Michael Fryd wrote:
Now if the model wants the Photographer to agree to restrictions above and beyond those imposed by law, that would be in a contract.  That contract could be in the same document as the model release, but frequently it would be a separate document.

Not that this matters for the OP.  She is no longer on Model Mayhem.

Model releases typically DO limit the scope of the conditions that the model's image can be used. It is not frequently in a separate document. That is rare. Even the most widely used stock model release--the Getty Stock release--has limitations as to where the images can be legally used. Most fashion and commercial shoots are released on a specific usage and duration basis. Some are highly negotiated and regulated in advance of a shoot and the limitations are written into the model booking voucher and/or release. Even some adult publications have specific languages in their release to make sure their needs are covered because they don't leave it to chance that typical releases contain the provision they require. LFP/Hustler, for example, needs to have their own specific release filled out for each shoot.

What I have observed in roughly 25 years of working as a professional both in the fashion/commercial world and the glamour web world is that the amateur/glamour/adult models are some of the only models who sign all-rights releases. While major corporations are seeking all-rights release more frequently, the compensation to models is generally higher than what the glamour world could bear. Fashion and commercial photographers have lived with these conditions for decades and it seems to me that only the amateur/glamour section of photographers are the ones to get all butt-hurt when faced with other realities of the broader industry.

Dan Howell wrote:
Model releases typically DO limit the scope of the conditions that the model's image can be used. It is not frequently in a separate document. That is rare. Even the most widely used stock model release--the Getty Stock release--has limitations as to where the images can be legally used. Most fashion and commercial shoots are released on a specific usage and duration basis. Some are highly negotiated and regulated in advance of a shoot and the limitations are written into the model booking voucher and/or release. Even some adult publications have specific languages in their release to make sure their needs are covered because they don't leave it to chance that typical releases contain the provision they require. LFP/Hustler, for example, needs to have their own specific release filled out for each shoot.

What I have observed in roughly 25 years of working as a professional both in the fashion/commercial world and the glamour web world is that the amateur/glamour/adult models are some of the only models who sign all-rights releases. While major corporations are seeking all-rights release more frequently, the compensation to models is generally higher than what the glamour world could bear. Fashion and commercial photographers have lived with these conditions for decades and it seems to me that only the amateur/glamour section of photographers are the ones to get all butt-hurt when faced with other realities of the broader industry.

A typical Model Release does not limit the scope.  The scope is limited by law.  The Typical Model Release expands the allowed uses, it does not reduce them.

For instance, suppose I take a photo of a model in a swimsuit.   Without a release I am likely allowed to use that image in various non-commercial contexts.  However, I may not use the image in a commercial context, such as an advertisement for that brand of swimwear.

If my goal is to use that image in an advertisement, I will get a release.  The release may say something to the effect "...may be used for a period of 1 year, for print advertisements, in the USA".   This expands my right to use the image, it does not limit it.  Without the release, I can not use the image for an advertisement either online or in print.  The Model Release eliminates some of these limits and allows me to use the image in print.

If a model release limited the use of an image, then a photographer would have fewer limits without the release.  We generally get a release as the release removes some limitations on the use of the image.

This can be confusing as the wording makes it seem that the release is adding a limit.  However, the legal meanings of words and phrases frequently are different than the plain language meanings.

FFantastique wrote:
Unable to show Member #2277764
This member is awaiting for approval or has removed their profile.

Where didst thou go, dear OP?

.

Oh. She's removed her profile, but neglected to remove this forum thread.
or remove as much of it from her end that can be

Aaron Pawlak wrote:
Oh. She's removed her profile, but neglected to remove this forum thread.
or remove as much of it from her end that can be

Before she removed her profile, she should have replaced her avatar with a white square and a name change.

phxrisephoto wrote:
Kaela Kino,
         I would love to work with you if I ever get near where you are located.

It's sad that you have missed her.

