# The Myth of the Model Release?



## DGMPhotography (Jan 12, 2013)

So I've been doing some research and different sites say different things :/ You guys have told me I need to have a model release but my friend kinda freaked out when I told her that so I did some research. This guy seems to say that you basically don't need a model release for yourself, unless it's conveying that the subject promotes an idea or something. It's the publisher company (magazing, etc) that needs the release so it's not that the photographer needs the release but that the publishers need one and that's the only way they will buy your photos. Model Release Primer

Question 1: Why is it that publishers need a model release?

Question 2: If I don't plan to sell my photos to a publisher, or have my subject advocate an idea or something, do I need a release?

Thanks!


----------



## Lmphotos (Jan 12, 2013)

Seems funny how paparazzi gets away with taking tons of photos and sells them to magazines with no release?


----------



## tirediron (Jan 12, 2013)

In most circumstances, you only NEED a release if you are going to use image commercially (think: "Advertising").  Since most photographers don't actually publish advertising copy, they may not need the release, but having it ensures that you can use the image later on.  As well, self-promotion might (in extreme cases) be construed as commercial use, so it's possible (but not likely IMO) that using an image on your website as part of your portfolio could be construed as commerical use.  

I normally use a combination release/license/usage agreement such as this:

_This is a work for time agreement between

My Name (&#8220;The Photographer&#8221

and _
____________________________________ a minor, and _____________________________ a parent or guardian legally able to make such decisions as are described below ; (Jointly, &#8220;The Client&#8221, in which The Photographer and The client agree to a non-monetary exchange of time for services in the following manner:
_
_For the images taken at:  __________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________ on _______________________________, and 
in exchange for acting as a model for a period of approximately two hours (or a greater or less period as mutually agreed on), The Client will receive at least two digital image files, in .jpg format suitable for printing at up to 8x10 inches. As agreed beforehand by both The Client and The Photographer, the images will be head and shoulder images (&#8220;headshots&#8221 of the type commonly used in modeling portfolios.
_
_The Photographer grants The Client the right to make an unlimited number of prints of the aforementioned images, and the right to use the images in electronic or printed format for any non-commercial purpose, including but not limited social media use, inclusion in portfolios and other forms of self-promotion, but no other rights. The Client acknowledges that The Photographer will retain the copyright to all images, and that they may not edit or alter the files in any way.
_
_In addition to copyright, The Photographer retains the right to use the image for any non- commercial purpose including but not limited to personal promotion and accreditation as well as for portfolio purposes.
_
_The Client is responsible for hair-styling, make-up, and clothing choices. The Photographer will retain the right to make the final decision as to which image(s) are selected for processing and delivery to The Client._

*Note:  This is a Canadian document suitable for the IP law in the province of BC.  Laws vary by country/region/state/province.  This may or may not be suitable for your area.  *

I explain to potential clients that this is for mutual protection and if they don't want to sign, that's fine, there are lots of other photographers out there.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 12, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> Seems funny how paparazzi gets away with taking tons of photos and sells them to magazines with no release?


Editorial use normally does not require a release.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 12, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> Seems funny how paparazzi gets away with taking tons of photos and sells them to magazines with no release?



maybe there is a reason for that... like... they are scum?


----------



## KmH (Jan 13, 2013)

That is Dan Heller's web page.

Yes. A model release protects both the model and the publisher, depending on the specific language in the release.

For more complete information I highly recommend his book. I have a well worn copy of it. - A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things 

The photographer is also often the publisher.
When a photographer publishes the images on the photographer's web site, having a signed model release is a good idea.
Photographers do get special dispensation if they use an image for self-promotion, *unless* the image was made in private, is made under controlled conditions (like posed shots made in a park and using strobed light and reflectors), or if the people in the image can be perceived as sponsors or advocates of the photographer's business. Then, the photographer needs to have a signed model release on file if the photographer wants to avoid the potential of future legal problems.

