# What does this part of a contract mean?



## WhyNotMe (Feb 19, 2011)

Hey guys i thought this would be a question for those in the business.
So my girlfriend is going to be doing her first shots as a model. There is part of her contract that neither of us really understand so I was hoping someone here can help. It says, 

"I hereby release, discharge, and agree to save harmless _company name/photographers name_ his heirs, legal representatives and assigns, and all persons acting under, his permission or authority or those to whom he is acting from any liability by virtue of any blurring, or use in composite form, whether intentional or otherwise, that may occur or be produced in the taking of said picture or and subsequent processing thereof as well as any publication thereof, including without limitations any claims for libel or invasions of privacy."
​Thanks!
YDKM​


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 19, 2011)

That means you can't sue the photographer if you die or break your arm during the shoot.

You also can't sue if you don't like how the pictures came out, like it they make you look 'bad' or something.

Basically, you're agreeing not to sue the photographer, his/her assistants, employees, heirs (in case he dies, I guess), or pretty much anyone involved in any way.


EDIT
Actually, after reading it again - I don't think that covers them for personal injury.  I'm no attorney though, and they probably have something somewhere else in the contract that covers them for that.


They're saying that you agree not to sue them if something 'bad' happens.  Probably way over simplified, but that basically it.


----------



## KmH (Feb 20, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> You also can't sue if you don't like how the pictures came out, like it they make you look 'bad' or something.


I only agree with the above assessment. It says you won't sue if you the photos are blurry or made into a composite, accidentally or on purpose.


----------



## Formatted (Feb 20, 2011)

KmH said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > You also can't sue if you don't like how the pictures came out, like it they make you look 'bad' or something.
> ...


 
Standard stuff basically,


----------



## tirediron (Feb 20, 2011)

WhyNotMe said:


> "I hereby release, discharge, and agree to save harmless *[I will not in any way blame or attempt to hold responsible the photographer and/or his company] *_company name/photographers name_ his heirs, legal representatives and assigns, and all persons acting under, his permission or authority or those to whom he is acting *[his family, employees, or anyone associated with him]* from any liability by virtue of any blurring, or use in composite form, whether intentional or otherwise, *[if the pictures are blurred, or composited into something you don't like, no matter whether it was done on purpose or not]* that may occur or be produced in the taking of said picture or and subsequent processing thereof *[it doesn't matter if it happens during the shoot, or in post-processing]* as well as any publication thereof, including without limitations any claims for libel or invasions of privacy *[You also can't hold him responsible if the pictures are published and/or someone says something about you that you don't like or obtains personal information]*."​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Loosely translated from lawyer-speak.

*NOTE: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one television. Use legal advice from an Internet forum at your peril!*

There's nothing in there about personal injury whatsoever; it actually strikes me as a rather strange clause.


----------



## chammer (Feb 20, 2011)

Yep, what tirediron said is how I'm reading it too.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 20, 2011)

tirediron said:


> it actually strikes me as a rather strange clause.


 My guess is that somebody tried to sue the photographer because they didn't like his PP or something ... so now he's covering himself.


----------



## Studio7Four (Feb 21, 2011)

Also not a lawyer, but the above translation makes sense to me.  It does strike me as a needless clause for most purposes though, and it's inclusion raises a few red flags for me (without seeing the rest of the contract it's tough to tell).  Since this is her first model shoot there are a few things I'd clarify.  First, is she paying the photographer for shots for her portfolio, is he paying her for a specific project, or is this shot being done TFCD/TFP (*T*ime *F*or images on *CD* or *P*rints)?  There are different degrees to which I'd delve into it based on the situation.

If she is paying him, this clause sounds like he could miss focus on all of them (none of them are usable to her) and she cannot recoup what she paid (the "blurred" portion).   Perhaps this is a photographer who has messed up technically before and can't be bothered to reshoot.  Or perhaps his post processing creates an unreal skin smoothness - desirable to some, but not _necessarily _what a model needs in her portfolio.  Some amount of reality is needed so that future photographers aren't misled by seeing a portfolio and disappointed by the skin quality when a model actually shows up.
If this shoot is TF or she is being paid, he may already have some ideas for altering them which the model may find objectionable.  Generally speaking, photographers want one of two things out of a model shoot - money, or images they can use.  I can think of a number of composites which models may find objectionable but may be the image the photographer is looking to create.  (On the other hand, in fairness, this may simply mean that in order to create the best image the photographer is using a better posed/focused/etc body part from another shot.  For instance, if they are doing multiple looks, maybe a hairstyle from one image works better with an outfit from a different image and the photographer swaps the head.  I've know people who complain about such composites not being what was really shot.)
The line about publication is probably the biggest reason I ask about whether this shoot is paid (either way) or TF.  If this is a TF shoot the model has a reasonable expectation to concur with how her image is being presented to the world (moreso if she is paying for the shoot).  If the photographer is paying the model, convention is that she is making the judgement that the payment is sufficient to allow the photographer to use the photos as he desires.  If she gets useful images in return as well that's a bonus.
Taken as a whole, the photographer _may _be planning to do some funky alterations to the images and either post them online or submit them to certain publications with may conflict with the model's sensibilities.
All in all, though, I _think _it's likely a CYA clause coupled together due to some prior bad experiences on the photographer's part.  A reputable photographer will be willing to explain why that clause is in there and may even be willing to strike it or modify it based on the situation.  If you get stonewalled I'd think twice about working with the photographer.  As always when working with a photographer who shoots models, check references.  Check out the portfolio to see if the type and quality of work is what you're looking for.  Also contact models with whom this photographer has worked (either references he provides or, if he has a Model Mayhem profile, you can find and contact them directly).  This may sound like I'm overly cautious about new models working with photographers, but it's really not meant to be a dire warning.  I work with models occasionally, usually new ones as that's who is willing to work TF with a hobbyist.  Yes, I've heard enough stories about bad photographers (or GWCs - Guys With Cameras) that being cautious is a good idea.  But the more you've checked out the photographer and the more comfortable you are, the more that comfort level shows through in the photos.  I usually try to meet with my models for a face to face sit down well before the shoot, to make sure we're on the same page and create an initial comfort level which makes the shoot itself go more smoothly.

​


----------



## WhyNotMe (Feb 21, 2011)

OK cool. Thanks everyone! She is getting paid, and not being used to the language of these things we thought it may mean something completely different, but this helps clear it up.


----------