Whatever your restrictions, no nudity, no pink, no nipples, no smoking, no confederate flags. Discuss all of them before booking the shoot so you are both on the same page. I wouldn’t even phrase it as “I’ll just walk away.” Both the photographer and model should discuss the shoot to make sure they are both on the same page before the shoot. As a photographer it is frustrating when you book a model for a shoot that you has discussed specifics about and the model shows up and doesn’t want to shoot what was discussed. On the other hand as a model, a photographer should not throw you curve balls on the set and pressure you to do something that was not agreed to. Releases are legal contracts. Put everything in writing and be very specific. Regarding renegotiating after a shoot. When I show my models a release before the shoot I tell them that I will not renegotiate pay, nudity or usage after the release is signed. It’s a contract. I will always negotiate in advance but will not negotiate terms after. That said if a model took a new job and politely asked if a nude could be taken off an online portfolio, depending on the image and it’s individual value in my port, I would try to work with them. If I printed images for an art series, I would not destroy remaining paper prints. That’s why I tell potential models who seem unsure about modeling or nudity to make sure they are 100% good and confident before they book the shoot.

Also today once photos are out there, they stay out there. Even if I take an image down from my online ports, it is probable someone copied and pasted them and I would not have control over there display.

1) sit down and think deeply about your present circumstances and possible future circumstances and write down what restrictions are good for you.

2) find a model release template and write your own release (do not expect every photographer to agree to use it but I will let them know what you will agree to)

3) before booking a shoot discuss everything you wrote down without parsing your words, be direct. Also as the photographer to email you their release forms so you can read the language and negotiate amendments.

Jon Winkleman Photo wrote:
So my question is: Would it be possible to ask photographers to not post photos to major social media networks (namely, Facebook & instagram)? Have it a part of the release that all other avenues are fine, just not major platforms? I’m ready to turn down gigs & only work with photographers that are willing to meet my terms. But, do most photographers post nudes to instagram now? Is there no way around this? Just want to know how to move forward.

Anything can be asked for. To avoid disputes, either list the major platforms by name or clearly define them (or let some judge do it later in court). The more restrictions you have, the fewer photographers will want to work you (and the less many of them will be willing to pay you).

Neither FB or IG permits nudity in photos.

Don’t think that these restrictions will save you from owners of major or minor hard or soft porn sites that simply pirate photos from MM or wherever the photos are posted and upload them to their own sites.

Jon Winkleman Photo wrote:
Releases are legal contracts.

No, a contract is a binding agreement between two people. A release is unilateral and requires only one signature; one person concedes certain rights to the other (in exchange for implied consideration that presumably has been tendered before the release is signed and does not have to be specified in the release). If you start adding things to it beyond the basic release, it becomes a contract and will require two signatures.

A release is not always required to “publish” a photo, and a release is not required to display prints in a gallery or sell prints.

Barely StL wrote:
No, a contract is a binding agreement between two people. A release is unilateral and requires only one signature; one person concedes certain rights to the other (in exchange for implied consideration that presumably has been tendered before the release is signed and does not have to be specified in the release). If you start adding things to it beyond the basic release, it becomes a contract and will require two signatures.

A document labeled "Model Release" may actually be a contract.

Many attorneys recommend structuring the Model Release document as a contract.  For instance, it may include a phrase like "In consideration for ten dollars (or other valuable consideration), hearby acknowledged as received, I hearby grant permission to use my likeness...".  Structuring the model release as a contract usually makes it more difficult for the model to rescind permission. 

If the document is structured as a contract, it can impose other obligations/restrictions on the photographer. For instance the contract could prohibit the photographer from using the images for editorial use (a use that normally doesn't require a release).

Now whether or not such a document should be called a "contract" rather than a "release" is a matter of semantics.  No matter what you call it, a single document can contain both a grant of permission from the model, and an agreement by the photographer to be bound by various restrictions.

Michael Fryd wrote:
A document labeled "Model Release" may actually be a contract...

--------------------------------------------------------------


from the other current thread on this subject:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19926059

Baanthai wrote:
In 1st year contracts (Law School) we are taught that a contract to be valid must have 3 parts:

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration

Issue #1: Does a modeling release need consideration? Many believe that a release is not a contract and therefore consideration is irrelevant. But if you believe the release is a contract then you’ll find the consideration in the terms of the contract, not by simply reciting the word “consideration” in the contract language.

it's important to know that a model release is NOT a contract and shouldn't be considered a contract nor should it become a contract (many photographers make a HUGE mistake by attempting to do so).

It's more like permission or a license for those named in the release to use images of the model.  In that respect it's just like a deed, a will, or most licenses where the grantee doesn't have to agree, disagree, or sign the document.  If the grantee wants to do something with it they can, or they can totally do nothing with it and life will go on as normal.

