I am getting into building up a portfolio and possibly start getting into some freelance stock work to help build up a name/reputation for myself along with experience.
When is a model release required, and where can I go to get a rough idea of what should be covered in the release? If you have the release, is this something that you much have on file until the end of time, or is there some sort of experation on a release of this type?
I always get a release signed. I also give something from the shoot. that may be a small print or even a waver of the sitting fee. The release explains that this is given in exchange for copyright.
That way it is seen as a transaction and that will hold up legally. A release that simply states you hold copyright may not hold any weight otherwise.
Always, even if you only want to use the image for self promotion. That way you are covered without worry. As Marcus says, make sure the subject receives something of value for their release. Not only is it required from a legal sense, it is the right thing to do.
So unless a fee is agreed about, giving them something as simple as a proof set from the shoot would be considered "compensation" enough in some cases.
Also is there anywhere I could go to get a "generic" form or do I actually have to sit down with a lawyer and actually have one drawn up?
Most releases will have the wording to the point of the model in question receiving something of value. I find it crucial that the compensation should at least appear to be fair. I usually offer a specific dollar amount of prints or services or may waive the sitting fee. If I or another client would like to use an image that will be in say a large ad campaign or promotion, I always return to the model involved and let them know what I am doing and pay them accordingly as if I hired them for the specific purpose. Even though I may not be obligated to do this, I know it is the right thing to do.
Google is your friend, there are a mountain of samples on the net. Pick out a couple examples and show them to your lawyer for approval. At least that is what I did with all my contracts.
A proof set would be too much for a couple of reasons.
In terms of sales once you give away a set of proofs you delete the need for the client to purchase an enlargment of any of the images right now. In the clients mind they can do that later (and i think they intend to) because they have a copy of the image they otherwise would have enlarged. So they can enlarge it when they can afford it and then that day doesn't come.
If you give them say one image then you also add value to the other proofs in that not everything is free. Then the client will want some of the other image and that is where you negotiate size and the real sale takes place.
Subtle difference but the impact of doing it one way or the other is huge and consistent.
A single proof size image is considered compensation because it is an agreed exchange.
You actually don't need a model release if you only use the image as a studio sample (as in hanging in your studio....not on web or taken out of studio). But doing that is stupid. So the correct answer is Always.
You need a release when you do something with an image that could infringe on another's rights. The release documents that they have authorized that type of use.
butchM wrote:
Most releases will have the wording to the point of the model in question receiving something of value. I find it crucial that the compensation should at least appear to be fair. .
Define fair. You get a relase and offer in return a few prints. Later you sell the image and it ends up on the cover of Time magazine...you get paid bookoo bucks. Were the prints fair exchange? There have been numerous cases where a release had some statement about "fair compensation" and the courts felt the compensation given was not fair.
I have spoken to more than one attorney that recommends leaving the entire statement about compensation out of a release. In fact, the popular book about photographer's legal issues (I forget the name) makes the same recommendation. The idea is that if no claim of compensation is made, then none can be claimed to be due and there can be no legitimate argument that compensation was unfair.
Nathan, you raise a valid legal point. The term "fair" is definitely open to different interpretations. I will run it by my legal eagle.
However, as the quote of my previous post below indicates, if I should be offered considerable compensation for use of the image for other than the intended original use (the majority of times it is for my own self-promotion), I negotiate with the "model" in question, so they may be compensated as well before I agree to release the image for use. I then have the model sign an updated agreement approving of the use. The only exception would be if the model was hired for the specific use in the creation of the original works. In which case they would have been paid accordingly from the beginning.
You would not compensate your subject, if their likeness enabled you to earn bookoo bucks? Or do you just not mention compensation in the release?
butchM wrote:
If I or another client would like to use an image that will be in say a large ad campaign or promotion, I always return to the model involved and let them know what I am doing and pay them accordingly as if I hired them for the specific purpose. Even though I may not be obligated to do this, I know it is the right thing to do.
for the cover of TIME or SI or anything that is editorial you do not need a release, no matter what anyone tells you
If the photo is being used commercialy(say an advertisement or to endorse a product) and the person's face is recognizable in the picture, then you need a release, if it's their back or side and you can't tell who the person is then you don't need one.
You can order them from B&H in a small pad size to a business card size. I bought one of each to see which is handier. Also you might want to look at Amherts Publishing's book on Legal advice for Photographers they give a couple of examples in their depending on what you are doing.
Also look up a sopftware app for Photog's called Photobyte it has templetes that you can use to ccreate a custom release with all the correct verbage in it also it has your relases for selling photos plus several other usable items if you care to use them. It is quite old and is built on the Filemaker platform.
I have spoken to more than one attorney that recommends leaving the entire statement about compensation out of a release. In fact, the popular book about photographer's legal issues (I forget the name) makes the same recommendation. The idea is that if no claim of compensation is made, then none can be claimed to be due and there can be no legitimate argument that compensation was unfair.
The distinction that's made is that a release is not a "contract" unless you make it a contract by denoting quid pro quo...and that a release does not have to be a contract. Granting permission to use one's image (a "release") does not have to be a contract.
Notice, for instance, when you buy a ticket for many themed recreational facilities, there may be a release on the ticket indicating that by entering the park you permit the park to use images of you in its advertising. They gave you nothing for that release (in fact, you paid to enter the park).
That said, remember that no release prevents a law suit, it may merely help you win the law suit if the court agrees that you acted in good faith. As has been mentioned, if you paid the model little or nothing--but knew that you would profit handsomely--the court may decide you owe the model a fair fee regardless of the wording of the release.
