Archive 2008 · What model release do you use?

aFeinberg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · What model release do you use?

I was curious, for shooting portraits, nudes etc what release do you use. My goal for the images will be fine art prints and/or a book/publication down the line. I have a 'pocket release' and a longer version but was just looking for what else might be used. Here is what I have:

POCKET RELEASE
For valuable consideration received, I hereby grant to _____________ (�Photographer�) and
his/her legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish
photographs of me, or in which I may be included, for editorial, trade, advertising, and any other
purpose and in any manner and medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the
same. I hereby release Photographer and his/her legal representatives and assigns from all claims
and liability relating to said photographs.

name/sig/date/etc

ADULT RELEASE
For valuable consideration received, I hereby grant to ___________________ (�Photographer�)
the absolute and irrevocable right and unrestricted permission in respect of photographic portraits
or pictures that he/she had taken of me or in which I may be included with others, to use, reuse,
publish, and republish the same in whole or in part, individually or in any and all media now or here-
after known, and for any purpose whatsoever, for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising,
and trade, or any other purpose whatsoever without restriction as to alteration; and to use my name
in connection therewith if he/she so chooses.
I hereby release and discharge Photographer from any and all claims and demands arising out
of or in connection with the use of the photographs, including without limitation any and all claims
for libel or violation of any right of publicity or privacy.
This authorization and release shall also inure to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives,
licensees, and assigns of Photographer, as well as the person(s) for whom he/she took the photo-
graphs.
I am of full age and have the right to contract in my own name. I have read the foregoing and
fully understand the contents thereof. This release shall be binding upon me and my heirs, legal
representatives, and assigns.

name/sig/date/etc

Thanks all for the help

aF

Dec 04, 2008 at 06:23 AM

nathanlake
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · What model release do you use?

The term "valuable consideration" is part of most releases, but based on some advice I have received, I leave it out.

Language that speaks of "consideration" or payment is better placed in a contract rather than a consent. This is a consent to photograph and whether consideration was given or not is irrelevant or even may be counterproductive.

The purpose of a release is to protect the photographer and there is no need for the document to meet the standards of a contract.

I am not an attorney, and the text thus far has been my opinion, but here is what an attorney says....

"Because the concept of consideration relates to contract law, releases that contain consideration clauses can create doubt regarding whether the consent is a condition of the contract or is an independent statement. Because consent by itself is sufficient to negate a claim that a model's privacy rights has been violated, adding a consideration clause to a release can weaken the legal protection because a court could find the consent invalid if for some reason it finds the contract to be unenforceable."

Bert Krages, Esq. "Legal Handbook for Photographers - The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images, 2nd Ed.": Amherst Media, 2007

If you actually paid money, or other consideration, that should be dealt with in a contract, not a release.

Dec 04, 2008 at 11:20 PM

c.d.embrey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · What model release do you use?

You really need to consult a lawyer in your state. Different states have different laws. Here in California you have to give "valuable consideration".

"In some states within the US, a model release is not enforceable unless there was some form of compensation�California is such a state. New York does not require compensation. For those states where compensation is required, what is interpreted as compensation, or what form it takes, is not set in stone." http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#6.4

When I was working for the studios in Hollywood, they would send out the 3rd Assistant Director with a roll of $1.00 bills and a stack of model releases if we had the public in the background of a shot. The $1.00 was the consideration.

Dec 05, 2008 at 12:13 AM

aFeinberg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · What model release do you use?

Food to know about local law. But I will remove it from future releases. Thanks for the help

aF

Dec 05, 2008 at 04:27 AM

nathanlake
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · What model release do you use?

Considering that some states do require it, I wonder if it makes sense to specifically state what the compensation was. Since the release is now serving as both release and contract you would expect it to be a bit more precise.

Dec 05, 2008 at 08:51 AM

Craig Gillette
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · What model release do you use?

The civil code sections in California when it comes to the right of publicity, requires only prior permission. It doesn't require a contract and it doesn't require consideration.

Get legal advice from lawyers familiar with the laws were you are doing business. Contract law and the laws dealing with privacy and publicity are state laws and are not necessarily consistent. Taking broad general statements and applying them to the specifics of any given situation is risky. You will note that the legal "advice" type materials prepared by attorneys will usually point that out. Photographers often don't.

Dec 06, 2008 at 08:28 PM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · What model release do you use?

Even if you get solid advice that there must be "consideration," the "consideration" might have to be commensurate with the value of the

A model in Texas won a lawsuite in which photographs of her were used in a national ad campaign that was very lucrative for the photographer, but she had gotten a pittance of "consideration."

The clincher that won the case for the photographer was that the photographer was actually under contract with the national agency when he engaged the model, but didn't let on to the model. The amount he paid her was far less than what would have been a standard modeling fee even in that city (much less what a model would have received in, say, NYC, for that level of campaign). It's likely that if he'd paid even the standard local modeling fee, he'd have been home clear.

But the bottom line of the suit was the rather unfortunate ruling that the consideration received by the model must be commensurate with the ultimate value of the work.

Dec 07, 2008 at 04:38 PM

nathanlake
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · What model release do you use?

There have been a number of cases like this and in each case the KEY issue is that the photogapher knew the pictures were worth a lot and did not compensate appropriately. In the cases where a good faith agreement is made to pay the model a small amount, but later the photographer somehow makes millions, the courts have generally found that model is not entitled to any further compensation.

Dec 08, 2008 at 12:01 AM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · What model release do you use?

>>The clincher that won the case for the photographer was that the photographer was actually under contract with the national agency when he engaged the model, but didn't let on to the model.

>There have been a number of cases like this and in each case the KEY issue is that the photogapher knew the pictures were worth a lot and did not compensate appropriately.

I meant to say "won the case for the model." Yes, courts tend to consider good faith effort.

This point of compensation versus non-compensation probably requires some study of the cases to see what the sense of the courts actually is. I suspect the California courts are seeing the issue as more a property or employment matter, while the "non-compensation" courts are seeing it as more a privacy matter.

It's in California, for example, where the courts and legislature have agreed than a person's image is "property" that can be willed to heirs or sold to corporations, and that a person's image can never be completely "released" to a photographer for any purpose the photographer deems.

California is preventing photographers who have comprehensive model releases for their Marilyn Monroe images from using them commercially (even though the releases plainly give that right to the photographers) because according to California the Marylin Monroe estate "owns" any and every image of her and can dictate its usage in perpetuity.

OTOH, New York has not reached that decision in the same matter of the Marilyn Monroe model releases.

Dec 08, 2008 at 08:55 AM


FM Forums \| Pro Digital Corner \| Join Upload & Sell