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.
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.