Model Release

[Scubatooth]

leesa

i do it the easy way in that when im walking around shooting i get them to just sign a pocket release. I normally carry a couple of types of release (pocket, full sheet, contract style release) to cover the spectrum, but i would rather be safe then sorry. so thats why i try to get a release for everything.

heres my rule of thumb for releases

editoral/ man on street = not required but safe then sorry
advertising = a must have
models = definately especially if they turn big later on
minors = get guardian to sign the release and then get copies of the models and the guardians DL, and a picture of them with the DL next to there head (rather be safe then sorry as a classmate of mine learned the hard way this past spring)

like its been said above i do this to stop those who think they can come back and try something after they have signed a release. for example last summer i took a shot of a sunset that had a person walking on the shore line(i was shooting from a boat about 30 feet from shore) who in the shot had no detail in them at all(ie black on the slide and the prints) but i had shot them in another shot where they were plain as day. well once this person found out that the images were great and people where wanting to buy prints this person came after me saying that they wanted a cut of the sale as they were in the picture, well when they approached me i stopped them cold by showing them the release she signed for me and with line that was highlighted " the release applies to the images that where taken of me today, prior today and in the future" and " i further release any claim to any negatives, positives, prints and any compensation today or in the future" well after seeing that it stopped everything and the person walked away.



but in any case i would rather be safe then sorry so get the release and keep it on file. Leesa if you would like copies of some different releases i would be more then happy to send them to you

FWIW

Tooth

 

[fdog]

I was going to say, if you stand to make money by the sale of the photo, you need a release.

But on reflection, if the LA Times calls me and wants me to shoot a piece on the hot weather here in Reno, they'll pay me. And since the destination is a newspaper, I know you don't need a release. Hey, even if they tell me they don't want their photo shot, I can still shoot away and publish it.

I am sure of this, because I shot a photo of an attorney's son (along with his crashed Corvette). The attorney called the Managing Editor and said he'd sue if we ran the shot; the Editor laughed at him. Nothing happened.

OTOH, if you're going to sell the very same image to an advertising agency, this becomes commercial use, and you do need a release.

So the dividing line here is journalism. Being used by the Press? No release. Elsewhere? Get one.

All the best, James

 

[FloridaJeff]

There is a grey area under reasonable expectation of privacy rules, if it is a private beach or residence, people expect to have privacy, if it is a public place, then the expectaion for privacy is diminished, it is a grey area, and nobody like those, it's best to have a release, but, if it was a pulic area, you are probably going to be ok, but really, to be safe, get a release next time.

 

[Double_D]

FDog and Scubatooth put the nail in this one. Where you shot and what you shot are far less important than what you do with the shot. It's not a privacy issue, it's a copyright issue and it's very black and white. Usage is the key. Releases are available lots of places, including through your local PPA. Before you think about shelling out any money, evaluate the many good releases already available in the public domain. Your local library will have a few dozen good photography books on file or through ILL that can steer you further. Have fun and keep shooting!

 

[Scubatooth]

as for model releases let me get home this evening and i will post some of the model releases i have gotten online and have adapted for my use.

FYI depending on what your doing you may want to have a legal eagle to look over it to make sure its watertight and no way to wiggle out of it.

FWIW

Tooth

 

[cdiver2]

This just came on the news

LOS ANGELES(AP) Two forensic experts have testified that a signature on a model release form involving topless photos of Cameron Diaz appeared to be forged, using an autographed publicity photo of the actress.

Photographer John Rutter is accused of trying to blackmail Diaz over the pictures he took in 1992, before she was famous, and attempted to sell back to her in 2003 for $3.5 million, before her film "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" was released.

Forensic document examiner Bruce Greenwood, who has analyzed copies of Diaz's writings, testified Monday that the signature on the release form appeared to be forged.

He also testified that the signature on the publicity photo of Diaz and "Feeling Minnesota" co-star Keanu Reeves was a fake.

Greenwood said he noted certain letters in Diaz's name were "slanted completely different" from the handwriting samples that he had received from her.

Diaz testified last week that Rutter told her if she didn't buy the photos, he could sell them for $5 million to buyers he said would use them to portray her as a "bad angel."

Prosecutors said Rutter allegedly showed Diaz the release form when he tried to blackmail her and the actress said it wasn't her signature.

Forensic expert George Reis, who worked for the Newport Beach Police Department for 15 years, also said Diaz's signature was forged and that it appeared the publicity photo was used to make the forgery.

Rutter, 42, is charged with attempted grand theft for the alleged blackmail scheme, forgery for the signature on the form and perjury for declaring in a separate civil case that the signature was authentic. If convicted, he could face up to six years in prison. An extortion charge has been dropped.

His defense lawyer has suggested Diaz wanted to suppress photos that could damage her career.

Diaz, 32, is suing Rutter in civil court. A judge has issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Rutter from distributing the photos.

 

[WaterDawg]

The pic sounds interesting.

 

[fpoole]

Hmmm.. so if I have a photo of a diver (unrecognizable to anyone else) in a 'public Ocean"? it would be ok to seel as a photo to private parties... that just like the photo?? without any releases???

My thinking is, as stated above, if you can't readily identify the person, aka super star, and it's in a public place aka ocean or high up on a mountain top and it's more for the affect of a diver in the water..

We should be ok without a release... yes, knowing it's always better to have one, but most of the time, just not practicle.. say on trips with groups of divers etc... or you dive buddy...

sample (if I can post it here)
so if on
006 = not required, not identifiable to the normal pubilic
Kelly = maybe??? yes? no?? not identifable per se.. but close up?

So could I sell those for $35 each without problems??? to private partys for their viewing pleasure..
thoughts??

 

[vladimir]

So could I sell those for $35 each without problems??? to private partys for their viewing pleasure..
thoughts??

I think you'd have a problem getting $35 for those pics, but good luck.

 

[fpoole]

Yes, I guess I wasn't clear, those are just "model" samples...
Other photos, obviously better, but the idea of the postion of the model was my point.. and the price whether $1 or $1000 doesn't really matter in this particular thread.. it's about 'Releases'
hope that clears it up..

But thank you for your Honesty..