MM Terms of Service wrote:
You automatically grant and assign to us, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant and assign to us, a perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited, fully paid, fully sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), worldwide license to copy, perform, display, distribute, prepare derivative works from (including, without limitation, incorporating into other works) and otherwise use any content that you post...

Idyllic  wrote:
So a model can't write a release on how the images can be used/conduct of the photog?

The common perception here is that a photographer will not sign releases written by a model.  It is a broad generalization that is probably true, but it is not true in specifics.  My primary goal is paintings, not photography.  So my method will vary with that of photographers.  But I do want to make art print photographs from time to time.

At the request of one model, I did listen to her concerns and write a release that addressed her limitations and defined mine.  We emailed back and forth until we had something we could both live with.  I will never publish any nude photo of her without her written consent, but I can paint her without any further contact.  I don't recall how we settled the art nudes photographs specifically.  I do not owe her any further monetary consideration for any of the work. but, what I will do if I make good money on something in which she was critical, would be to try to share with her.

I can live with not being allowed to have carte blanche rights because many of my models are my friends and they model for me because they know me, my character, and trust me.  So, it isn't too much of a reach to have a similar agreement with a paid model.  But, the professional will often give me something in the way of a price break or some less tangible advantage.

You can attempt to make any terms with anyone.  The reality is that not everyone will accept the terms.  Some won't even discuss them.  You have to be prepared to put something of value on the table for a compromise.  Or not.

Idyllic  wrote:
So a model can't write a release on how the images can be used/conduct of the photog?

As Hunter mentioned, ANYTHING is negotiable...

... but to answer your newest question, what you'd be doing is giving a LIMITED MODEL RELEASE (which is VERY COMMON). That's totally different than what it appeared you were asking on your first question (a photographer release... which would more accurately be called an image license)

Basically how it works is that without any other forms of documentation when a picture is created the photographer owns the copyright therefore photographer is the only person allowed to reproduce, display, project, edit, or do anything with the picture.  Even though a model may have posed for the photographer the model has no rights to use the image at all.

The photographer may grant others to use the images either in a specific manner (such as for one week in a particular advertisement on a billboard) or a much more general license (here's your photos, do whatever you want with them... leave me alone)

With that being said, the model (let's say you for example) have rights to how the image is used.  With NO release, the photographer is extremely limited as to what could be done with the image.  Typically it's just the ability to display the image in their own home, album, or portfolio or sell (basically one at a time, like in a gallery).

The LIMITED release that the model signs allows the photographer to use the image as specified.  Just like a photographers license the model release can be very specific (allowing this particular photo to be used for the XYZ fall catalog from October through November) or more general (ie: here's my image, do whatever you want to do with it cuz I don't care)

A general model release (which most photographers on MM use and most models end up signing) basically allows the images to be used anywhere and for anything.  For the most part I strongly suggest that models NEVER sign such a release for the reasons you're concerned about.  A limited release can always be created and amended if the need arises.

Idyllic  wrote:
So a model can't write a release on how the images can be used/conduct of the photog?

You can write what ever you want.  The problem is many are looking at this backwards.  A release is about what a photographer or end user needs and will protect them.  It's not about you. 

People hire a model to produce images that suit their needs.  A model release ensures this need does not violate a model's rights, such as right of privacy.  The release protects the end user and anyone else, such as the photographer from liability.  So the release needs to cover their  intended use and because it's a legal document should be written or reviewed by legal council the photographer and/or end users trusts.  For these reasons, most photographers legitimately won't accept a model release handed to them by a model.  If I'm shooting for a stock company or business, I need a model release acceptable to them, possibly provided by them.  A release provided by a model won't be acceptable.  If the images can’t be used as needed, then there's no reason to do the shoot.

It's much like signing a waiver.  You wouldn't go to gym and hand them a waiver you wrote.  They want you to sign a waiver designed to protect them. 

