Nicolas the dreamer wrote:
Therefore I am asking for clarification here.  Is the piece of official ID (such as photo of Driver's License) mandatory?

Mandatory or required? I would guess a more correct answer would be to ask a BC lawyer, but I would doubt that it's mandatory (as in the document has no standing without it). Think of it this way: have you been asked for and provided your official ID each and every single time you've put your signature on a piece of paper? When you signed off on the estimate for your furnace repair? When you signed the credit card receipt after dinner? When you electronically agreed to the terms of  usage on any of a number of websites and apps? Probably not.

People do it for the many safeguarding CYA reasons given above, and making it part of your standard operating procedure may give you peace of mind, but I doubt that it's mandatory, legally.

Nicolas the dreamer wrote:
Photographs are real representations of the model's features.  Therefore it is immediately clear who the model is.
Drawings/paintings by their nature are much less clear regarding the identity of the model.
Artistic license (creativity) means that the artists draws/paints his imaginary view of the model.
While the photographer is creating a true life-like image of the model.

And that is where authorisation of use of photographs is more critical, and probably judged more severely.

I disagree.  It depends on the artist and the circumstances.  The better the artist, the more photorealistic a painting can be.  For me, my ability depends on who the model is and how much practice I have had lately on portraits.  If I am drawing more and painting less, my faces can be very recognizable,  Sometimes it is torture getting them recognizable, but there are a lot of artists out there better then me.  There is a greater level of plausible deniability with a painting.

Yes, there is an opportunity to make use of artistic license and sometimes I will allow significant differences in a person's facial features when either she or I don't want the person recognizable.  Photographers have the same options when they are editing the photo.  A while back there was an asian model who posted in the forums about how photographers anglicized her and she was defiantly annoyed about it.  People also stick one person's head on another person's body with retouching.

Regarding what is needed for record keeping, I get a release and photo ID and photos of the model holding the release and ID just like ya'll do.  I have been told that for paintings I don't need a release.  Maybe I don't.  But, if I ever want to do anything with the photos I shoot, I do need a release and ID for some situations.  It is also true, as it has been stated by others, that it is better to have more than I need than less then I need.  I don't know for sure, but I also figure that if one of my paintings is ever used to promote a product, it would be wise for me to have the same protection that a model release gives me for a photograph.

It is much harder to hire a "life model" then a model for a photo shoot.  Life modeling doesn't pay nearly as much per hour and it is much harder work to remain still for 20 minute or more at a time and return to the same pose.

If I am drawing at a sketch club, where many artists are drawing/painting the same model at the same time, a release has never been offered.  ID has been offered only in the way of business cards.  Photography is normally forbidden at those places. 

No one has mentioned sensitive issues in a release in this thread.  If I am shooting a model that is posing nude, then that is specified in the release so that anyone who says she/he didn't agree can see that they did sign off on it.  Email chains and text message chains printed out are also records worth keeping.  You can read more about sensitive issues and releases in the Copyright Zone, along with rights regarding publicity.  Again, some of this is based on American law.  You should be familiar with American law anyway because some publishers may demand that the paperwork complies with American law because they are subject to American law.  Has anyone seen different paperwork from a stock company for Canada?  I would also assume that a company that does world wide advertising would want to comply at all times with the most stringent regulations rather than a hodgepodge of different ones- which could limit their ability to use images in the stringent markets.

You could also consider reading up on the Bern Convention stipulations if you aren't already familiar.  Yes, I am aware that model releases and copyright laws are not the same thing, but it is good to be familiar with both.

Roaring 20s wrote:
Beginning of shoot:  Greetings, show the area, do "housekeeping" which is release + ID and you preoccupy yourself with some gear or scene setup while model reads it. Take picture of ID

This order avoids many landmines.

a release signed before the shoot is a potential landmine. a release signed after the work has finished stands on firmer ground. some releases require description of the scope of the shoot. a pre-signed release the deviates from the scope written on the release brings up the possibility of challenge.

Dan Howell wrote:
a release signed before the shoot is a potential landmine. a release signed after the work has finished stands on firmer ground. some releases require description of the scope of the shoot. a pre-signed release the deviates from the scope written on the release brings up the possibility of challenge.

