is not definitive.  The model could easily claim the image had been photoshopped.

Michael Fryd wrote:
...

Motions for summary judgement are for situations where there are no relevant questions of fact.  For instance, everyone agrees that there was no release, and everyone agrees that the image was used in an advertisement.

The question I was addressing is what happens if the model denies she signed a release, while you insist she did.  In that case, there will be no summary judgement, as there are "facts" for the court to determine.  While having a photo of the model holding a release may be helpful, it is not definitive.  The model could easily claim the image had been photoshopped.

- inked stamp pad:  $2.00; - model's thumbprint on original signed release: priceless // anyone do this?

Michael Fryd wrote:
The question I was addressing is what happens if the model denies she signed a release, while you insist she did.  In that case, there will be no summary judgement, as there are "facts" for the court to determine.  While having a photo of the model holding a release may be helpful, it is not definitive.  The model could easily claim the image had been photoshopped.

This is exactly why most professional photographers, producers, agencies, and magazine publishing companies do not accept a photo of the model holding her model release or ID. 

Printed and digital copies of her Government Issued  ID are required (reproduced larger than 100%). Especially if they are to comply with 2257 regulations.

As an added protection from the model claiming that it's not her, many companies require the models signature in ink be signed so some of the signature overlaps parts of the ID . . .  thus proving that the image of the ID was on the paper before the signature was applied.

As far as going to court over this goes . . . . a quick reminder that Perjury Laws can be rather severe. Judges have little tolerance for people lying under oath.