A release may be incorporated into some sort of contract (ie: "production company will provide payment of $$$ to model in exchange for X days of shooting and a model release allowing the production company to use images" ...) but on it's own a release isn't a contract... and I repeat... it shouldn't be!

I'm only mentioning this because it's been discussed ad nauseum on MM and other photography forums and people still are totally confused as to what a model release really is.

Michael Fryd wrote:
...If the document is structured as a contract, it can impose other obligations/restrictions on the photographer.. For instance the contract could prohibit the photographer from using the images for editorial use...

That's commonly called a "Limited Model Release". 

Michael Fryd wrote:
Now whether or not such a document should be called a "contract" rather than a "release" is a matter of semantics.  No matter what you call it, a single document can contain both a grant of permission from the model, and an agreement by the photographer to be bound by various restrictions.

Sorry, it's NOT a question of semantics.  A contract and a release are two totally different things and two different categories.
Any legitimate agency or client would REJECT any document that claims to be a release but is actually a contract, and they'll probably reject all of the photos involved and go on to use the next photographer/model because of the unnecessary legal burdens of accepting such a submission.

The reason?
If they were to accept the 'contract' that looks like a release, the client would open themselves up to any legal situations and litigation that arises.  Nobody wants to be involved in a dispute between two other parties. 

All the client wants is permission to use the photos.  Nothing more, nothing less.
That's what the release does.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Sorry, it's NOT a question of semantics.  A contract and a release are two totally different things and two different categories.
Any legitimate agency or client would REJECT any document that claims to be a release but is actually a contract, and they'll probably reject all of the photos involved and go on to use the next photographer/model because of the unnecessary legal burdens of accepting such a submission.

The reason?
If they were to accept the 'contract' that looks like a release, the client would open themselves up to any legal situations and litigation that arises.  Nobody wants to be involved in a dispute between two other parties. 

All the client wants is permission to use the photos.  Nothing more, nothing less.
That's what the release does.

I agree that as a general rule the contract specifying the terms should be a document separate from the model release.

The model release may be structured as a "grant of rights" or a "contract".  If the model release contains the phrase "In exchange for..." then it is likely structured as a contract.  From a legal perspective it is a contract in which the model exchanges a grant of rights for consideration.  The advantage to structuring it this way is that it makes it harder for the model to rescind permission.  If the release merely says "I hearby grant permission to use my likeness for any purpose", the model may be able to revoke said permission.

I also agree that modeling agencies generally will reject a release that includes contractual terms that would normally be found in a separate document.  However, many photographers are not using professional models, and many photographers are themselves amateurs.    It is not unheard of for these people to try to combine everything into one document.  While that's not something I would suggest, it is a legal thing to do.


From the photographer's and the model's perspective, the Model Release document, is just a release of rights, and not a contract.  From a lawyer's perspective, the release is usually a valid and binding contract.   

In the real world, other contractual terms are typically found in a separate document, and that document is also a "contract".

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
from the other current thread on this subject:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19926059

Baanthai wrote:
In 1st year contracts (Law School) we are taught that a contract to be valid must have 3 parts:

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration

...

Assuming that the aforementioned law instructor/professor is correct, there is no way that my standard release form is a contract. First, there is no mention of consideration (and in 99+ % of the releases, the model’s only consideration was photos). In other words, I have three MM accounts for various types of work, I have done hundreds of shoots, and in those three portfolios there is only one model who was paid for the shoot.

Second, in order to “accept” the “offer” of a release, I would have had to sign the form, and the only signature(s) are those of the model and (in most cases) a witness. In other words, these were trade shoots – or shoots for which I was paid (and the model signed a release in the hope that I could get photos from the shoot published).

For a trade shoot, I tell the model how he/she can use the photos. I have a usage license form for that as well, and my signature is the only one that goes on that form.

For the past 10 years, my standard release has been the release form for adults of the American Society of Media Photographers (which was the American Society of Magazine Photographers when I first became acquainted with them). 

The ASMP release (with periodic updates and revisions)  has been an industry standard release for publication purposes since at least the 1950s. To that, I have added three words (“clothed or nude”). I showed the release to an intellectual property lawyer several years ago. He said he didn’t see a reason to change anything.