Agreed. All the releases I have seen/used over the years start with "For value received" the model releases the images taken to the photographer. For the model to sign at the beginning, she would have to be paid at the beginning.

Also it is unlikely that the model can 'release' images that have yet to be taken, unless you are specifying a date and time frame.

I always do paperwork at the end.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
When shooting models for submission to major publications, professional photo shoots don't even begin before the model releases are signed.

The last thing you want to happen after an expensive shoot (location expenses, makeup artists, assistants, food, transportation, equipment rentals, etc.) is to have a model either change their mind, or try to extort more money from you to sign a release.

You and i have been around this issue before. I don't know if you are suggesting that I wouldn't know what happens on a professional photo shoot for major publications would look like or not. Your absolute parameters would not simply not fly on fashion shoots with agency models, at least in the NYC market that I have been working in for the last few years or so.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
When shooting models for submission to major publications, professional photo shoots don't even begin before the model releases are signed.

The last thing you want to happen after an expensive shoot (location expenses, makeup artists, assistants, food, transportation, equipment rentals, etc.) is to have a model either change their mind, or try to extort more money from you to sign a release.

Dan Howell wrote:
You and i have been around this issue before. I don't know if you are suggesting that I wouldn't know what happens on a professional photo shoot for major publications would look like or not. Your absolute parameters would not simply not fly on fashion shoots with agency models, at least in the NYC market that I have been working in for the last few years or so.

There's a clause in my release that states that all poses were done so willingly and without duress (paraphrasing) and no one can truthfully agree to that until after the shoot has wrapped up. Therefore my proceedure for the past several years has been to review and fill out the release minus the signature prior to the shoot. It's signed after the shoot when the money exchanges hands.

Nicolas the dreamer wrote:
Hi Iona-Lynn;

I am not sure if you are responding to my initial question, regarding
"Is the piece of official ID (such as photo of Driver's License) mandatory?"

This is a "better to have and not need than to need and not have" situation.

Green Wave Photo 312 wrote:
If you're shooting naked chicks and plan to try to sell what you shoot then yeah I guess better get a release and ID picture.

I've photographed plenty of naked chicks but got neither because I didn't plan to sell the images.

As far as model release, for example on an advertising shoot with agency models they will not sign a photographers release because that has nothing to do with the terms or usage. I've also shot plenty of editorial jobs for mainstream publications where subjects never signed a release and it still went in the magazine.

It really just depends on what you're doing.

I will say that it's funny... along with escorts and angel wings, the model release debate is one of the engines that keeps running around here.

I guess I would ask... do you really think you're going to make any money selling this picture of some naked chick you shot to some publication? I mean there is just SO much of that. You'd really have to be doing something special. If not, and you're an amateur photographer, I would worry more about capturing great images than getting the model to send you a picture of her drivers license before the shoot. If I'm a model and you're the photographer I'm not going to send you that. I can see why especially a woman would be uncomfortable doing that.

Not to restate the obvious, but if you're going to PUBLICLY DISPLAY (in any form) nude photos of someone, then you'd better damn well have legal documentation.

Having solid documentation that the model has agreed that nude, identifiable, photos of herself can be displayed publicly, plus so much more (that we've already covered).

And anyone that believes they don't need ANY documentation to publicly display nude photos of someone, might want to have a little chat with their lawyer...

Red Sky Photography wrote:

Agreed. All the releases I have seen/used over the years start with "For value received" the model releases the images taken to the photographer. For the model to sign at the beginning, she would have to be paid at the beginning.

Also it is unlikely that the model can 'release' images that have yet to be taken, unless you are specifying a date and time frame.

I always do paperwork at the end.

From a legal perspective, the model release does not release the images.  It gives permission to use the model's likeness for the specified purposes.  You would need a release even if there was no camera involved, and you were using a CGI version of the model.

Under various state laws, you generally need a person's permission in order to use their likeness to promote goods and/or services.

Releases also serve some secondary purposes.  Generally the model will also grant permission for her likeness to be altered (i.e. the images may be retouched).  This allows you to edit the images without exposing yourself to claims of presenting the model in a false light.

Another purpose of the release is to document that the model knew that the images would be made public.  This precludes a claim that the model had an expectation or privacy.

