A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
Here is a great example why a model release and contract is vital for models as well as photographers: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail … dfd7c1406e

model release has nothing to do with this matter.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:

model release has nothing to do with this matter.

+1

As the article clearly states, this case was about copyright law being violated, it had nothing to do with issues of release, and wasn’t a matter of contractual agreements either.  It’s about copyright infringement.  If anything it’s a reminder that there is a big difference between rights someone has to their likeness and copyright.  I often see models and sometimes even photographers refer to photos of a model as her images.  This case is a reminder that images are copyright by the creator, not the subject.

kickfight wrote:
So my questions are these: can a celeb not post a pic that appears in a publication on her Insta? Was a lawsuit really necessary, or was her Insta post being leveraged by the photographer as a way to call attention to himself? Couldn't this guy have just posted on Gigi's Insta, saying "Hey Gigi glad you liked the photo I took of you from @DailyMail!" and be done with it?

except for the minor fact that she cropped out the credit and removed the copyright information before reposting it. that would trouble me. that's an intentional act.

" Mr Cepeda is claiming that Ms Hadid or her agents removed the credit attributing the photograph to him from the bottom of the image, and also the watermark showing that the image was subject to copyright. "

"Gigi Hadid then decided to take the photo from DailyMail, remove my credit/byline, and post it onto her Instagram social media account. "

A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
Here is a great example why a model release and contract is vital for models as well as photographers

and i would be laughed out of modeling agencies. have tested with many agency models, and never had them sign releases nor required contracts from any of them. things are different with internet freelance newbies.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
except for the minor fact that she cropped out the credit and removed the copyright information before reposting it. that would trouble me. that's an intentional act.

" Mr Cepeda is claiming that Ms Hadid or her agents removed the credit attributing the photograph to him from the bottom of the image, and also the watermark showing that the image was subject to copyright. "

"Gigi Hadid then decided to take the photo from DailyMail, remove my credit/byline, and post it onto her Instagram social media account. "

Yes, the photo was cropped when it was posted on Instagram, but that was likely just to emphasize the part that shows the altered Adidas logo on the back of the jacket, and not just to excise the credit, which was at the very bottom of the image.

The alleged "problem" only arose when people like E!News started screencapping her Insta and using that screencap in their articles. But even if she had used the full-length image from Daily News, complete with credit and copyright info, and people screencapped her post and used that screencap in their articles, the alleged "problem" would remain. So it's not really about just the cropping. It's also the practice of other publications taking screenshots of people's Instagram posts and using those screencaps as content.

Sounds to me like a paparazzo was thinking he could get an easy payday from a lawsuit. But it looks like Cepeda pulled his lawsuit in October of last year and the case was closed in December.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Every shoot should use a contract.

Every?  I don't think that's necessary or practical.

First, as folks have already pointed out, this issue has nothing to do with a model release.

Second, a contract is a legally binding agreement signed by all parties concerned.  Contracts written by amateurs tend to be confusing, inconsistent, incomplete, and thereby worthless.  Further, any contract that goes into the detail that specifies the conditions of copyright law is likely to be dozens of pages long, which would (for me, at least) require the (expensive) vetting by an appropriate professional lawyer.

Then again, I'm not likely to be photographing internationally famous superstar models.

On the other hand, I think it is prudent to have an e-mail exchange that specifies & documents the expectations of both parties, and that exchange should specify what that model can & cannot do with the resulting images.

You do realize that the email exchange constitutes the contract in the absence of anything else?

Virtual Studio wrote:
You do realize that the email exchange constitutes the contract in the absence of anything else?

I don't think so.  I can send you an e-mail saying that you owe me $1,000 in exchange for some photographic advice I have given you.  Is that a binding contract?  If so, pay up. 

I will be among the first to rag on lawyers, but they do have value (at least the good ones do) -- they can write clear contracts whose terms are understandable & enforceable.  Seems easy, but it is not.  Most e-mail exchanges between photographer & model tend to gloss over important points, not documenting expectations and/or terms of agreement.  Your typical e-mail exchange will not constitute a contract, especially if the documented terms are not acknowledged by the other party.

So, document your agreements, but don't expect them to be enforceable in court.

kickfight wrote:
So my questions are these: can a celeb not post a pic that appears in a publication on her Insta?.

No they cannot just use an image without a license from the copyright owner. The DM had a license to use the image, the celeb did not. The photographer appears to have taken legal action  to recover the loss of earnings (had the model licensed it correctly and all the people who then took it from her insta acc) and to re-assert his ownership of the image.

kickfight wrote:
Sounds to me like a paparazzo was thinking he could get an easy payday from a lawsuit. But it looks like Cepeda pulled his lawsuit in October of last year and the case was closed in December.

Yes press photographers make their living by licensing their images to the media. I imagine she settled out of court.

Darren Brade wrote:
had the model licensed it correctly and all the people who then took it from her insta acc

Yeah, that's the part that remains ambiguous... even if she had actually licensed it just so she could post it on her Insta, the people who screencapped it and then used the screencap to illustrate their articles would have ostensibly been in violation, because they didn't license the image.

I wonder if he even filed a Copyright violation notice on Instagram. There doesn't seem to be any mention of that anywhere.

Darren Brade wrote:
Yes press photographers make their living by licensing their images to the media. I imagine she settled out of court.

Sure, but in this specific case it seems that this "freelance news and celebrity photographer" was trying to supplement his "living" via lawsuit.

There's no evidence that there was any settlement. All we know is that the photographer pulled his lawsuit.

A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
Model releases are a contract,

Is it a contract if it is only signed by one party?

A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
My model releases all directly address copyright.  If it is TFP, the contract usually gives the model a non-commercial license.  If the model pays, it gives the model a commercial license.  If I'm paying, the model gets a license to use images for self-promotion only (usually -- each shoot can be different).

Sounds to me that you are merging a model release & a usage license together on one page.  Do you sign this document, too?

Yeah, I'll leave contracts to the professionals.  I tend to think that the non-lawyers among us don't truly understand contract law.  At least, that's my assumption.

A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
Model releases are a contract,

Debatable. Some documents addressing issues of release such as permission to use forms are not written in contractual  language. Even when releases are contractual, it doesnt make issues of copyright and issues of release one and the same as you have made them out to be. 

A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
...but unless the "model release" provides them with a copyright license, they are in violation of copyright law when they repost it.

Model releases don’t provide copyright license or usage rights.  That’s not at all what model releases are about. 

A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
My model releases all directly address copyright.

Model releases are not about copyright. 

A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
The "model release" for nudes, of course, should also normally include 2257.

2257 requirements are not a part of model release, they are driven by different legislation. 


You should really stop posting such misinformation.