model releases

[malkav42]

Hello all,

I have a question for you. Do you use model releases just to be on the safe side?

I ask this because I will be taking pictures at the annual Oktoberfest this weekend, and if the photos are good I might want to post them, or maybe even try to sell them as stock(Big maybe there).

So I wanted to know how the one's that those who use them are worded. I've looked the subject up online, and the one's I've found all have pretty much this clause in them...

"I hereby waive any right that I may have to inspect or approve the finished product or products and the advertising copy or other matter that may be used in connection therewith or the use to which it may be applied."

It just seems to me to be a bit overbearing toward the subject of the photo. I know it is neccessary to cover one's backside, but it also looks to me like this clause could effect the photo op of the next photographer that the subject encountered.

Thanks for any answers given,
Ed

[kgphoto]

The ideas is to limit the amount of hassle it takes to use the images. It may be years before you use the photo and their address may have changed etc. So get an all rights release for adequate compensation and accept the occasional rejection.

[malkav42]

Thank you for the reply. I guess it pays to cover all the bases in the long run.

[waple]

There are some things I don't understand about model releases. I know I ask a lot of questions, but I try to get more specific details, things that aren't necesarilly covered in a broad question, so please bear with me.

Let's use the original poster's example of Oktoberfest, something in which you didn't hire a specific model for the shoot.

Is a release only needed if the photog intends to make money (sell the print individually or to something like a magazine) or use it in his own personal advertising that may bring in money (via other clients)?

What if the person isn't the focus of the shot but just happens to be in the frame, but recognizable? Is a release required for that? If so, and there is a crowd of people of which you can make out 10 faces, I'm guessing you'd need all 10 to sign and if one or two don't, you can't use the shot.

Does the usually photographer promise to compensate, monetarily, the person in the shot? If so, what compensation is typical and how do you prove to the model that what you pay him down the line is accurate if he asks?

If $ compensation isn't part of the equasion, why would someone sign a release? I have a feeling that if someone took my photo and asked me to asign him the right to use my image, I'd most likely say "no way" (unless she was hot).

[HuBBaTheMan]

I only use a release if it's TFP work. Ie. it's no money involved on either side. This makes it easier to just have agreed on what each side can do with the pictures. (Incidentally, i write one up with the Mua/Stylists aswell). If any of us sells that money, a separate contract is usually set up handling the compensation parts of that photo so everyone gets a share.

For paid work however, the contract is quite different as the model / mua is hired to do a job. Any compensation is in the contract for the job. If i sell that image 12038123 times after that, good on me. The model & the mua have already been paid for it.

Of course, all this is subject to national law and can thus change depending on where you are.

[JohnC]

Privacy laws vary around the world. And possibly from state to state in the US. But with that said, here is a site that has a good overview of model releases and situations where they are/aren't needed:

The Model Release

And here is a link to Getty Images model release forms for the USA:

gettyimages.com/contributors - Model and Property Releases - USA

Releases for other countries are available at
gettyimages.com/contributors -

And a recent NY Times article on street photography:
The Theater of the Street, the Subject of the Photograph - New York Times