I will be shooting for a magazine this weekend. The article is on a popular recording artist. I am unsure how the model release is handled in this situation. We will be interviewing before the show and shooting the performance. Is this something handled by writers and or editor? They are looking to hire me full time so I feel this is a working interview and am not sure if they are expecting me to know this or not.
magazines are editorial and thus do not require a model relaease. Now if it's for and advertisement to be used in a magazine then you would. But based on your point about interviewing, it would fall under editorial
As a rule of thumb and for my own records/protection, I always have my models sign a release... You might be able to use some photos for another client/stock agency!
I hope that you have your paperwork together between you and the magazine. They have first use of the images but you can submit them for Stock after it hits the news stand. It's best to get a release, if you don't you can not use them for Advertising applications.
Yes, your contract with the magazine should be clear as to your rights in this. If you haven't seen or reviewd the contract they will have with you, find out now. They may show up with a "work for hire" contract and you will have no rights, or perhaps better, perhaps worse, there is no contract and all parties are chasing their tales. Likewise, the "subject" may already have come to terms with the magazine and isn't going to entertain some side release for a photo op with the photographer.
You might want to have some releases which cover different scenarios or be willing to alter a standard release if the opportunity arises, the artist may be willing to entertain some limited uses for your own promotion but might be closely controlling his own marketing and not be amenable to blanket release for other uses, stock, etc.
this sounds like editorial and your position sounds like a work for hire.
in any case the responsibility of a release (from both the photographer and the model) is up to the publisher. In other words the publisher publishes, not the photographer.
that to be clear about it in general
for commercial work in case of no release and yet published material the photographer and the model will sue (meaning money) the publisher
the photographer files the releases for his own commercial work (or stocks) but again the responsibility goes to the publisher publishing it. For ads even a release collected by the photographer may be re-negotiated by the model (and the photographer) depending on the use and diffusion, for example.
let me put is this way: if I shoot 200 pictures of somebody and never publish I did nothing wrong. The moment they get published then the rights to copy (or privacy) come to play against the publisher.
And unless the photographer is also the publisher then it won't be his direct responsibility. (but the publisher can refuse to use any material with no release, obviously)
with the only exception of a work for hire contract the photographer always holds the rights for whatever produced by his camera. That's for sure. The model may complain about a published image (if it was editorial, commercial etc.) but the photographer will be always in the power of suing for anything published and not released (no matter what, unless it was a work for hire situation).
markle wrote:
this sounds like editorial and your position sounds like a work for hire.
There's really no such thing as "sounding like work for hire" in the US - it's either contractually-specified or it isn't work-for-hire. As photographers, copyright law is in our favor in a lot of ways and grants us certain rights that remain ours unless we agree to something different.
shatterkiss wrote:
There's really no such thing as "sounding like work for hire" in the US - it's either contractually-specified or it isn't work-for-hire. As photographers, copyright law is in our favor in a lot of ways and grants us certain rights that remain ours unless we agree to something different.
that's exactly what I said and we are discussing releases
in any case if I work for hire I couldn't care less of the releases while if I provide my material the publisher could refuse it if there is no release. the difference is a formality but it may make a difference (to me). that said I never work for hire (only once, many years ago and I'll never do it again).
P.S.: I said "publisher" and not "editor" for a reason
