Model Release Forms

[rachel_dault]

<p>Hi, I'm new to this forum, but I've been reading a lot of the posts and and it seems to be a fairly friendly crowd with no trolls, so I plan on coming here a lot! :)<br>

I'm in the first stages of starting my photography business (building my portfolio, offering free sessions), and I was just wondering if anyone would be willing to share a copy of the model release form that they use?</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Do you have an iPad? Very good release apps available that have all the words you need, allow appending an image of the subject (helps with id), they can sign it with their finger, and you can email a copy to them and you or anyone else too. Worth the few $$ it costs. Easy Release is the one I use.</p>

[rachel_dault]

<p>Thanks for the idea. I just downloaded an android version I will try, but I'd still like to see some examples of what other people are using.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>I suggest you buy and read John Harrington's book "Best Business Practices for Photographers" for lots of great info on contracts, licenses, releases, copyrights, and more ;-)</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

[john_h.1]

Chas' suggestion is good. Lots of releases sound good but aren't. Cheap resources like the book mentioned or from reputable photographic professional organizations, ect... tend to be more reliable and an alternative if you can't have a lawyer provide you with customized documents. What people use in general or stuff found on the internet, not so much. I don't know much about the app based releases except that I'm sure they sound good.

[qalam]

Easy Release for the iPhone and IPad is an excellent app. The releases can be touch-screen signed, emailed as PDF

docs an d printed. They are correctly drafted from a legal standpoint and are modifiable to take unusual situations into

account. The app is multilingual.

[click_click]

<p>Hi Rachael Dault,</p>

<p>Like you i'm quite new but a very fast learner so since i went down this same road, here's my two pennies worth.</p>

<p>Think about the people your gonna shoot, you say my photography business (building my portfolio, offering free sessions), so first base your "release" towards this idea. In the document which can be as others have pointed out found on the net(many). You need to cover all essential permissions.</p>

<p>Permissions:<br>

(usage, promotion, sells, modifications, claims, unforseen, imaginary fictious in associated wordings, age)<br>

(inspecting, copyright, manner in use) date signature name etc...</p>

<p>Once this is done, have a statment that says in legal jargon "all images belong to MYCOMPANY", right. This is the basic one in which you will give to model to sign. Don't get to deep or they won't. Do take on-board that a person of LEGAL can help alot with this (I have a lady who in legal, lots of books too..).</p>

<p>On the next "MYCOMPANY" one which will be paid for services you will now expand the basic to cover all angles until detailed with nowt taken out.</p>

<p>Hope this helps... A bit</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Once this is done, have a statment that says in legal jargon "all images belong to MYCOMPANY", right. This is the basic one in which you will give to model to sign.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is wrong. There is no issue of the model having copyright. You have the model release signed by the model. You own the copyright no matter what, and having a model sign it is irrelevant.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>That should be part pf a contract, not a release.</p>

<p>There are some cases where it might be considered that you are working for hire, in which case, the customer owns the copyright. A contract will clarify and/or reverse this if necessary.</p>

[john_h.1]

Releases often are contracts. Some, out of an abundance of caution, suggest having a second non contractual release in

case the contractual version is deemed invalid or unenforcable. The non contractual release can be revoked by the signer

but, covers the issue of consent for pre-revocation use. A contractual release could be designed to include revocable

permission if deemed unenforcable but, that might cause undesired confusion with signors and potential buyers of the

imagery may have concerns.

 

As to copyright, it is a seperate issue and a copyright is either created or created and subsequently transfered. "click, click" tells us to

merely say the images belong to some entity. Proper "legal jargon" will be more precise and avoid any hint of a

contractual transfer unless it is a back up to work for hire claims. While one may add acknowledgements about copyright

ownership in a release, it could be messy if not properly done. Marketabilty with messy releases or ones with collateral issues may not fly with signors or buyers.

 

This is a reason why the internet is not a good place to get legal documents. As mentioned, sounding good is not a reliable

indicator of being good.

 

The internet is, however, a good place to ask photographers that sell to buyers wanting releases what buyers want them to be like.

Then a release can be made to maximize legal protection but not alienate signers and buyers with unsuitable verbiage.

[click_click]

<p>Many thanx John H.,</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> I have merely said MYCOMPANY, to clearly state to someone who those not know this side of the law.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>It doesn't matter what term you used, it's wrong. You have put copyright and model release together. They aren't connected.</p>