Model Releases......

[Bob Hubbard]

Encountered a situation recently where a photographer was insistent that models not sign a release to "protect them from photographers selling the pictures". This photographer further insisted that one does not need to verify a models age when they do a nude or art shoot.

I find this attitude both dangerous, and disgusting.

Model releases are at the core, a rights assignment and a "cover your ***" liability waiver document. Not having one can put you at great personal and professional risk, especially when dealing with nude work.

Wikipedia defines a model release this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
"A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another. The legal rights of the signatories in reference to the material is thereafter subject to the allowances and restrictions stated in the release, and also possibly in exchange for compensation paid to the photographed.

Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph."

A site such as Deviant Art requires a release for prints, and would like but doesn't require one for portfolio work. However, should a law enforcement official want to see proof that said scantly clad model is over 18, and you don't have it, you'll be in a long and trying time.

In addition, absent a written release, should the model and photographer have a falling out, the model has no way to verify she can display photos of her. Some people insist "I'm in the photo so it's mine". No, it's not, unless you have something that says so. Should there be a falling out, absent a release both parties should respect the other and remove their photos. Failure to do so is both rude and disrespectful, as well as possibly legally risky.

Photographers who fail to get written releases and who refuse to remove models images in my opinion, are untrustworthy scum and should be barred from the industry.

Get a release, cover your ***, and cover your models as well.

 

[grydth]

This is simply Natural Selection, to be applied in the fields of photography and law. This guy deserves what is about to happen....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

He's an always right alpha type who is very mistaken on the subject. He insists that since in NY it's legal for a woman to walk around topless, that photographing her is also ok, regardless of age. I've got it on good authority (ie other more experienced photographers, lawyers, and numerous online discussions) that he's wrong, very wrong.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

He has a certain point...

A model release is not required if you do not use a resulting image commercially. That's been well-established law in the USA for a long time. And what 'commercial use' is has been debated forever. One man objected to his photograph being used in a book - he sued and lost. Another objected to his photo hanging in a gallery. He also sued and lost. Neither uses were considered 'commercial' - at least not by that court at that time.

Likewise, a model release does not remove liability from a photographer if their model is underage and provides false ID. Underage is underage, even if the photographer did their due diligence in trying to establish age through ID. Remember Traci Lords.

However, a model release is still a very good idea. It does exactly what you said - it protects both model and photographer, because it defines the contractual relationship. Without one, you have a verbal contract, and a verbal contract is not worth the paper it isn't printed on.

Required in law? Not really. Required in logic and reason? Oh yeah.

My opinion only, I am not a lawyer.

I also recommend the book "Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images," by Bert Krages, esq. I have it and have found it completely useful. Krages is an attorney who specializes in photography law.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Good book.

There is an argument in that one should (under the maze that is our legal system) get things in writing, and check ID when shooting nudes. In the case of Traci Lords, she had a valid US passport issued by the US Gov. That helped save the pornographers bank accounts.

I can legally use a shot, sans release, in a book I am writing, as an example of my work. Don't need it. I need the release to sell a print of the same shot, or to sell it to someone else to use in their book, etc.

But this is a 2 issue rant. 1 is the release, the other is proof of legal age, which gets into the 2257 mess, and the 2256a sub mess, both outside this thread. (and both headaches of the Ultra-Magnus level.)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I can legally use a shot, sans release, in a book I am writing, as an example of my work. Don't need it. I need the release to sell a print of the same shot, or to sell it to someone else to use in their book, etc.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but no, you don't 'need' the release. Need implies a legal requirement.

You may find publishers won't touch it without one, but that's not a legal requirement - it's a practical requirement. You may find yourself sued, but that's a tort, not a violation of the criminal laws.

In the finely-split hairs your friend seems to be using, there is no 'legal' requirement that he get model releases. It's just really dumb not to.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I do agree with you that model releases should be the order of the day.

 

[MA-Caver]

Not requiring proof of age when shooting nudes is surely asking for it... even if the model is 17 and 364 days old (shooting day before their 18th birthday) you're still doing illegal nude photography with or without a release.
As Javert said: The law is the law, good bad or indifferent it's still the law!"