You can of course refuse any shoot offer for any reason you wish, including being unhappy with the release they want you to sign.

Idyllic  wrote:
So a model can't write a release on how the images can be used/conduct of the photog?

As people have already said it is all negotiable.  To avoid later legal confusion there should just be one release.  If a model got one release, photographers got another and neither match up which release is the legal one?   Ask to see a release in advance.  Ask for additions.  I will say requesting additional conditions may result in a photographer asking for a lower rate.

Super Dimension Foto wrote:
I will say requesting additional conditions may result in a photographer asking for a lower rate.

...or the model receiving a higher rate if the model agrees to amend the release to permit use of the restricted image(s).

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Basically how it works is that without any other forms of documentation when a picture is created the photographer owns the copyright therefore photographer is the only person allowed to reproduce, display, project, edit, or do anything with the picture.  Even though a model may have posed for the photographer the model has no rights to use the image at all.
. . .
With that being said, the model (let's say you for example) have rights to how the image is used.  With NO release, the photographer is extremely limited as to what could be done with the image.  Typically it's just the ability to display the image in their own home, album, or portfolio or sell (basically one at a time, like in a gallery).

So here's a surprise . . . both of those paragraphs are wrong.  One might think as often as these topics are discussed, by now those who have been discussing for a long time might try to get it right.

http://www.newmodels.com/Releases.html

http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html

Emeritus wrote:

So here's a surprise . . . both of those paragraphs are wrong.  One might think as often as these topics are discussed, by now those who have been discussing for a long time might try to get it right.

http://www.newmodels.com/Releases.html

http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html

I just checked out your source and find it severely lacking in credibility.  It appears to be another site aimed at getting young women to believe they are some kind of authority on the issues associated with modeling.  I did not read everything on the site but the lack of contact information and the sales pitch to buy the book is enough to tell me it's a self proclaimed scam.

Idyllic  wrote:
How common?

Very common!

Idyllic  wrote:
So a model can't write a release on how the images can be used/conduct of the photog?

A model/client can have their own release/contract. Photographers have copyright, but almost everything is negotiable.

Todd Meredith wrote:
I just checked out your source and find it severely lacking in credibility.  It appears to be another site aimed at getting young women to believe they are some kind of authority on the issues associated with modeling.  I did not read everything on the site but the lack of contact information and the sales pitch to buy the book is enough to tell me it's a self proclaimed scam.

Todd,

You're not the first and far from the only person that understands that.
The site, and the self published book were both written by Emeritus, the person that posted the rebuttal to my message.

Idyllic  wrote:
So a model can't write a release on how the images can be used/conduct of the photog?

Probaly answered already.. you are the subject, the person that hits the shutter release (unless specified) owns the right to the creation of the final image, according the US copyright laws.

If you have special arrangements regarding the use of your images, you need those documented.

Emeritus wrote:
http://www.newmodels.com/Releases.html

http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html

Not worrying about the accuracy of your opinion, as I know that YOU KNOW, but simply seeing you responding after about a hundred years, excites me and fills me with joy! 

PEOPLE... that are unaware who "Emeritus" is, and those who don't give a crap who I am, just pay attention to what one of the true elders of MM is saying!

Todd Meredith wrote:
I just checked out your source and find it severely lacking in credibility.  It appears to be another site aimed at getting young women to believe they are some kind of authority on the issues associated with modeling.  I did not read everything on the site but the lack of contact information and the sales pitch to buy the book is enough to tell me it's a self proclaimed scam.

If you happen to have any authoritative source that says anything is in those articles is wrong, feel free to quote and link to it.

Mr. Cheez likes to denigrate me and my works, for his own personal reasons.  It's a long-standing obsession of his.  I suppose there are others who feel the need also.  But they tend to complain while not being able to substantiate what they say.  Just trolling.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
You're not the first and far from the only person that understands that.
The site, and the self published book were both written by Emeritus, the person that posted the rebuttal to my message.