When paparazzi sell images to a magazine, the use in the magazine is usually editorial, and editorial use generally does not require a release. The same applies to magazine and newspaper reporters and being editorial use they also don't need a model release.

Model releases are needed for commercial use - advertising and promotion.

All of which points up the fact that model release law is not as cut and dried as laws like traffic laws.

While copyright law is federal law, and is the same in all 50 states, model release law is state law, so there are 50 somewhat different versions of it. Check what applies in your state.

States that have a significant TV or movie making industry, like California and New York, have requirements a state like Iowa doesn't have.

A further consideration is - what legally constitutes 'publication'? - Are Photographs Posted On the Internet Published? | Photo Attorney


----------



## EIngerson (Jan 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> Seems funny how paparazzi gets away with taking tons of photos and sells them to magazines with no release?




They do not need permission or a contract to shoot people in public. They are candids, not a formal photo shoot.


----------



## Lmphotos (Jan 13, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Seems funny how paparazzi gets away with taking tons of photos and sells them to magazines with no release?
> ...




I was reading a photographer a while back who took a picture of a homeless man while doing street photography and could never sell it because he didn't have a model release. How is that any different?


----------



## manaheim (Jan 13, 2013)

Getting legal advice from a bunch of yahoos on the internet is really dumb.

You did ask those yahoos their advice, but then you decided to disagree with it... based off your own research... on the internet.  And then you came back here to discuss it with the yahoos that you disagreed with some more.  Really?  Come on.

Go talk to a lawyer.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > Lmphotos said:
> ...



Celebrities and other people that put themselves in the public eye such as  politicians do not have an expectation to privacy that the average  individual has.  They and their lives are by their very nature "news/newsworthy."  Personally I could care less about them, but the "news" rags sell thousands at the grocery store.  

To the OP, nothing makes "fact" out of "fiction" faster than becoming embroiled in a lawsuit.  Do yourself a favor and consult an attorney in your area or the area you intend to shoot in before you decide whether to use or not use something such as a model release.


----------



## IByte (Jan 13, 2013)

Along with an attorney, IMO it's just good practice to ask them to sign a model release to save you from any headaches in the future.  Try this before the shoot, sit down(at a cafe) and go through the contract with your friend/client.  If you put them at ease and within a comfortable place they are less likely to "freak" or become uncomfortable.  Good Luck.


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 13, 2013)

Why should you have one?  

I'll tell you a true story.  My ex had a friend taking some photography classes.  As my ex was used to my always snapping away photos of her, and modeling for me, she agreed to pose as a model for her friends photography course, as an assignment.

Her friend posted the photo shoot on Flickr, quite proud of them.  And, as compensation for my ex, she gave prints of the photos to my ex.

A local company saw her photos on Flickr, when googling for shots around Maastricht.  They emailed my ex's friend, and asked to pay her 200 EUR for the photo for a local ad campaign.  Of course she had to come back to my ex, and ask for a signed release.

As my ex was the model, she informed her friend it was only fair that she got half.  Even though she had already been compensated on a TFP (trade for prints basis).

Realistically, if you're just shooting for fun, and you're just hanging photos on your wall, or posting on facebook, you don't really need a model release.

But the second you go commercial you do.  And commercial can include gallery work, and you won't always be able to claim it's "editorial"

That's why people recommend you ALWAYS get one.  It just reduces confusion, as you never know which shoot will give you that GREAT shot


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 13, 2013)

Instead of asking "Do I need one?", why not ask "Why shouldn't I have one?"

I can't think of a single reason why having a model release would be considered a bad thing...


----------



## KmH (Jan 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> I was reading a photographer a while back who took a picture of a homeless man while doing street photography and could never sell it because he didn't have a model release. How is that any different?


It sounds like the photographer was short on legal knowledge and/or salesmanship.

