matt-h2 wrote:
You should not be signing a "release form" from a model, as that is legally meaningless. If a model wants to use an image you have shot (and are therefore the rights holder), you need to grant a use license.

I'm sure you're an expert and all, but Stanford kinda disagrees with you. Seems like the word 'release' you object to can be used in this context.

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/i … -releases/

I particularly like this paragraph:
"Don’t rely on the title of an agreement. In many cases, licenses and releases overlap. For example, a release agreement may contain license language and vice versa. Despite what it says at the top of the agreement, either type of agreement can be used to grant rights or to prevent lawsuits. Because of this overlap, the title of an agreement is less important than the content."

Beyond Boudoir wrote:
Photographers:  When you do trade shoots with models, how often do they ask you for written proof that they have the rights to use the photos?

Every shoot I do, regardless of the compensation, has both a model release signed and a usage license signed. The very specific and individual details of each document have been discussed and agreed to prior to the shoot date. Drafts of both documents are sent to the model for review in advance of the first time we work together (and additionally at every subsequent session if/where there are any changes to either document). Rarely (but not never) has a model or client specifically asked to see the agreements; they get the above treatment regardless. Every. Single. Time.

Dan Howell wrote:

I'm sure you're an expert and all, but Stanford kinda disagrees with you. Seems like the word 'release' you object to can but used in this context.

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/i … -releases/

I particularly like this paragraph:
"Don’t rely on the title of an agreement. In many cases, licenses and releases overlap. For example, a release agreement may contain license language and vice versa. Despite what it says at the top of the agreement, either type of agreement can be used to grant rights or to prevent lawsuits. Because of this overlap, the title of an agreement is less important than the content."

Sure, and if a form is sloppily drafted to have the wrong title, it probably also has bad content.

matt-h2 wrote:
Sure, and if a form is sloppily drafted to have the wrong title, it probably also has bad content.

That's actually not a true or fair statement. The title of a contract or other legal document is there for conveniently referring to the document in conversation ("did you receive the model release I sent you?"). There is no legal requirement that the title be exhaustive or even accurate and, in my experience (retired lawyer here), they very often aren't.

There's also no requirement that you use a separate document for each separate thing you want to do. For example, it's not uncommon for a single document to serve as a license agreement, release, and contract, but be titled "Model Release". It's common practice (not just in this situation, either) to use one document that memorializes all relevant aspects of what the parties have agreed to for one particular situation, unless there's some specific reason to use multiple documents.

The only things I do in a separate document are the 18 USC §2257 compliance (proof of age - which the USAG can request at any time without evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing) and when doing works-for-hire, the copyright license or copyright assignment. since clients seeking to publish images usually want that as a separate document that they can provide to publishers.

Bottom line: Models know what a "model release" is, so titling a document "Model Release" is perfectly appropriate even if that document includes other terms besides the model giving up certain rights, and even if the document is not technically "a release". When referring to a document, a "release" is is a one-party document where one person gives up rights they would otherwise have. If a document places any restrictions or grants any explicit rights to the photographer, it's not technically a release - it's a contract or agreement that includes release terms.

Jeff  LaMarche wrote:
That's actually not a true or fair statement. The title of a contract or other legal document is there for conveniently referring to the document in conversation ("did you receive the model release I sent you?"). There is no legal requirement that the title be exhaustive or even accurate and, in my experience (retired lawyer here), they very often aren't.

There's also no requirement that you use a separate document for each separate thing you want to do. For example, it's not uncommon for a single document to serve as a license agreement, release, and contract, but be titled "Model Release". It's common practice (not just in this situation, either) to use one document that memorializes all relevant aspects of what the parties have agreed to for one particular situation, unless there's some specific reason to use multiple documents.

The only things I do in a separate document are the 18 USC §2257 compliance (proof of age - which the USAG can request at any time without evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing) and when doing works-for-hire, the copyright license or copyright assignment. since clients seeking to publish images usually want that as a separate document that they can provide to publishers.

Bottom line: Models know what a "model release" is, so titling a document "Model Release" is perfectly appropriate even if that document includes other terms besides the model giving up certain rights, and even if the document is not technically "a release". When referring to a document, a "release" is is a one-party document where one person gives up rights they would otherwise have. If a document places any restrictions or grants any explicit rights to the photographer, it's not technically a release - it's a contract or agreement that includes release terms.

All good points,