Well, yes, the book is self-published.  I do note, however, that it has sold thousands of copies domestically, and has been republished by mainstream publishers, translated into both Russian and Chinese.

I note you have no substantive response to that rebuttal.

Todd Meredith wrote:

I just checked out your source and find it severely lacking in credibility.  It appears to be another site aimed at getting young women to believe they are some kind of authority on the issues associated with modeling.  I did not read everything on the site but the lack of contact information and the sales pitch to buy the book is enough to tell me it's a self proclaimed scam.

Best to stop there. He is perhaps the most credible source out there when it comes to real world model photography (not to discount the knowledge of Udor, Eastwood and many others).

Jason McKendricks wrote:
Best to stop there. He is perhaps the most credible source out there when it comes to real world model photography (not to discount the knowledge of Udor, Eastwood and many others).

Jason,

Please re-read what was presented.  I noted the source -the cite - is lacking in credibility.  Anyone who has ever cited any works from the web can explain the problems with it. 

Just for the record,  you note the author as "perhaps the most credible source out there."  According to whom?  If one is truly an authority on a subject or an issue, why hide behind a pseudonym?  Self promotion does not make someone an authority.

Isn't hocking goods via the forums a violation of site rules?

Todd Meredith wrote:

Jason,

Please re-read what was presented.  I noted the source -the cite - is lacking in credibility.  Anyone who has ever cited any works from the web can explain the problems with it. 

Just for the record,  you note the author as "perhaps the most credible source out there."  According to whom?  If one is truly an authority on a subject or an issue, why hide behind a pseudonym?  Self promotion does not make someone an authority.

Isn't hocking goods via the forums a violation of site rules?

Give up!  There are many here that know who he is.

Todd Meredith wrote:
Jason,

Please re-read what was presented.  I noted the source -the cite - is lacking in credibility.  Anyone who has ever cited any works from the web can explain the problems with it. 

Just for the record,  you note the author as "perhaps the most credible source out there."  According to whom?  If one is truly an authority on a subject or an issue, why hide behind a pseudonym?  Self promotion does not make someone an authority.

Isn't hocking goods via the forums a violation of site rules?

Mr.Meredith, you are a professional photographer.  I know that because you tell us that in your profile.  I have not called that into question, nor have I wondered aloud whether you have any credibility to impugn others.

As you say, someone who inspects the work of others may be moved to question the credibility, knowledge or skills of that person, but it is best done if some actual evidence is proferred.

Instead, I have asked you to provide links from authoritative sources which contradict the information in those articles that you complain about.  Crickets.  That is surprising.  I would expect a professional photographer to be able to back up his criticisms of others in this industry.

To your points:

There is contact information on the site, you just didn't find it.  An email address which can be used to contact me.

I do use a screen name, as many people on Model Mayhem do.  I invite you to explain to us how that is indicative of a scam, which you have called my page.  You may note that many of the pictures on my MM profile are tearsheets from magazines that clearly list me, by name, in the credits.  Someone trying to hide their identity may find that a poor technique, but evidently you feel it sufficiently obscures the ownership of the page to warrant calling me a scam.

It is not true that the work of the page is anonymous, nor hidden.  The book clearly states who the author is - with my real name - and the site clearly identifies the book as being an extension of the site.  Several of the articles on that site are not written by me, but by other industry professionals, and when that is true they are also identified.  One of them is Paul Fisher, who generously donated his articles based on his decades as a top fashion agency booker in New York.

I'm sure you must have knowledge and experience, as a professional, equal to Paul's or to mine.  Please feel free to tell us all about it.

Todd Meredith wrote:

Jason,

Please re-read what was presented.  I noted the source -the cite - is lacking in credibility.  Anyone who has ever cited any works from the web can explain the problems with it. 

Just for the record,  you note the author as "perhaps the most credible source out there."  According to whom?  If one is truly an authority on a subject or an issue, why hide behind a pseudonym?  Self promotion does not make someone an authority.