A famous case (from a legal perspective) -Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is some info from a models perspective - http://www.newmodels.com/Releases.html


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 13, 2013)

KmH said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading a photographer a while back who took a picture of a homeless man while doing street photography and could never sell it because he didn't have a model release. How is that any different?
> ...



Call it a hunch, but it probably wasn't the photographer that backed out of the transaction due to the missing release. Almost all purchasers of images are publishers or in the media business in some way, and they have _*burro*_cratic rules to follow that are set by some of the least creative people in the media industry, and on the corporate lawyer side, maybe on the planet.

The last thing you're going to get a media house to do is bend a rule set by their bosses and lawyers when it comes to releases and rights.

Was the buyer likely well informed?  of course not.  But would it have likely made it difference if they were?  of course not.

Welcome to cya corporate thinking.


----------



## Tee (Jan 13, 2013)

DGM-

There are many nuances to the model release as mentioned above.  Remember, the release is the model granting YOU permission to display her likeness under the conditions outlined in the release.  Don't confuse that with copyright and usage/ license.  In all likelihood if you're just doing a fun shoot, you're probably fine.  BUT, say you butcher the images and the model asks you not to post them on Facebook?  What if they are so embarrassing she threatens legal action?  What kind of hard copy proof do you have?  Additionally, your verbiage on your website is making you sound like you are pursuing more than hobby photography.  If you have aspirations of one day being a paid professional, it's never too early to start conducting yourself like one.  

Or...save yourself time in the long run and see a lawyer.  I paid $150 to have a lawyer review mine and make corrections.  May seem like a lot but knowing I'm covered is nice to know.  Lastly, you can get pre-formatted releases for your smart phone (I use Top Model Release and inserted my custom release).  They're kinda catch-all but at least you have something and don't have to carry paper around.


----------



## KmH (Jan 13, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Call it a hunch, but it probably wasn't the photographer that backed out of the transaction due to the missing release. Almost all purchasers of images are publishers or in the media business in some way, and they have _*burro*_cratic rules to follow that are set by some of the least creative people in the media industry, and on the corporate lawyer side, maybe on the planet.
> 
> The last thing you're going to get a media house to do is bend a rule set by their bosses and lawyers when it comes to releases and rights.
> 
> ...


Publishers routinely use un-released images.

Those that do know they are taking a risk, but deem the risk as low relative to the expected gains.

Occasionally, they get caught, wind up in court, and wind up paying a price for taking the risk.
I wish I had a file with all the court cases I have seen reported on the Internet.


----------



## texkam (Jan 13, 2013)

> my friend kinda freaked out


...and that's why you should cya if you're doing any type of "photo work". You never know what might happen in the future.


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 13, 2013)

texkam said:


> > my friend kinda freaked out
> 
> 
> ...and that's why you should cya if you're doing any type of "photo work". You never know what might happen in the future.



Exactly.  What if you thought the photo was great, posted it on the 'net, and THEN she freaked out?

It's far better to spell out ahead of time... What you will do with the images...  If you will sell them...  etc...


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 13, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> Seems funny how paparazzi gets away with taking tons of photos and sells them to magazines with no release?



Because it's photojournalism, albeit a very tasteless form of it, and it's usually done in a public space where people don't generally expect a lot of privacy anyways. It's when the paparazzi begin "invading" the privacy of celebrities' property and other place where some level of privacy is expected that it becomes an issue.

The issue that I'm most wary of is one of the privacy torts stating:

*Appropriation* -- Use of a person's name, likeness or identity for trade or advertising purposes without consent. 

That means that technically, any image you are using on your website/brochure/business card/commercial/whatever to promote your business should have some sort of model release if the image is of a person not including yourself. The chances of someone ACTUALLY suing over that is slim, but it's still there and the lawsuit would be legitimate regardless of how trivial it would seem.

I'm sure there are other reason to have a model release but this is the most obvious, I think. 

