How about this model release?

[david b]

I've been reading the Alec Soth blog and he posted his model release. Along with it, he says he does not use the photographs for advertising. His consideration is a photograph.

The release is as follows:
"In exchange for consideration received, I hereby give permission to Alec Soth to use my name and photographic likeness in all forms and media."

So, do you think this would actually hold up?

 

[gr82bart]

If the model agrees with it and signs it, yes.

Regards, Art.

 

[Ole]

That's quite similar to my "cut-down" release. Mine was designed to be translated to and from three very different languages without changing the meaning - which is impossible using "legalese".

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't want to get the lawyers involved (again), but I'd be tempted to get rid of the "In exchange for consideration received" or specifically state the "valuable consideration" that changed hands. I've always found that generic statement to be rather puzzling.

 

[david b]

Apparetnly this is from Magnum,

"For value received, I consent to the publication of my photograph used by Magnum Photos, Inc., whether for not with my name or any text, captions, illustrations whatsoever, and I release them from any liability for such use in any and all media."

 

[copake_ham]

Apparetnly this is from Magnum,

"For value received, I consent to the publication of my photograph used by Magnum Photos, Inc., whether for not with my name or any text, captions, illustrations whatsoever, and I release them from any liability for such use in any and all media."

I like this one.

EDIT: There is a "typo". Should read: "...whether OR not..."

 

[david b]

I've decided to go with this:

"For value received, I consent to the publication and public showing of my photograph(s) used by David B, whether or not with my name or any text, captions, illustrations whatsoever, and I release David B from any liability for such use in any and all media.""

 

[copake_ham]

I've decided to go with this:

"For value received, I consent to the publication and public showing of my photograph(s) used by David B, whether or not with my name or any text, captions, illustrations whatsoever, and I release David B from any liability for such use in any and all media.""

How about:

"For value received, I irrevocably relinquish my rights to any future profits or other additional compensation and, hereby consent to the publication and public showing of my photograph(s) used by David B, whether or not with my name or any text, captions, illustrations whatsoever, and additionally I unconditionally release David B from any and all liability for such use in any and all media."

 

[david b]

I am trying to keep this as simple as possible and as little text as possible. I am having a rubber stamp made with the text so that I can stamp it on index cards. Instead of carrying around a notepad and clipboard, I can just carry individual cards. Also makes filing a whole lot easier.

 

[BrianShaw]

How about: (snip)

This is like watching a yo-yo... first the legalese goes out, then it comes back in. :rolleyes:

 

[david b]

I am just trying to cover my ass. I did some photos the other night and did not get a release. This was for my state fair series.

I am not even sure if I need a release. The folks were in public and did nothing more than stand still for 5 seconds.

 

[copake_ham]

I am just trying to cover my ass. I did some photos the other night and did not get a release. This was for my state fair series.

I am not even sure if I need a release. The folks were in public and did nothing more than stand still for 5 seconds.

Old sayings:

"It is better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission."

"Let sleeping dogs lie."

"I don't know nuttin'."

Besides, if you were just shooting "street" and didn't ask anyone to "strike a pose" there is no problem.

 

[david b]

But I am asking folks to stand still. They are the "focus" of the image.

 

[rbarker]

I think the answer to the original question is relative. That is, how much they pay their lawyer versus how much you pay yours. Being poor and/or having no assets is a distinct advantage in this case, as that makes accepting the case very unprofitable from the opposiing lawyer's perspective.

It's tough to come up with catch-all wording. For "real" shoots, I have a standard form that I modify to fit the circumstances of the particular shoot. But, I don't shoot "street" so I don't worry about those situations.

 

[MattKing]

Let me try:

"For value received, I consent to David B using my photograph(s), including publication and public showing, and whether or not accompanied by my name or any text, captions, or illustrations. I give up any claim I might have to share in future profits or claim future compensation, and I release David B from any liability for any use of my photograph(s) in any and all media."

I think it covers those other issues raised by George. Hopefully I've kept the legalese (and length) to a minimum.

Matt

 

[BrianShaw]

I am just trying to cover my a$$.

Yup... and I'm as interested in "the answer" as you are; my needs, however, are not quite as immediate!

How about this:

"I (insert name) give David B permission to take photographs of me and use those photographs, including publication or public showing (whether or not accompanied by my name). I give up any claim to future profits or future compensation. I release David B from all liability for any use of these photographs."

p.s. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I have a strong orientation toward "plain speak" in any or all legal documents, whether executed by me or my assigns, on my behalf or in retaliation for all past, present, or future activities, publically acknowledged or not, on this earth or other universes, for ever and ever Amen.

 

[Aggie]

Instead of a rubber stamp why not one fo these ideas?

a fold over business card which has the information printed on the inside with space to be signed and dated, so you have it ready if need be? I've seen this done recently and thought it was a good way to have it all with you in one convient size.

A gum backed label that you can peel off a sheet of paper and attach to a 4x6 card that then is signed by the person and dated? So long as the signature is also on the gummed portion in at least part of it, you would be fine.

Getting some special 4x6 cards printed with the info on them so there is no worries at all. Is there a computer program that would handle that?

