Jump to content

Parents want a model release back


Recommended Posts

<p>I did a photo session with a family that had 10 month old twins. So of course I had one of the parents sign two model releases for both of the babies/kids.<br>

Long story short, I won't sell them a CD that they can print off of so the parents won't buy any prints and they want the model releases back. I won't give them the model releases back and they're saying the parents have the rights to take back the releases and they're getting a lawyer to get them back.<br>

Do the parents have the rights to take back the releases? And either way, any advice on what to do about the lawyer situation?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Ah - the old "I'm getting a lawyer" - line -</p>

<p>In my opinion - No lawyer is going to take this - because there isn't money to be made on this. If the family already has an attorney or there is one in the family - then maybe - but that might be a long shot. Basically - if they lawyer - up or sound like they are - you'd be safe to do the same -</p>

<p>As to whether or not they can retract the model release - it all depends on what wording is in your release regarding that situation or termination of the release.</p>

<p>Now - a question: Did you explain to them up front that there was to be no sale of print ready files for them? Did they ask?</p>

<p>And finally - from a business perspective - Is not selling them the image files worth the bad comments and publicity that they will almost certainly give you and probably already are giving out via facebook and other review sites or social network sites?</p>

<p>Just sayin'</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Since you probably don't really want these people as customers in the future, and the releases are not required/necessary unless you're going to resell the photos as released stock, just give them back.</p>

<p>You can't win in a situation like this, and in reality you don't need to, so why throw money at a lawyer "just because"?</p>

<p>I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on in terms of their "right to take back the releases..." but I'm not a lawyer.</p>

<p>I'd just send them the releases, and delete the files, and move on. They are not, and never will be, a good customer. Say goodbye to them.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I also don't think they have any legal right to the releases back but at the same time I can't see any reason not to.</p>

<p>The only reason you would have for not returning them is if you wanted to use the images for your own publicity. Personally I wouldn't use the pictures for publicity if I was in dispute with the customer.</p>

<p>I think I would just sell them the C.D. It's the only way you are going to make any money from this session.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Firstly this involves young children. Every one is getting more protective of childrens privacy/security/safety so I have some doubt as to whether you would win the legal argument. I presume the release includes rights to publish the pictures or use them as advertising <em>against the wishes of the parents</em>? If the answer is 'no' then what benefit is there to not returning them?<br>

And almost any contract can be rescinded under certain conditions and I wold presume that is the case here. Whether you give the agreements back or not becomes irrelevant under such circumstances.</p>

<p>Why won't you sell them CD?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Do the parents have the rights to take back the releases?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends on whether the release is merely a statement giving permission to use the likenesses in the relevant imagery which can be revoked or the kind that is or is part of a binding contract.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>almost any contract can be rescinded</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true. If it were, contracts would essentially unenforceable and pointless.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wold presume that is the case here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On what grounds?<br /> ------------------------------------<br /> You may not want the clients 'getting away with' their tactics even if the law is on your side but, as others have mentioned, the legal rights that might exist may not be worthwhile to assert. In any event, don't use our comments for legal advice. Get that from an attorney in your area.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I "LIKE" (always wishing this was in Facebook format) Luis' statement. Not worth the time and trouble. Hand over the release, reimburse any money, forefeit the sale and enjoy the holidays! Trust me, I know it's easier than it sounds and you're tempted to cling to your pride when you KNOW you're right (we've all been there) but when given a choice to be right or happy, choose happy. Happy holidays to you! </p>

<p>:) Karen Lippowiths </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>apart of the legalities involved I noticed you wrote this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Long story short, I won't sell them a CD that they can print off</p>

</blockquote>

<p>why because for one you can set your price accordingly. Suppose they would buy a few prints. It would be quite easy for any client to scan them and reproduce and distribute them without your knowledge. Just something worth mentioning and worth thinking over I think.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p >I did a photo session with a family that had 10 month old twins. <strong>So of course</strong> I had one of the parents sign two model releases for both of the babies/kids.</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >Why? Man hires you to take a photo... what on earth do you need a model release for? The only possible reason to get a model release is if you are going to resell the family pictures to someone else. Creepy. Stupid of the parents when they can sell their twins on their own, why give anything away.</p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><br />Long story short, I won't sell them a CD that they can print off of so the parents won't buy any prints and they want the model releases back. I won't give them the model releases back and they're saying the parents have the rights to take back the releases and they're getting a lawyer to get them back.</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >Was it part of the deal to let them buy a disc? Did you actually discuss with the client specifically what you were doing for your fee? Because A. if you did , the client knew going in that your plan was to nickel and dime them over every phase of the project and they have no grounds to complain now and B. if you did not, the clients are even stupider to have hired you without knowing what they were paying for and I have no sympathy for them . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It is your choice not to shoot film, or provide contact sheets or to create handmade artisan prints . However if you choose not to be a printer why are you involving yourself ? Why do you - or anyone who opts solely for file creation- feel compelled or justified tacking on 30 or 50% when you are simply farming the work out ? If you are not making the prints you shouldn't be charging for them. Charge for the shoot. Make your money for the work you do.</p>

<p >Which - I repeat one more time- should be clearly laid out to the client in no uncertain terms and with a clarity which allows for no possible confusion. </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >Do the parents have the rights to take back the releases?</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >No. Unless for some reason even odder than their agreeing to sign the thing in the first place, the model release has a clause to get them out of what they're signing. Or the job contract has a clause to nullify the model release.</p>

<blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >And either way, any advice on what to do about the lawyer situation?</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >If and when it happens you'll hire a lawyer and deal with it. I'd also strongly suggest revising your seriously flawed business model if it were my place to do so, instead I'll just say good luck.</p>

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's my understanding that blanket model releases as are generally used by photographers for portrait and portfolio modeling session are weak legal documents because they are so sweeping and all inclusive. Strong releases as are used for advertising and other published commissions are very specific, and relate to you hiring a model for a specific job, and this is what makes them enforceable and effective (i.e., they list specific markets and media for publication, duration, size of reproduction, and have one or more witness, etc.). Blanket, all encompassing releases are good for protecting yourself generally, but they not only beg the question of informed consent (would anyone really informed about copyright and rights management and the uses of images really sign away all of those rights?), and secondly, they hired you, not the other way around, so you're effectively asking them to allow you the possibility to profit from these images in the future (through licensing for stock for example) without compensating them in accordance to the market value of that use. Their aim is basically to protect the future distribution of likenesses of their children.<br /><br />Also, I'm sure your business model is based on holding on to original files and providing prints, but generally I've found that this is a hard concept to communicate to clients -- they really have an expectation of receiving the files. I mean, you could market yourself very carefully as providing unique prints (maybe silver gelatin or some older process), and people come to you specifically for that kind of print, or you could require an initial purchase of prints, but people feel that keeping files is like a form of extortion.<br /><br />Don't let it get to the lawyer stage. Think minimum, bargain basement initial cost around $5,000. It's clearly just a misunderstanding.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Dennis. It sounds as though expectations were not communicated effectively at the time that the

deal was made. Did you tell the parents up front that they would not have the opportunity to buy the files on disc but

only your prints? Did they accept these terms?

 

Did you explain to them what the model release was and how you intended to use the photos of their

children? If so, did they agree to this? Or did you neglect to disclose your intentions?

 

Would you want someone in your own family to be treated the way that you have apparently treated these customers?

 

From what I am reading here, this sounds like the kind of situation that gives photographers a bad reputation. Give

back the model release (all copies) and give them large jpeg copies of all of the files and hope that they don't say

nasty things about you to every last person that they ever meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Make a copy of the release, and send them the original. this way you will still have a hard copy, and more then likely the law on your side. They don't need to know you have a copy, and then you can do as you please with the shots (as agreaded apon). even if they lawer-up it will only go before small clames (depending on the amount), or a mediator. Don't even mention that you have a copy! I would just send it and break contact with them.<br>

If you check out the sight <a href="http://www.handelonthelaw.com/home/RadioQuestions.aspx">http://www.handelonthelaw.com/home/RadioQuestions.aspx</a> it will direct you to lawers who answer questions. More then likely they will say the same thing I did.<br>

I'm no lawer, but after years of listening to this guy (a well respected lawer) I trust the advice he gives.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Legally, if you spelled everything out CLEARLY, the parents have no right to this. If they signed off on it, then you can do anything you want with the photos, provided you don't use them for illegal purposes. If the parents agreed to let you use, "Photos taken for commercial purposes, altered, modified, or distorted, without consent or prior discussion," then you could use their kids in a Marlboro ad and they can't sue. No lawyer would even take the case, since they already agreed to it.</p>

<p>That said, unless you have a commercial application for these photos, it's a waste of your time. Just give them the model releases back, and explain that there is a reason these exist, and they would do well to read one more carefully before they hire a different photographer in the future. If they continue to demand a disc, THEN tell them they need a lawyer, since you have no requirment to provide services without payment. I wouldn't even take it as far as court: I'd give them the disc as soon as the lawyer asks for it. But if they're going to be that brazen, they're gonna' pay SOMEBODY, that's fer damn sure.</p>

<p>If you really want to rub it in at that point, you could remind them that if they had read your contract more carefully, they would have noticed that your sitting fee was much cheaper than a lawyer's legal fee.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This is really quite simple. Nothing you can possibly gain will even begin to compensate for the loss of your reputation. Unless you want negative publicity all over the internet and on the street, give it back for goodness sake. That's right--let them have their way. You cannot, by any business definition of the word, win.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Some "releases" simply give permission to use the images and state the types of ways you are allowed to use them. OTOH, it's not uncommon for a "release" to also include language dealing with "consideration." Something like "In return for valuable consideration received, I grant permission to ABC to XYZ with the pictures." Since none of us know the "long story," nor do we have any of the details of your agreements, contracts or the language of the releases, there's not a whole lot to suggest.</p>

<p>Return the releases and move on, or hunker down and find out just how unhappy they really are and what your real legal exposure is. That you'd get from a real lawyer familiar with all the details of the situation and the "publicity" and contract law issues at play.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>almost any contract can be rescinded<br>

Not true. If it were, contracts would essentially unenforceable and pointless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I admit that was lazy wording, John. I did add the phrase 'under certain circumstances' which is often mentioned in contracts.<br>

One question that comes to mind is whether the release is considered to be a 'consent' that gives the photographer the right to use the photos until the model changes their mind, or whether it is a contract that, if it lacks a cancellation clause, is non-revocable. I am reminded of the occasional case where a now-famous star who suppresses use of photos taken in their younger days.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@Dan - </p>

<p>Not always - Small claims court is on a state by state basis and in some states lawyers are allowed; in others they are required - so it depends. </p>

<p>No matter what - IMHO - the OP should try to resolve this before it gets to that level. </p>

<p>I'm not a lawyer - but I definitely don't recommend the course of action suggested a posts ago - keeping a copy of the release and sending the original back to the parents, plus using the photos. That is asking for trouble and even more bad publicity. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...