I am interested to know if anybody has any information re the use of mdel release forms. I fully understand what they are used for but wonder how a model stands if she does not sign one.
A model release form signed by both the model and the photographer establishes that the photos will be restricted to be used for certain content and situations, a legal contract. But whaty if the model does not sign one? The photographer pays the model and takes the photos, copyright is held by the photographer and surely they then have the right to use the photos as they so wish, this idea appears to be highly contested by some models.
Every week for years we have photos appearing in the news taken without the persons consent and often sold for thousands of pounds, so what is the diference?
I am not looking to go into modeling, nor am I looking to dust off my 1970's Kodak Instamatic, there just seems to be a disparity between the two. It seems it is ok to sell / publish photos taken without consent but not if you have paid a person to model but not got a release form signed.
Sarah x x x
From my experience, it makes no difference whether or not you sign a model release forms.
I have paid for photos on a couple of occasions from professional photographers who then went on to use the photos I had commissioned as they pleased - no model release form signed in either occasion.
Whilst they are good practice - and I always use one on shoots - there's not a lot you can actually do.
If I am proved wrong - please do let me know as I gave up after approaching 3 different solicitors who all said the same thing!
I had always been told that the photographer holds the copyright on all photos even when, as you did, you actually paid for them, unless you have a contract / model release form that states otherwise.
My understanding was that the model release form is used to protect the model and reduce the rights of use by the photographer, rather than give the photographer the right tio use them, which seems to be the general thought.
Sarah x x x
I thought exactly the same thing as you - until I took legal advice & discovered what we both now know!
It is highly unprofessional when the commissioned photographer uses images which they have been paid to shoot.
Better watch out for that karma!
Isn't there something to do with where the shots were taken?
So if they are taken in a public place, like on the street or in a restaurant, then they are considered to be public domain. Shots taken under privilege (in a private studio, for example) are different. The photographer is an artist and the rights and royalties associated with his work, the intellectual property, belong to him. He needs a release for posed shots because you are a professional model, and so you are an artist too and as such have rights over your image and specifically over the shots you have commissioned. By signing the release, you are saying that he does not have to pay you a royalty to use them.
So, my understanding is that the model release form protects the photographer, not the model. The release will generally say that she agrees to him using the photo's in such-and-such a way (however he sees fit!)... not that they are hers and hers alone.
Having said all of that though, it is all legal trickery and any decent photographer is going to give you your shots and if he uses any of them it will normally only be for his own advertising (on his web site, in his portfolio, etc) and will be with your consent (via the model release form).
Most professional photographers will put a copyright on their prints so that if you want copies you are legally obliged to get them through the photographer... which is why they often charge more for a CD than for prints - they are effectively signing over their royalty by giving you the electronic copy, a bit like in the old days when you could buy the negs. Time was (and it may still be the case) when if you took a professional shot into a photographic shop and asked them to copy it, they would refuse and refer you back to the original photographer.
As for not signing... well, if you don't sign then the shoot does not go ahead. Simple really. Again, though, in reality the photographer wants paying, so he will probably go ahead with or without a release.
So that, I think, is the purpose of the Model Release, and the reason why the photographer needs one... and he does not need one for taking candid shots of celebrities because they are taken in public and are considered public domain.
Also, any shots you publish can be re-used in part, so long as the reproduction does not impact on your own royalty - i.e. the secondary publisher is not getting paid specifically for publishing your shots... even if your shots make up part of a larger work for which they are getting paid (ie a newspaper or magazine). Whether or not they have infringed your copyright is a fine line and depends who much of your work they publish and whether or not that is considered to be a substantial contribution to the work they are publishing.
It's the same for quoting books or snips of music or sampling backing tracks.
How I always understood model release forms were that, we the model sign them when we do a photo shoot or movie for company or whatever so they have paid us for the job and after signing they can use the pics/movie to sell on do whatever they want with it?.
Been a while now since signed as do content share but let me know if wrong.
I always get a model release forms for everyone I do share content with as well as 2 forms of photo ID which is industry standard, after having my fingers burnt when one model decided she no longer wished to have her image on my profile.
Great for her as I did not have a model release form so all content was then edited to blur out her face but what a faff!
Live. Learn.
(11-04-2012, 12:11)kinkydirtybitch Wrote: [ -> ]I always get a model release forms for everyone I do share content with as well as 2 forms of photo ID which is industry standard, after having my fingers burnt when one model decided she no longer wished to have her image on my profile.
Great for her as I did not have a model release form so all content was then edited to blur out her face but what a faff!
Live. Learn.
Very true actually reading that KDB, you never know if/when a model may change mind so even content share too use model release. I have a few times done model release doing content share couple of years ago but since just gone on trust but should really trust noone!!
Also some don't want to give you there 2 forms id as say too much info if just meeting for content as I'm sure you come across names are different etc in real life and they don't trust back!.
(11-04-2012, 12:24)fetishbootslut Wrote: [ -> ]some don't want to give you there 2 forms id as say too much info if just meeting for content as I'm sure you come across names are different etc in real life and they don't trust back!.
No ID; no shoot.
I've never had this problem thank goodness but never say never!
(11-04-2012, 12:11)kinkydirtybitch Wrote: [ -> ]I always get a model release forms for everyone I do share content with as well as 2 forms of photo ID which is industry standard, after having my fingers burnt when one model decided she no longer wished to have her image on my profile.
So what right do guys have if they do not sign a model release and participate in a photo shoot with a girl but then change their mind? I know if you use them on AW they will ask you for the model release / contract but what if they got published on the girls web site etc...
Interesting legal challenge I guess and all parties get to be named in court
Sarah x x x