If you are using an image commercially it is generally understood that you probably need some sort of contract between you and the model giving you consent to monetize and spread their image. However...if you are displaying a photo in an art gallery...The rules are different. You don't _technically_ need a release for that (I think, don't quote me on that) but it's probably a good idea to have one.


----------



## skieur (Jan 13, 2013)

tirediron said:


> _The Client is responsible for hair-styling, make-up, and clothing choices._



I am surprised by this statement in your contract, considering that poor choices in this area can lead to an unflattering, poor portrait.

skieur


----------



## tirediron (Jan 13, 2013)

skieur said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > _The Client is responsible for hair-styling, make-up, and clothing choices._
> ...


This particular document is for a TFP shoot with a minor - we discuss all of this before-hand, and I provide recommendations based on our mutual intent for the shoot, but the actual purpose of that line is to ensure that they are aware I am not providing those services, and that if they choose clothing/make-up that is different than what I've recommended, the results may not be what they were expecting.


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 13, 2013)

KmH said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading a photographer a while back who took a picture of a homeless man while doing street photography and could never sell it because he didn't have a model release. How is that any different?
> ...



The interesting thing about Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia is the photographer was sued after publishing a book and selling 10 prints of the person in question, at $20k each

Legal action is all about money.  If you have it, they can get it from you.  If you're a starving artist with 0 assets, nothing really that can be done...


----------



## Mully (Jan 13, 2013)

Stock agencies want houses to have a release from owners.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 13, 2013)

I prefer landscapes.  Trees and flowers and rivers can't sue the pants off me.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 13, 2013)

480sparky said:
			
		

> I prefer landscapes.  Trees and flowers and rivers can't sue the pants off me.



What if they're somebody ELSE'S trees and flowers and rivers? O.O


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 13, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> What if they're somebody ELSE'S trees and flowers and rivers? O.O



99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of 'em are.  But I doubt any of 'em have the scratch to cough up a lawyer's retainer.


----------



## skieur (Jan 13, 2013)

tirediron said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Yes, good point.  Sometimes no matter what you recommend, they can totally shock you with the clothes/make-up that they appear in.

skieur


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 13, 2013)

You can find information about photo releases as well as sample forms on websites of professional photographers organizations like ASMP. I think that a release is usually needed for retail or commercial use but not necessarily for editorial use. 

For Facebook or other social networking websites a photographer might want to read the Terms of Service to know how photos could be used by the site.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 14, 2013)

Unnecessarily rude remarks from a grumpy pre-coffee commuter train rider removed. :/


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 14, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Getting legal advice from a bunch of yahoos on the internet is really dumb.
> 
> You did ask those yahoos their advice, but then you decided to disagree with it... based off your own research... on the internet.  And then you came back here to discuss it with the yahoos that you disagreed with some more.  Really?  Come on.
> 
> Go talk to a lawyer.



Some of these yahoos have been in the business and know what they're talking about.

But why not have one anyways? It's protection and it keeps you covered in the event that you eventually need one.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 14, 2013)

Tee said:


> There are many nuances to the model release as mentioned above.  Remember, the release is the model granting YOU permission to display her likeness under the conditions outlined in the release.  Don't confuse that with copyright and usage/ license. * In all likelihood if you're just doing a fun shoot, you're probably fine.*  BUT, say you butcher the images and the model asks you not to post them on Facebook?  What if they are so embarrassing she threatens legal action?  What kind of hard copy proof do you have?  Additionally, your verbiage on your website is making you sound like you are pursuing more than hobby photography.  *If you have aspirations of one day being a paid professional, it's never too early to start conducting yourself like one.  *



I disagree on the first point.  People are fickle.  They change their mind, and they get weird for all sorts of reasons that make sense to nobody but themselves.  Anything from a new ultra conservative rich boyfriend who makes it his mission to rescue a girl from her past and will stop at nothing to punish anyone and everyone who ever knew her... to...  well make up your own stories.   If you're going to do the shoot, take 5 minutes to execute a release.  It's too simple not to.