Isn't hocking goods via the forums a violation of site rules?

I didn't give his name because he chooses not to put it on his profile and I figure it is his decision to share it if he wants to. I have also noticed over the years that he does not feel a need to boast about his experience. A thousand random photographer portfolios from Model Mayhem could be pulled and I would bet money that he has accomplished more in the realm of model photography than all of them combined.

Not trying to get into conflict with you. Just stating this man is the very definition of legitimacy when it comes to the legalities of photographing models.

Todd Meredith wrote:
I just checked out your source and find it severely lacking in credibility.  It appears to be another site aimed at getting young women to believe they are some kind of authority on the issues associated with modeling. I did not read everything on the site but the lack of contact information and the sales pitch to buy the book is enough to tell me it's a self proclaimed scam.

Todd Meredith wrote:
Please re-read what was presented.  I noted the source -the cite - is lacking in credibility.  Anyone who has ever cited any works from the web can explain the problems with it. 

Just for the record,  you note the author as "perhaps the most credible source out there."  According to whom?  If one is truly an authority on a subject or an issue, why hide behind a pseudonym?  Self promotion does not make someone an authority.

Isn't hocking goods via the forums a violation of site rules?

This second quote is not what you said in the first quote.   You said you checked out the source.  No, you didn't.  You scrolled down and saw the material was for sale and you considered it discredited, subjectively, because of the lack of contact information and because the book was for sale, it was not only unreliable, but a scam because the information was being made available to models, was your conclusion.

If you follow a link that someone posts to the website of "The Copyright Zone." you will find links to buy the book, "The Copyright Zone."  Per the way you presented your conclusions, "The Copyright Zone" is not a credible source.

You made that decision, even though the information in the attachments was good.  You went no further in your verification process then to accept your minor scrutiny of the link and your biased ideas of what is credible. And you admit you didn’t read everything.

According to whom?  The guy that said it, maybe?  Or should he list each individual that he knows that would support his contention?  Three others have already had something positive to say about the guy.  Aren’t they part of the whom?

The rest of your post is deflection.  "As anyone who has ever ..."  Yes, because it is impossible to find both good and bad sources.  "Isn't hocking goods ...." There is an obvious difference between citing a source that has information about purchasing the material and writing a post that says, "I have a book for sale."  The fact that you don't recognize the value of nom de plume is not indicative of a bad source.  There are prolific authors who publish under different names for marketing reasons.  Many actors have altered their name or adopted fictitious names to perform under.  There is an entire agency in state government that registers fictitious names for businesses.   And there are hundreds of thousand of people on this site that do not, for very good reason, use their real names.

Regarding the characterization that what one member said was wrong, well, what both members said were generalizations. Generalizations are generally wrong because they generalize, but that is also what makes them generally right.  Otherwise, every comment would have to be dissertation.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Basically how it works is that without any other forms of documentation when a picture is created the photographer owns the copyright therefore photographer is the only person allowed to reproduce, display, project, edit, or do anything with the picture.  Even though a model may have posed for the photographer the model has no rights to use the image at all.

In 2014 the federal  Court of Canada addressed the issue and confirmed that implied licenses do exist.


"in Pinto v Bronfman Jewish Education Centre et al, 2013 FC 945, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants infringed his copyright over musical work produced for TaL AM, a Jewish language, religion, culture and history curriculum developed by the defendants.  Siding with the defendants, the Court found an implied license in the freelance contract between the parties for the defendant to use the artistic work for the purpose it was created, thus no infringement was found."

Todd Meredith wrote:
Hunter,

I am so glad you chimed in.  Without your insight into how the world works, I'm not sure where we all would be days in and out.  I suppose that, since you've set the record straight, we can all sleep soundly tonight.  Hopefully tomorrow there will be some world threatening crisis you can help solve, world hunger maybe?  Now that Bono is getting up there in years, it's comforting to know we have you to keep us all in line.  I mean, Heavens forbid any of us would have an opinion of our own.  The very thought of that is frightening!!!