If the model is concerned that you may capture images she does not want to release, then a contract is a good way to address that concern.  For instance, you may have a clause that states that the photographer shall destroy and not release any images in which the model's nipples are visible.


In terms of releasing the model's likeness, it doesn't matter whether the release is signed before or after the shoot.  The shoot does not affect her likeness.  Similarly, in terms of painting the model in a false light, it does not matter whether or not the release is signed before or after.

In terms of documenting that the model had no expectation of privacy, you may be better off signing the release before the shoot.

If you are going to have an agreement that you will not release images that are too revealing, it's best to sign that ahead of time, so that everyone is clear on the goal of the shoot.

Whether or not the release is signed before or after the shoot is a business decision.  If you are using an amateur whom you don't trust, you may wish to get the release signed before the shoot.  You don't want to be in a situation where you expend a lot of time and effort, only to have the model refuse to sign, or demand more money.

If you are shooting a professional model from a reputable agency, you may want to wait until the end of the shoot to do the paperwork.  Many agencies use standard forms that include both the release and document the hours worked by the model.

Dan Howell wrote:
a release signed before the shoot is a potential landmine. a release signed after the work has finished stands on firmer ground. some releases require description of the scope of the shoot. a pre-signed release the deviates from the scope written on the release brings up the possibility of challenge.

Agree, I, and quite a few other models I know, will only sign a release at the time of payment. I prefer to sign at the end of a shoot in order to make sure everything goes according to plan. But in the event I sign at the beginning, the payment must also happen at the same time. There have a been a few times I was very happy I enforced this rule later.

As to the OP, it's pretty normal to show an ID at a photo shoot during release signing. I'm often not asked for mine, but it's not surprising when I am. I will not sign 2257 forms or show ID next to my face for them however.
I do not show ID for drawing groups - that I would find a bit odd, and I definitely wouldn't allow a photo of my ID at a drawing group. If a school is hiring me as a part time employee for drawing classes, they will usually have a copy of my photo ID and tax forms, and that's normal. But that documentation is done by administration at a school, not the professors/teachers.

Liv Sage wrote:
Agree, I, and quite a few other models I know, will only sign a release at the time of payment. I prefer to sign at the end of a shoot in order to make sure everything goes according to plan. But in the event I sign at the beginning, the payment must also happen at the same time. There have a been a few times I was very happy I enforced this rule later.

If you don't trust the photographer, I can understand the desire to want to get paid prior to signing over the right to use your likeness.

To be fair, not all models are trustworthy.  If the photographer doesn't trust the model, you should empathize his desire not to spend time and effort on a model that might not allow pose as agreed, or not sign paperwork allowing the photographer to use the images as he intends.

Liv Sage wrote:
As to the OP, it's pretty normal to show an ID at a photo shoot during release signing. I'm often not asked for mine, but it's not surprising when I am. I will not sign 2257 forms or show ID next to my face for them however.
I do not show ID for drawing groups - that I would find a bit odd, and I definitely wouldn't allow a photo of my ID at a drawing group. If a school is hiring me as a part time employee for drawing classes, they will usually have a copy of my photo ID and tax forms, and that's normal. But that documentation is done by administration at a school, not the professors/teachers.

If you are posing for the types of images that require 2257 paperwork, the photographer is under a legal obligation to obtain that paperwork.  It might even be a felony for him to take those images prior to obtaining proper 2257 documentation.

As to being hired to model for drawing classes.  The issue there is whether you are old enough to legally work.

I don't believe that an underage child posing nude is inherently a crime.  For example the Nirvana album Nevermind features full frontal nudity of a male infant.  I don't believe that image is child porn, or illegal.   Pornography involving a minor is illegal.  I would be surprised if posing for a drawing class fell into that category.   Unless someone wants to use a recognizable drawing of you to promote goods and/or services, they likely don't need a model release from you.  Unless there is pornography involved, they likely don't need proof of age.  They may need proof of age if you are working more hours than a minor is allowed to work.

So, as far modeling for a drawing class, its the employment paperwork that's required (they need SSN number, and proof that you are allowed to work in the USA).  Other than that, the professor and students likely do not need to know your real name, or your contact information (unless you want them to be able to contact you are future work).