Is this considered a restrictive release?

[kevin_break]

<p>I'm a photographer in Los Angeles, Kevin Break.<br>

<br />A magazine in the UK asks me to photograph Bridget Marquardt , one of Hefner's ex girlfriends, but not a bunny.<br>

They said by phone that I could sell whatever photos they don't use, after first publication, and I could do as I please with them, within reason.</p>

<p>Now I get this photographer's release to sign, is it me or is it a little "tight"?<br />For instance, is FHM, Maxim, or Stuff or any other magazine they want to declare "adult", adult?<br /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/kbreak/gorezone_release-1.gif" alt="" /></p>

[Jerry_]

<p>It would appear you are going to have to get <strong>written permission</strong> from the Artist (B. Marquardt) to have any future use of any images you take for the magazine. That's a bit one-sided, but if the magazine pays you first, their check clears the bank, and your price is what you expected, then go ahead and shoot the job. [For what it is worth, you could end up with a zero paycheck <em>if the Artist </em>(B. Marquardt) <em>determines none of your images pass muster</em> with her idea of what she should look like...]</p>

<p> </p>

[denniswilliams]

<p>

<h1 >Is this considered a restrictive release? Yes. You needed to ask?</h1>

</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>you could end up with a zero paycheck <em>if the Artist </em>(B. Marquardt) <em>determines none of your images pass muster</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It appears this is limited to the so-called re-use images<em>.</em></p>

<p><em> </em>Was proposed documentation sent regarding payment for the underlying job and, if so, does it completely contradict what you were previously told as well? Are you going to be paid anything for the actual job?<em><br /></em></p>

[kevin_break]

<p>I'm oh-so-tempted to just say I won't sign that release.<br>

At the end of the shoot.<br>

And see what they come up with.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Why wouldn't you bargain up front and have an agreement on all the terms BEFORE you do the shoot?</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm oh-so-tempted to just say I won't sign that release.<br /> At the end of the shoot.<br /> And see what they come up with</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They'd say that they notified you of the terms they were prepared to do the shoot on, and you all went ahead. That's a contract. Signing it is just a formality.</p>

<p>I wouldn't go ahead with a shoot on that basis as a matter of principle. Unless I was really desperate to do the shoot and it was going to be career-changing.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Its one thing to change proposals as part of a negotiation. In some industries its even common to have a back and forth "battle of the forms" to hash out details left out of the main part of the bargain. The situation here goes well beyond those situations. They propose key terms but send you language radically contradicting their proposal. It doesn't matter if the initial proposal was an attempt to snooker you or an innocent error. Its crucial that any work here be covered by a comprehensive written signed contract executed in advance.</p>