By the way, what was scour point?

Todd:  You have a right to your opinion.  That is true, but you do not have a right to be free from rebuttal or rebuke when expressing those opinions.  Your previous comments were irresponsible and you should be mature enough to recognize that and accept the consequences for your words and proffer an apology.  But you will do none of that.

Maybe I will rotate in the other responses I wrote to this petulant post.  It was great fun.  But once again, you have displayed your character in your post, and ultimately, that is an action that is sufficient to make a further response redundant.  Please try to stay on topic with further comments.  You are embarrassing yourself.

Idyllic  wrote:
Photographer Releases - How common?

I use various types of photographer releases, e.g. when I do paid vs TFP photo shoots.

As a mostly amateur photographer, it is unlikely that I would ever legally pursue any model that I have photographed for the unauthorised, non-commercial use of an image.

I use releases primarily to protect myself.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Basically how it works is that without any other forms of documentation when a picture is created the photographer owns the copyright therefore photographer is the only person allowed to reproduce, display, project, edit, or do anything with the picture.  Even though a model may have posed for the photographer the model has no rights to use the image at all.
. . .
With that being said, the model (let's say you for example) have rights to how the image is used.  With NO release, the photographer is extremely limited as to what could be done with the image.  Typically it's just the ability to display the image in their own home, album, or portfolio or sell (basically one at a time, like in a gallery).

Emeritus wrote:
So here's a surprise . . . both of those paragraphs are wrong.  One might think as often as these topics are discussed, by now those who have been discussing for a long time might try to get it right.

http://www.newmodels.com/Releases.html

http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html

so here's another surprise... well, they are not 100% wrong, or not even 10% wrong. in context, they are both fine for a short summary. if you take the rest of the post in the whole, they are fine.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
With that being said, the model (let's say you for example) have rights to how the image is used.  With NO release, the photographer is extremely limited as to what could be done with the image.  Typically it's just the ability to display the image in their own home, album, or portfolio or sell (basically one at a time, like in a gallery).
..........
The photographer may grant others to use the images either in a specific manner (such as for one week in a particular advertisement on a billboard) or a much more general license (here's your photos, do whatever you want with them... leave me alone)

most of the information in your pages even agree:
http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html
"Wait!  Does That Mean I Can’t Publish My Own Pictures?
            Yeah, pretty much.  The photographer owns the right to control publication.  To publish them yourself, you need a usage license from the photographer.  You may already have one, and him not know it, depending on the nature of the shoot."

http://www.newmodels.com/Releases.html
"Errrrr . . . Doesn’t a Release Have to be a Contract?
No, it doesn’t, although people like to claim that it does."

now, rodger, your pages are more extensive and cover more ground - but you are not 100% correct either. there are some small things that are problematic; but you have a big problem that lots of photographers here keep making - a model release is a contract. it is, in fact, a unilateral contract. the model agrees to giving something of value to the photographer. that meets the requirements; and many lawyers agree:

https://releases.uslegal.com/requiremen … d-release/
"A release is contractual in nature and is governed by the law of contracts[ii].  A valid release must exhibit all the ingredients of a valid contract.  The essential elements to a valid release are:

parties capable of contracting;
party’s consent;
lawful object;
offer and acceptance; and
sufficient cause or consideration."

https://expertphotography.com/photograp … ease-form/
"A simple model release form, at its most basic, is a contract."

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
now, rodger, your pages are more extensive and cover more ground - but you are not 100% correct either. there are some small things that are problematic; but you have a big problem that lots of photographers here keep making - a model release is a contract. it is, in fact, a unilateral contract. the model agrees to giving something of value to the photographer. that meets the requirements; and many lawyers agree:

https://releases.uslegal.com/requiremen … d-release/
"A release is contractual in nature and is governed by the law of contracts[ii].  A valid release must exhibit all the ingredients of a valid contract.  The essential elements to a valid release are:

parties capable of contracting;
party’s consent;
lawful object;
offer and acceptance; and
sufficient cause or consideration."

https://expertphotography.com/photograp … ease-form/
"A simple model release form, at its most basic, is a contract."