Barely StL wrote:
Assuming that the aforementioned law instructor/professor is correct, there is no way that my standard release form is a contract. First, there is no mention of consideration (and in 99+ % of the releases, the model’s only consideration was photos). In other words, I have three MM accounts for various types of work, I have done hundreds of shoots, and in those three portfolios there is only one model who was paid for the shoot.

Second, in order to “accept” the “offer” of a release, I would have had to sign the form, and the only signature(s) are those of the model and (in most cases) a witness. In other words, these were trade shoots – or shoots for which I was paid (and the model signed a release in the hope that I could get photos from the shoot published).

For a trade shoot, I tell the model how he/she can use the photos. I have a usage license form for that as well, and my signature is the only one that goes on that form.

For the past 10 years, my standard release has been the release form for adults of the American Society of Media Photographers (which was the American Society of Magazine Photographers when I first became acquainted with them). 

The ASMP release (with periodic updates and revisions)  has been an industry standard release for publication purposes since at least the 1950s. To that, I have added three words (“clothed or nude”). I showed the release to an intellectual property lawyer several years ago. He said he didn’t see a reason to change anything.

If your Model Release is not structured as a contract (it doesn't include consideration) it can still be a perfectly valid and legal release.  However, a model might decide to rescind permission.  In that case you would no longer be able to use the images in a context that requires a release.  If you were currently using the images that way, that usage would need to stop.

Now, if none of your models ever decides to rescind permission this is not a problem.  However many of us have run into situations where a model willing gave permission to have nude photos published, but years later, wanted those photos taken down and no longer used.

By the way, paying a person to model doesn't alter the situation.  That payment was for her modeling services, not for permission to use her likeness in a commercial fashion.  If the release doesn't mention consideration, it isn't a contract, no matter how much you paid the model.

many of us have run into situations where a model willing gave permission to have nude photos published, but years later, wanted those photos taken down and no longer used.

this is not the case when the signed model release specifically mentions this particular situation as "being null and void", though. the standard release can have some (mutually agreed at the moment of sighing) amendments. this is not a fine print -- you can UPPERCASE and underscore this particular part of the agreement

Kaela Kino wrote:
Would it be possible to ask photographers to not post photos to major social media networks (namely, Facebook & instagram)? Have it a part of the release that all other avenues are fine, just not major platforms? I’m ready to turn down gigs & only work with photographers that are willing to meet my terms. But, do most photographers post nudes to instagram now? Is there no way around this? Just want to know how to move forward. Thanks for any & all honest advice!!

In most cases, I'd be ok to discuss this. But maybe there's a middle ground? Maybe cropped versions? Images that are very much implied, and not just censored? Or an agreed on "level" of work? (Only art nudes... nothing "erotic").

If a photographer wants to post to socials, it's quite likely because it's a beautiful shot, and therefore great exposure for them to get more eyes on their work (Possible assignments/commissions), drive traffic to their print store (or these days possibly an Onlyfans, Patreon, or similar), or just as a way to curate their best work.

If that's the case, it can often be of benefit to you too. I'm sure these social posts have led to a number of bookings for you, (and if they haven't yet, they will). You may eventually get so busy/popular that you'll be able to raise your rates, and maybe monetise it too.

I understand how as the nude person in the photo, that might be confronting to you, but not posting is leaving a lot of potential for these photos on the table. If I can't show off my work, noone knows I exist, and I don't get hired. Or it could result in less sales of a print. So there's an actual monetary reason to "market" on socials.

Plus, if I was creating nude art, I'd want to feel like my model was 100% comfortable. It's just a better vibe, and I've heard some stories.

A friend of mine was recently commissioned to shoot some Hemut Newton style art nudes for a private collector. The models were payed very well and the shoot went exactly as described to them. But when the photographer (a female) posted some censored outtakes, one of the models begged for them to be removed. Most were, but when a few very tasteful and covered ones stayed up, legal action was threatened despite a contract. She felt it would jeopardise her non nude work (She was a regular model with some big clients). Just because my friend was nice, she took them all down, including shots that featured the other 2 girls who had no issues with it.

Faced with the same issue, I'd probably take them down too because I don't want to be that guy. But it's unfair that I might have to - especially after outlaying (in this case) thousands on model fees.

So if I was choosing between two great models, I'm going to have to go with the one who's 100% confident and is willing to put that in writing.