For TFP, mine is simple:  I can use all images for self promotion, and can and will publish them for self promotion but not for profit, with the following exclusions:  _____________________  (Sometimes when doing "implied" nudity, the model is nude, but doesn't want nudes published.  Fair enough, and I'll hand write it into the release.)  I also include a "compensation" fill in clause which I write in "materials for self promotion only" to indicate that the model has been compensated with a copy of the work which can be used for their self promotion, but not sold for profit, or used for other commercial purposes.

For commercial work, should you ever choose to work for hire, ask the CLIENT to give you one to use.  They are paying for the shoot, they get to make the rules.  And often _nobody_ is allowed to use the images for _anything_ except for them.  If they don't care, then use your TFP release, and just write the amount in the fill-in space. 


On the second point I agree completely.  Act like a professional.  

Third point... anyone who won't sign my release (after reading it) is a HUGE warning klaxon... WARNING WARNING WARNING THIS ONE IS FLAKY WILL BE TROUBLE AVOID AT ALL COSTS WARNING WARNING WARNING.


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 14, 2013)

Village Idiot said:


> Some of these yahoos have been in the business and know what they're talking about.



Perhaps.

But if you get bad guidance from a hired attorney, there's recourse if that advice turns out to be bad. If the advice you follow is that which someone on the internet gives you, there's none. You're screwed...


----------



## skieur (Jan 15, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> So I've been doing some research and different sites say different things :/ You guys have told me I need to have a model release but my friend kinda freaked out when I told her that so I did some research. This guy seems to say that you basically don't need a model release for yourself, unless it's conveying that the subject promotes an idea or something. It's the publisher company (magazing, etc) that needs the release so it's not that the photographer needs the release but that the publishers need one and that's the only way they will buy your photos. Model Release Primer
> 
> Question 1: Why is it that publishers need a model release?
> 
> ...



Answer to question 1:  The publisher is the one who is USING the photo, therefore he needs a model release to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit.

Answer to question 2: No, you don't, in almost all areas, assuming that there is nothing too unique about the shot.  The caveat is that nothing in the photo should imply anything negative about the subject. (The classic example is one of a socially prominent, conservative gentleman with the sign for a strip club in the background.  Needless to say that resulted in a law suit.)

The above caveat is just in case you do display/publish a shot at a later date.

skieur


----------



## manaheim (Jan 15, 2013)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> Perhaps.
> 
> But if you get bad guidance from a hired attorney, there's recourse if that advice turns out to be bad. If the advice you follow is that which someone on the internet gives you, there's none. You're screwed...



Right.

ESP when op already GOT his answer and basically came back to debate it.  At that point the wise thing would be to talk to an atty.


----------



## skieur (Jan 15, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, he did NOT.  He still had 2 questions which he wanted answers to.  The only debate was in your mind.

skieur


----------



## tirediron (Jan 15, 2013)

*Okay, okay...  let's lighten up a little shall we?  *


----------



## Joves (Jan 16, 2013)

As has been said you may not need one for your intended purpose, but you are better off having one. This is especially true in the litigious society that we now live in, when you have the release, and someone sues you over the photos, or your use of, you have the release for your defense. SO my question is why would you not have it. And people, and the wannabe models are flaky as hell, what is fine one day can change in a second. It is like having sex, use protection.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jan 16, 2013)

Cool, well I think I have a better understanding of model releases now. As for manny, I'm starting to see more and more people actually *not* agreeing with you, perhaps you should try to lighten up a bit, you may be a happier person. Thanks for the tips, guys!


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 17, 2013)

Joves said:


> As has been said you may not need one for your intended purpose, but you are better off having one. This is especially true in the litigious society that we now live in, when you have the release, and someone sues you over the photos, or your use of, you have the release for your defense. SO my question is why would you not have it. And people, and the wannabe models are flaky as hell, what is fine one day can change in a second. It is like having sex, use protection.