 

[Ed Sukach]

At first glance it is too broad. You cannot absolve yourself from all responsibility, no more that you could by placing a sign on your icy walkway, simply stating, "I am not resposible for the injuries from any falls on this walkway".

Question: Why do you want to deny the model "Any and all rights to further compensation resulting from the use of these images?" If I paid a model $10 for a model release, and later netted $1,000,000 (it could happen), I would be more than happy to give the model additional compensation, as a gesture of "good faith".

I'm pressed for time at the moment... I'm revising my "Fine Art Release" .... I know I'm still under the promise of submitting a ColorStar Article... so ....

Right now, I'm going to take a shower.

 

[david b]

Giving the model some of the sale is and should be up to me. It should be my choice.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ed seems to have posed a question without answer. While I tend to agree that sharing profit with those who help generate the profit is a nice thing, "good faith" sharing seems quite different from a contractual obligation to share profit.

So when sharing either anticipated or unanticipated profit as a good-faith gesture is a goal, how would that be phrased contractually -- "I give up any claim to future profits or future compensation but that might change in the event of a fortunate event where said photoraph becomes a really big money maker and the photographer decides that it is right and just to be generous and share the windfall"?

 

[Samuel B]

Personally if someone takes a photo of me in public and then presents some kind of "model release" for me to sign, I'm not going to sign it, unless I specifically asked for my photo to be taken.
I have no idea what the legal requirements for this situation is, but I like this one best.

"I don't know nuttin'."

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed seems to have posed a question without answer.

Yes, I did. I'm working on what will apparently be a "family" of specific releases - each directed toward a specific use.
I am, at present, exhibiting in three (3) Galleries - and preparing for a fourth - so I'm juggling a few balls in the air.

So when sharing either anticipated or unanticipated profit as a good-faith gesture is a goal, how would that be phrased contractually -- "I give up any claim to future profits or future compensation but that might change in the event of a fortunate event where said photograph becomes a really big money maker and the photographer decides that it is right and just to be generous and share the windfall"?

Seems to me that all that is necessary is to leave the entire "claim" phrase out, in a preliminary "Fine Art Release: "For the compensation of ... (I'd suggest, and USE money - a definite sum), I grant to AB (name of photographer) the right to use these images, after reasonable opportunity for my review (more on this later), for Gallery Exhibition and Portfolio purposes.

There will be, if reasonably possible, a second release, specifying individual images, BOTH photographer and model agreeing to their use.

If this sounds complicated, I'll agree that it is. There seems to be a necessity for all this due to a few unscrupulous - with the accent on "UN" - "Hustler - type wannabbes" walking all over models, using the Model Release as a weapon, and causing ALL kinds of pain and embarrassment to the models - so much so, that many are giving up modeling completely.

Note that all the above applies to "Fine Art" ONLY, produced by me, exhibited by me .. without further publication. Certainly, It may not be appropriate for other uses - Commercial - comes immediately to mind.

More later. One of those "bowling pins" I'm juggling is headed for the floor.

 

[jstraw]

I need to find out if I'm simply ignorant here...

It is my understanding that neither releases or permission is needed to take, publish or exhibit photographs made in public spaces. Newspapers could not function otherwise.

I do not know very much about assigning rights to a third party, ie: selling an image for use as an illustration or advertisement.

Can someone school me?

 

[BrianShaw]

(snip)
There will be, if reasonably possible, a second release, specifying individual images, BOTH photographer and model agreeing to their use.

If this sounds complicated, I'll agree that it is. (snip)
Note that all the above applies to "Fine Art" ONLY, produced by me, exhibited by me .. without further publication. Certainly, It may not be appropriate for other uses - Commercial - comes immediately to mind.
(snip)

Yes, seems a bit complicated but for "Fine Art photography" where the model is more of a partner than part of the environment, it makes sense to me. Only issue I wonder about (and you have much more experience than me, Ed) is the notion of putting that much control over your art work in the hands of the model. What happens if you have a really great Art Photo that you know will make you lots of fortune/fame but they don't like it and refuses to sign the 'second' release for 'unreasonable reasons'?

For most other uses, this might be so cumbersome that nothing would ever get published. In these situations I tend to agree with what the last couple of posters said: in public almost anything is fair game and "i don't know nuttin'".

 

[Ed Sukach]

I need to find out if I'm simply ignorant here...
It is my understanding that neither releases or permission is needed to take, publish or exhibit photographs made in public spaces. Newspapers could not function otherwise.
I do not know very much about assigning rights to a third party, ie: selling an image for use as an illustration or advertisement.
Can someone school me?

"News" use - wherever, has been judged to be protected from the Copyright Law, as a matter of "Freedom of the Press - under the Constitution of the United States. Elsewhere --- I do not know.

Simply because it is done "In a Public Place" does not exempt a Model - or anyone - from a reasonable share of the proceeds derived from their participation in the activity.

An example ... Heidi Klum models clothes for Dior, on a public beach in Miami. The images are published in Cosmo.
Not "news", and you bet your life she and many others will share in the projected proceeds from the shoot.

Heidi Klum trips and falls into a hot dog stand on the same public beach in Miami... and the image is published in the Enquirer.
"News" - and she probably will NOT be paid for the image.