So with that in mind, I'd possibly be less interested in working with a model who had a clause like that because I may not recoup my costs, and could potentially even lose money.

I do get your side of it though. It's tricky.

Aaron Pawlak wrote:
if someone doesn't want the photos to appear on IG or FB;
run
away
from that person.

Anyone that has this level of a lack of understanding about how the internet works cant be considered as a viable collaborator.

Kaela Kino wrote:
So my question is: Would it be possible to ask photographers to not post photos to major social media networks (namely, Facebook & instagram)?

The better way would be to state clearly in advance that you do not want to be published on Instagram and Facebook.
This will reduce your chances significantly (at least for the moment, nobody knows when Instagram and Facebook will follow the fate of MySpace...). But not every photographer wants to publish his pictures on Instagram or Facebook. (Alone for copyright reasons.)
Nevertheless you will have to face some discussions. It is what it is.

Have it a part of the release that all other avenues are fine, just not major platforms? I’m ready to turn down gigs & only work with photographers that are willing to meet my terms. But, do most photographers post nudes to instagram now? Is there no way around this? Just want to know how to move forward. Thanks for any & all honest advice!!

Knowbody knows how the market and people's demands will change within the next few years.

So you exclude Instagram today - and in 2023 "Socialpics" may be the network of choice. And all your friends and familiy will use it - and get a look of your personal belongings... ;-)

Honestly I think this idea is rather impracticable.

Kaela Kino wrote:
Thank you all so much for your responses!! They have been so helpful & encouraging. I no longer feel depressed about giving up (for the second time!) something that brings excitement & creativity into my life.

I understand completely that images on the internet are not secure. However, to me there is a difference between someone stumbling upon a nude of me when they were actively looking for nudes vs accidentally being tagged in a nude on social media & my 15-year-old sister seeing it!! I’m not ashamed of any work I do, however Instagram is a different beast & definitely awkward to have nudes on when there are children that can easily search the wrong hashtag. Haha I’m definitely sounding old but that’s just how I feel!

Thanks again for the advice!!!! 💜

This doesn't fully cover you (no pun intended lol) but on IG you can go into settings and make it so that if you are tagged in a photo it has to be approved by you first.
However, it doesn't stop them from posting it regardless of a tag and for someone to stumble upon it on their page.
I would definitely recommend expressing your concerns though in the planning/discussion phase just to let them know that it makes you uncomfortable for it to be on social media.

Source; I had experience with my super religious stepmom stalking my social media since all the way back in high school and sending me messages about why I'm going to hell, because she has seen sexy photos of me...
0_o
Now I just try to not have them "out there" as much and also blocked her texts for my own peace of mind.

Zura wrote:

This doesn't fully cover you (no pun intended lol) but on IG you can go into settings and make it so that if you are tagged in a photo it has to be approved by you first.
However, it doesn't stop them from posting it regardless of a tag and for someone to stumble upon it on their page.
I would definitely recommend expressing your concerns though in the planning/discussion phase just to let them know that it makes you uncomfortable for it to be on social media.

Source; I had experience with my super religious stepmom stalking my social media since all the way back in high school and sending me messages about why I'm going to hell, because she has seen sexy photos of me...
0_o
Now I just try to not have them "out there" as much and also blocked her texts for my own peace of mind.

Maybe you could also sue her for sending you hostile or threatening messages.

Kaela Kino wrote:
Would it be possible to ask photographers to not post photos to major social media networks (namely, Facebook & instagram)? Have it a part of the release that all other avenues are fine, just not major platforms? I’m ready to turn down gigs & only work with photographers that are willing to meet my terms. But, do most photographers post nudes to instagram now? Is there no way around this? Just want to know how to move forward. Thanks for any & all honest advice!!

You can ask. Photographers can say, "No". Just be upfront about it. To limit a photographer's usage you have to put yourself in their place and ask, "What's in it (the shoot) for them if they can't share their work?". Glad you're ready to turn down work, but be prepared for offered work to get cancelled once your conditions is made known.

Carmen Ribelles wrote:
im the same, i dont want any friend or family to see my nudes. so its pretty simple. allow them to post on SM but ask them not to tag you?? thats what i do

It is actually not that simple. Your circle of who can recognize you is larger than you think. And then there is facial recognition software, which keeps getting better and better

And then there is facial recognition software, which keeps getting better and better

Yes but that implies them doing an active search.