Ive never heard a model release compared to a condom before, but I love it!


----------



## catchlight (Jan 17, 2013)

Check out this book:

Art Law Conversations: A Surprisingly Readable Guide for Visual Artists: Elizabeth T. Russell: 9780976648000: Amazon.com: Books

It'll probably answer a lot of your questions on art/legal issues. Hence the title  It's a very good read.

Edit: Just looked at the book, there are a couple of chapters about it. Definitely case by case basis, but I agree: use "protection." The book has LOTS of other valuable info for artists


----------



## manaheim (Jan 18, 2013)

skieur said:
			
		

> No, he did NOT.  He still had 2 questions which he wanted answers to.  The only debate was in your mind.
> 
> skieur



Not quite... I just responded without re-reading the entire thread and thought this was alllllll about the model release thing.

You're right, but chill dude.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 18, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:
			
		

> Cool, well I think I have a better understanding of model releases now. As for manny, I'm starting to see more and more people actually *not* agreeing with you, perhaps you should try to lighten up a bit, you may be a happier person. Thanks for the tips, guys!



I'm good, thanks for your concern.

Since you gave me some advice, ill share some with you.  Don't assume a bunch of people agreeing or disagreeing with you is a measure of correctness or righteousness.


----------



## ClickAddict (Jan 18, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Cool, well I think I have a better understanding of model releases now. As for manny, I'm starting to see more and more people actually *not* agreeing with you, perhaps you should try to lighten up a bit, you may be a happier person. Thanks for the tips, guys!



He has a bunny rabbit for his avatar.  How much lighter do you want him to be? :mrgreen:


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm assistant/second shooter in a studio mainly because I like it (not my career, but is the photographers) - the models sign a release as they walk into the door.  The pics WILL be used 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I doubt any model that knows what she's doing, has posed before for anyone other than Joe "FB",  would balk at signing it - fairly standard


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 18, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> I'm assistant/second shooter in a studio mainly because I like it (not my career, but is the photographers) - the models sign a release as they walk into the door.  The pics WILL be used
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True, but sometimes there are Tf* situations with a beginning model

These can be very interesting shoots, but you do need to explain now and then what a model release is


----------



## Joves (Jan 18, 2013)

Vautrin said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm assistant/second shooter in a studio mainly because I like it (not my career, but is the photographers) - the models sign a release as they walk into the door.  The pics WILL be used
> ...



Yeah because you are not dealing with the sharpest pencils in the box most of the time.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> I'm assistant/second shooter in a studio mainly because I like it (not my career, but is the photographers) - the models sign a release as they walk into the door.  The pics WILL be used
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the model is paying the photographer for his work, she's still expected to sign a release?


----------



## Joves (Jan 18, 2013)

If you want to use them for self promotion yes I would. Wedding and portrait photographers have been having people sign releases forever it seems.


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 18, 2013)

Joves said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



It has NOTHING to do with brains

Sometimes i meet people who havent modeled before.  Beautiful people.  Normal people.  Fit. Fat.

Its interesting to me to take their photos.

They may have never modeled but that doesnt mean theyre dumb


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

Joves said:


> If you want to use them for self promotion yes I would. Wedding and portrait photographers have been having people sign releases forever it seems.



IMO, That's a pretty shabby business practice.

As a customer, I'd tell them to either pound rocks... or pay/compensate me for my promotional value to them.  

Or someone who conducts themselves like a professional might ask me after the fact if certain specific pictures can be used.

Last thing I want is a picture of my drunk Aunt Alice on some jackasses wedding photography site to show how he "captures the fun of the event".


----------



## tirediron (Jan 18, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> IMO, That's a pretty shabby business practice.


You mean "normal" don't you...  every photographer I know retains the right to use the images for his portfolio (commercial work of course is an exception).



nycphotography said:


> As a customer, I'd tell them to either pound rocks... or pay/compensate me for my promotional value to them.