If you are going to claim that lawyers agree on something, it's generally useful to link to comments by a lawyer.  If it is about US law, it should be written by an American.  Your link is to comments by a British photographer, not a lawyer, who lives in Budapest. http://craighullphotography.co.uk/

And what he is saying is confused and, frankly, wrong.  Let's take an example:

"Let’s say that you have photographed a well-known politician. But did not get a model photo release.
You sell the image to a local newspaper. They use the image alongside an article written about said politician.
The image accompanies a news story, so this counts as editorial usage. Money changing hands doesn’t render the image and usage as a commercial.

But the politician might want the image to use for an ad campaign. This requires a model release form. Here, we see the same image used for two different purposes."

In that case the politician would not need a model release form, because the picture is of him.  There may be copyright issues, but that is a whole different area of law, unrelated to model release requirements.

Hull also mixes concepts such as "fair use" (a copyright term not relevant to most model release issues) in his discussions.  It simply is not a reliable source.

A release need not be a contract, even a unilateral one, and there are even cases where it is to the photographer's advantage NOT to use a release that is a contract.  A release is a statement of consent to some use of photos.  Nothing more.  It can be as simple as a written, "feel free to use my pictures any way you like," or, in some states, even an oral expression of consent.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.050

Now, most as-used releases are in fact written as contracts, but that does not mean they need to be, or that all are.  It's important to recognize that.  The contractual form gives some advantages, but is not a requirement.

https://www.filmshooterscollective.com/ … art-1-3-30

Let me give an example, taken from the decision of the appeals court in Cory v Nintendo:

"  In denying summary judgment to defendants on the plaintiff's
right of privacy causes of action, the IAS Court was of the view
that sections 50 Civ. Rights and 51 Civ. Rights of the Civil Rights Law
require an enforceable contract for the commercial use of another's
photograph or likeness. Nothing in the statute even suggests that
the consent to such use must satisfy the requisites of a
contract. Since written consent is all that the statute requires,
consideration is not required. (See, e.g., Francica v. Fun
World, 138 Misc.2d 628, 629.) Andretti v. Rolex Watch (82 A.D.2d 765,
revd 56 N.Y.2d 284) is directly on point. There, this Court,
in granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff on his Civil
Rights Law privacy claims, held that a notation on a photograph,
"It's good to be a member of your Rolex Club", signed by
plaintiff, could not be construed as a consent. In reversing, the
Court of Appeals held that such a writing could indeed constitute
a consent as contemplated by the statute."

Very few states require consideration; all that is required is consent. Again, most model releases are phrased as contracts, but it is not a legal requirement, and sometimes is not the case.

3RPG wrote:
Let's not confuse usage right with full rights!

I suppose it would be easier not to confuse them if we had any idea what "full rights" means.

Emeritus wrote:
"Let’s say that you have photographed a well-known politician.

My understanding of model releases (in Australia anyway) is that it gives the photographer the right to use the model's image for commercial purposes and, secondly, the model's image is to represent an imaginary person, ie the model should not be identified.

In Australia we have 3 weeks to go for the electioneering for our next Federal election. I can understand the Government's advertising using the Prime Minister's image for their campaign, but surely he/she wouldn't give permission for the Opposition to use a, usually disparaging, image of himself/herself. And likewise for the Opposition. The same happened in the last USA elections with images of Trump and Clinton being used by both sides.

I assume that the use of images of politicians in political campaigns does not require model releases - also the politicians are readily identifiable, and they come under another usage area. Just like truth in advertising, companies can be fined big moneys for untruthful claims in advertisements, but political advertising seems to be exempt.