I've done some model photography (no nudes :-( ) but never asked for a release because it was a understanding that the photos were for the model's use (to build up a porfolio) and thus I was the instrument. Didn't worry about it then, but if I do such a thing now then I would ask to sign a release form.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

When I do a shoot, I use a combination release and rights assignment. I spell out exactly what rights the model has to the images. I rarely allow modification/editing permission, or print sale permission for example.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Basic simple model release. Pretty broad in scope.

===
For valuable consideration received, I grant to Joe Photographer ("Photographer") and his/her legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of me, or in which I may be included, for editorial, trade, advertising, and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; and to alter and composite the same without restriction and without my inspection or approval. I hereby release Photographer and his/her legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs.

add contact info here

 

[arnisador]

I rarely allow modification/editing permission

Haven't we had this discussion before?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Different topic I believe. Most photographers are not thrilled when a model takes their carefully tweaked images and photo"chops" them.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

(Posted elsewhere in reply to the OP, archived here)


To many people are sadly misinformed on what a release does. They think, wrongly, that it's just for sale. It's not, as any book on the topic will point out.

A basic release reads as follows:
=====
In exchange for consideration received, I hereby give permission to [ your name here ] to use my name and photographic likeness in all forms and media for advertising, trade, and any other lawful purposes.

Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
=====

Now that pretty much give the photographer an open book to do anything legal with the picture. It doesn't give the model any specific rights though.

A somewhat more balanced version might read this way:
======
In exchange for consideration received, I [ Model name here ] (Here after referred to as 'model') hereby give permission to [ Photographer name here ] (Here after referred to as 'photographer') to use my name and photographic likeness in all forms and media for advertising, trade, and any other lawful purposes.

Photographer also agrees that model may use the images n both print and online portfolios as examples of models work with photographer.

Right of Sale of images both in electronic or print format is denied to both photographer and model, unless specified in a separate agreement between model and photographer.

Print Model Name:
Signature:
Date:

Print Photographer Name:
Signature:
Date: ============

The second agreement should work well to allow both model and photographer shoot and show, but not sell, and help avoid issues when there are falling outs, lost contact, etc.

Now, keep in mind I am not an attorney, this is not legal advice. Before using any release, you should consult with one to ensure that your release says what you a-want it to, and b-what you think it does.

When shooting nudes, one should also be certain to verify age and keep the appropriate records. 2257/2256a/2257a is a confusing mess. The simple reality is, it's vague, and intentionally so. Every professional photographer I've talked to says "if you shoot nudes, check ID and get everything released." Amateurs who just want to look at naked girls say it doesn't matter. They are wrong. I'd rather have the documentation and not need it, than not have it, and have to spend weeks, months, or even years trying to clear my name and reputation. But if there is doubt in age verification or release need, contact an attorney versed in those areas of law, and don't go off what you read on a web forum frequented by amateurs and full of disinformation. It's your *** on the line, not theirs.

 

[jks9199]

He's an always right alpha type who is very mistaken on the subject. He insists that since in NY it's legal for a woman to walk around topless, that photographing her is also ok, regardless of age. I've got it on good authority (ie other more experienced photographers, lawyers, and numerous online discussions) that he's wrong, very wrong.

If she's under 18 -- I suspect the feds will be happy to come after him on child porn charges. They can be a tad aggressive on that stuff...

 

[wushu2004]

If she's under 18 -- I suspect the feds will be happy to come after him on child porn charges. They can be a tad aggressive on that stuff...

And rightly so.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Read and laugh/weep.

If that's too small, try here:
http://kaith-rustaz.deviantart.com/art/Dumb-Policy-138135687

 

[jks9199]

Yeah... I see lots of problems there. And I predict that there'll be a lawsuit within the first 2 years of the meetings... and probably sooner. Someone's going to post/share/distribute something that someone else doesn't want out there...

 

[MBuzzy]

Wow - this is a bunch of lawsuits and pissed off people just waiting to happen.