As a photographer, I'll explain that the price you were quoted is based on the entire contract in front of you (which includes the right to use images for self-promotion) and if you won't allow me to do that, I will have just recalculate the price with that factored in.  Never had it happen, but I'm guessing it will go up at least 50%.



nycphotography said:


> Or someone who conducts themselves like a professional might ask me after the fact if certain specific pictures can be used.


I'm always happy to show the client the image(s) I do intend to use.



nycphotography said:


> Last thing I want is a picture of my drunk Aunt Alice on some jackasses wedding photography site to show how he "captures the fun of the event".


Trust me, that's the last thing I want to use to show how I capture an event too!


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

*
Just because "everyone" gets away with something doesn't mean it isn't shabby.*

If you plan to show me the pictures before using them, then I plan to approve them once you do.  We don't need to sign a _carte blanche_ release in advance for that.  And if you'd sit across the table from us and say well then it's going to be 50% more, then I'd suddenly get really sticky about it just on principle.

And just because it's the last thing you want to show doesn't mean some other clown wouldn't decide it's a really cool idea.  Or that you won't go nuts in 5 years when your meth habit gets out of control and try to extort my ex-bride and her wealthy new husband (after all, I'm far to principled to ever make any real money, so it's only a matter of time before she comes to her senses and leaves me).

If you think it's worth 50% more to not be able to use my pictures, honestly, unless your work was so much more compelling than what other people are producing for the same money, I'm going to take a pass. every. single. time.  Take out a pen, strike out the clause and initial it. I guarantee you that if you won't, I'll find another equally talented, priced and available photographer who will.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jan 18, 2013)

Lawyer told me editorial = no release. Advertise commercially = need a release.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 18, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Lmphotos said:
> ...



burro...donkey...a$$...
I see what you did there!


----------



## skieur (Jan 18, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Lawyer told me editorial = no release. Advertise commercially = need a release.



He was correct.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 18, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> *
> Just because "everyone" gets away with something doesn't mean it isn't shabby.*


It's in the contract; what precisely is the photographer "getting away" with?



nycphotography said:


> *I*f you plan to show me the pictures before using them, then I plan to approve them once you do.  We don't need to sign a _carte blanche_ release in advance for that.  And if you'd sit across the table from us and say well then it's going to be 50% more, then I'd suddenly get really sticky about it just on principle.


I will generally tell you which ones, if any I intend to use, but that is a courtesy only.  



nycphotography said:


> and just because it's the last thing you want to show doesn't mean some other clown wouldn't decide it's a really cool idea.  Or that you won't go nuts in 5 years when your meth habit gets out of control and try to extort my ex-bride and her wealthy new husband (after all, I'm far to principled to ever make any real money, so it's only a matter of time before she comes to her senses and leaves me).
> 
> If you think it's worth 50% more to not be able to use my pictures, honestly, unless your work was so much more compelling than what other people are producing for the same money, I'm going to take a pass. every. single. time.  Take out a pen, strike out the clause and initial it. I guarantee you that if you won't, I'll find another equally talented, priced and available photographer who will.


The simple fact is, if you are going to be "principled" about my potentially using your images in portfolio, I am going to chalk you up as trouble, at which point I pull out a list of other local photographers and say, "I don't think I'm going to be able to provide what you need for your event.  May I suggest you call X, Y, or Z?"


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 18, 2013)

tirediron said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Fair enough.  At least we'd be in agreement on the point.


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 19, 2013)

I dont get what the big fuss is.

Walk into ANY decent wedding photogs shop and hell have pictures on the walls, and available to look at with what he can do.

None will be of drunk aunt alice

Its normal to reserve the right for this type of display

What would not be normal would be to reserve the right for GALLERY display


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jan 19, 2013)

What's the difference?


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 19, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> What's the difference?



Well, as a photographer you're providing a service to clients.  You're sort of a craftsman.

