for valuable consideration received...

I think that "due compensation" becomes the applicable term in this matter. I think that if one were to be challenged in a court of law, at least here in the US, that you had better be prepared to show evidence that the "common and ordinary" compensation has been extended and received. I don't believe that some judges would be receptive to the idea that a proof sheet, a seal, or a print would show sufficient compensation had been extended and received.

If challenged in a court of law, it will not matter if you and I as photographer think that we have extended the "common and ordinary" due compensation to the person that we photographed. At that point, should this occur, the judge may find that some of us are full of shit in our business procedures.

The last street person that I photographed here in Phoenix was paid ten dollars for five minutes of his time and the right to photograph him. That makes his income worth $120 per hour. This seems to be the near the common and ordinary rate of $100 per hour for models in this area.

I would suggest that we not become too damned creative in designing our own model releases. That makes judges get really pissed off when some schlock walkes into court with evidence that he thinks he knows about law and has no credentials to back up his pretense.

copake_ham said:

Now there, of course, it is not an English C.L. jurisdiction. But, looking at the historical timeline, I always been curious exactly what is the basis of Quebec civil law? The quick answer I hear is that it is based on the Napoleonic Code. But the British took over Quebec in 1763 - long before the Napoleonic Era. So perhaps Quebec's civil law is based on pre-Napoleonic France?

But then, since for many years the English were a large minority in Quebec, it is difficult for me to see how they would have not sought the "protections" of English common law? It's been a long time since I studied the histories of Lower and Upper Canada. Was their a two-tier justice system in pre-1867 Lower Canada? If so, did it continue post-Confederation?

Click to expand...

George:

I don't know whether it is correct to say that the British "took over" Lower Canada. Lower Canada (now Quebec) was pretty self-sufficient, except for issues of international scope. I think it is probably the case that Quebec's civil law was based on pre-Napoleonic France, and then went through much of the same transitions as the civil law went through when it was codified in the Napoleonic era.

The colonies in what is now Canada were essentially independent of each other until Confederation, at least in terms of legal and governmental structures. As a result, Lower and Upper Canada and the maritime colonies evolved independently, although there was a common influence from England. I think it would be correct to say however that with respect to those matters covered under Quebec's civil law, England wasn't particularly interested in what Quebec was doing, as long as England got benefits from their Lower Canada colony. I expect that for private law issues, no one in Lower Canada wanted to involve England in any way. There may have been some public law that was imposed (criminal law?) but how much, I do not know.

At the time of Confederation, the division of legal responsibilities was a major issue, and the preservation of Lower Canada's civil law structure was probably critical to the successful negotiations.

Even now, with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada, Quebec enjoys a constitutional protection in that three of the nine judges must have come from Quebec. The practical reason for this protection is that it allows civil law cases to be heard before a panel which consists entirely of Quebec jurists.

The Supreme Court of Canada is, of course, relatively younger than the country. Our final court of appeal was for a long time the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ("JCPC") - the closest thing to a world court that we will ever likely see (IMHO). The irony I like is that Quebec was probably the strongest opponent to doing away with the right to take appeals to the JCPC.
One of the major reasons for this was that the jurists on the JCPC, being the best educated and most experienced jurists in England and the Commonwealth, often had better knowledge of the Civil Code than the non Quebec Justices on the Supreme Court of Canada, and almost invariably spoke better French than those non Quebec Justices!

Matt

Suzanne Revy said:

One photographer I've met, Andrea Modica, photographed a young girl, Barbara, and her family over a period of ten years. She's published two books, "Treadwell" and "Barbara" with this work. She says she offers 10 percent of her profits to the people she photographs, and I think she gives them prints from time to time.

That struck me as fair and ethical.

Click to expand...

I think that is fair and ethical as well. If it is my "Fine Art", I will invariably do the same - 10% of the net proceeds I receive WILL be provided to the model as an extra added reasonable compensation. I think the word "reasonable" is the key here. There are instances where models have contested releases on the grounds of "good faith" and "Reasonable compensation". To pay a model one kopeck for her work, and to have that work plastered on Billboards, and Fashion Magazines, all as a major element of a National advertising campaign, or in a Coffee Table Book, could hardly be called "reasonable".

The usual "boiler plate" model releases do not reflect this, nor do they allow for a review of the work by the model, before publication - something else I always do, if possible.

I am in the process of revising my Model Releases to reflect this - more clearly delineating the allowable end use of the images, the Model's right to review the work, and future compensation.

My youngest daughter has a *TON* of first hand experience with Model Releases from years of experience at a Law Firm dealing with that very area. I have every confidence in her advice - not as a Lawyer, but from the real seat of Legal Intelligence - a Legal Secretary.