And if you walk into a craftsmans shop, before buying, you'll want to see evidence he can do quality work before buying.  At least a smart buyer would.

So, if I went to find a tailor I'd like to see what kind of suits he's stitched.

If I wanted someone to lay tile in my kitchen, I'd want to see what kind of floors he's laid before.

Because that's going to really tell me about the quality of the work.

So, it's really not surprising that as a craftsman (photog) you're going to want to show off your best wedding work.  So, you leave something in your contract for weddings, whatever, that if you'd doing self promotion you may use the images without permission.  As, if you take a TERRIFIC shot of the bride and groom, and show it to other engaged couples, you might get more business.

That's why, every photographers studio you pass by will have LOADS of pictures on the wall, and in the window.

This, is normal.  And if, for instance, the bride and groom are quite private and won't want their pictures shared, you might ask for more money, as part of the money you make from shooting involves the money you make from referrals, after people see your shots.

Make sense?

In NO WAY are you making money directly off the people.  You might allow family and friends to order wedding products from you as well, but it's not like you're putting a picture of the bride and groom on sale.  (Although that might be an interesting business "Getting married?  Ugly spouse?  Buy our wedding photos so people think you can marry a supermodel!")

But a gallery sale, I go to an art gallery, or maybe space with art-for-sale hanging there (like a coffeeshop), and put my pictures up for people to see.  And, I attach a price tag somewhere around the photo, so if they want to buy a print, they know how much it costs.

That's a different kind of use.  That's NOT what people are doing with wedding pictures.  And for that kind of use you need a model release, preferably specifying you'll sell the images.

That's not the same as a model release that says "if your pictures are good I reserve the right to display as part of my portfolio, via marketing, whatever"

On top of that, there's all kind of other ways you might sell photos -- ALL OF WHICH A WEDDING PHOTOG WON'T BE DOING.

Selling to stock agencies, etc.

Now, editorial use is different.  There's no model release needed.  What is editorial use?  That's when a newspaper prints a picture of, say, a riot, and doesn't bother to get a model release from all the rioters

This is because it's reporting the news and it gets a special dispensation.

Can you "sell" your wedding photogs to a newspaper for editorial use?  Probably not unless you shot Brad Pitt's wedding, or the wedding of another celebrity.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 19, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm assistant/second shooter in a studio mainly because I like it (not my career, but is the photographers) - the models sign a release as they walk into the door.  The pics WILL be used
> ...



dunno, cuz the models we shoot are paid for their work, along with the hair and make-up artists


----------



## Vautrin (Jan 19, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



TF* (Trade for *) shoots generally involve an arrangement where the model donates her time, and in return, the photog gives her a CD, or prints, or pictures in some form  (that's the * in TF*)

In that case the photog may use (or even sell) the photos.  He'll typically put that in the contract.

Sometimes experience photogs may charge very inexperienced models (or indeed -- people who shouldn't be models) for photo shoots.  But, the photog can still reserve the right to sell the images (again, should be in the release).

What is boils down to is that a photog receives a sort of compensation by being able to display, and / or sell photos.  

So it's possible that he charges a lower price if he has this right.

To give you an example, if a model called me up and wanted to do TF*, I might do it for the opportunity (again, because they're my photos).

If the model said, no selling, no displaying the photos, they're MINE...well, what's in the photoshoot for me?

I'd certainly want to charge them money for that...  And I very well should


----------



## Tee (Jan 19, 2013)

On the topic of models not wanting their images being displayed by the photographer, I actually have a customized release/contract for a scenario similar to this, in that the customer/model is compensating me monetarily (in my case gift cards) but doesn't want their images displayed publicly.  I have used it a few times for private boudoir shoots.  To paraphrase, it basically states that she is willingly allowing me to photograph her with her full permission.  I will not be displaying her images knowingly but that I can't be liable should said images become stolen (on mine or her end) and displayed publicly.


----------

