person who signed a release now threatening legal action.

[matt_flannery1]

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>Hoping you could give me some advice here. I shot a woman about a year and a half ago... just a test shoot. She's a yoga instructor. I provided her with plenty of images to use for social media, for free. No money was exchanged for our shoot. But I did get a model release form signed by her.<br>

She then emailed me to ask for permission to use one of the images in her book that was in the process of being published. I granted permission for that, free of charge.<br>

I was approached about 6 months ago by a yoga magazine to use two of the images for an event they are having, along with printing it on event promotion materials. So, I licensed two images out to this magazine for only $700. <br>

The magazine has started using the images, on their site and printing material for it. They were then contacted by the woman's talent agency saying they did not have rights to use the images or the likeness of their client and to stop using them or face legal action, etc. The magazine emailed me asking about it and also gave the talent agency my email. So I was also contacted directly by the talent agency. <br>

I have not responded yet. Here is what they wrote me, excluding specifics...<br>

"It has come to our attention that you have been falsely licensing the rights to images of our client <client name> in connection with your sales of your photographs to third parties including <name of magazine event><br>

Be advised that <client name> is the sole owner of the rights to her likeness and your grant to said third parties of any rights to the use of our clients’ likeness is a serious violation of our clients’ rights.<br>

Demand is hereby made that you immediately cease and desist any licenses of our client’s name, likeness, or image to any third parties. The foregoing is without prejudice to our clients’ rights and remedies, including, without limitation, the right to hold you liable for all damages incurred in connection herewith, all of which shall remain reserved."<br>

<br>

So, like I mentioned, I do have a signed model release form, which does include my rights to use the images for commercial use, license the images, ...the usual. <br>

Any suggestions on how I should respond to this? My first thought was to just reply stating that I do have a signed model release form from their client and do have rights to sell/license the images. Maybe I should include more info, or word it differently? (i plan on sending a copy of the release form as well)<br>

<br>

Thanks for your time and advice!</p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>You are asking photographers for legal advice! Not the best source. If you're in the USA, contact the Lawyers for the Arts organization or the bar association in your state, find a lawyer that knows the photo business, and get a proper opinion. Otherwise, there will be a similar organization. </p>

<p>As a photographer, I recommend that you tell the lawyer you hire that you want to be on good terms with both the yoga instructor and the talent agency when it's over - and then stay out of it and let the pros negotiate.</p>

[matt_flannery1]

<p>True , true. Good point. I was hoping someone had experience with this and could let me know how it all ended. But, yes, you make a good point. </p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>Matt, without knowing where you are, we can't even answer that basic question - the proceedings in big markets and small markets are really different, as are the huge differences in the way these documents and events are seen by courts in different states and countries. The best possible outcome? The lawyers negotiate without telling you what they said, you wind up with the yoga instructor and talent agency as lifelong clients because of your professional response, and the firm the lawyer works for likes you so much that they hire you to do the headshots for their website. It may not work out that way, but that's the goal.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Yes you can hire an attorney. Yes you should be seeking legal advice from an attorney not a photographer.<br /><br />But, that said, I would try the simple approach first.<br /><br />Reply to the email with language to the effect of "That you for your email of (date) regarding photographs of (name of the yoga instructor). These photographs were made on (date), and (name of yoga instructor) signed a model releases agreeing that they could be used for (pick up the broadest line from your model release), including commercial use. A copy of the signed model release is attached." Then scan the model release and attach it to the email. CC the magazine.<br /><br />The agency (and since when does a yoga instructor, not a model or actor, have a talen agency?) is clearly working under the assumption that she did not sign a release. Maybe they have come across the photos and are acting on their own without having checked with her. All they know is that the shoot was not arranged through them and that they do not have a release for it on file.<br /><br />Once they see that she signed a release, that should be the end of it. If they push back beyond that point, then by all means call in an attorney.</p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>(and since when does a yoga instructor, not a model or actor, have a talent agency?)<br>

Craig, I think that this is just as good a question as the one that began the thread and I actually have a better answer for it than I thought I would. If a yoga instructor (or anybody else) is seeking to appear in media, they're likely to have a talent agent. If their goal is to host a TV show, they're even more likely to have one. Many well-known chefs (for example) have talent agents and it wouldn't surprise me if others craftspeople did too. In today's world, it's easy to imagine yoga instructors ambitious enough to want their own programs and agents who'll back them up.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Not being an attorney (and perhaps not even being a very good photographer)... it seems that the lawyer sending you the letter is shrewd but may not know about the model release, and the model may not know the implications of what she signed. You may have some leverage since you have a signed release, and I'm sure lawyers have a way of twisting it so those terms can be subverted. My rule is to let the discussion happen between attorneys and I suggest you think about that too.</p>

[matt_flannery1]

<p>I'm in NYC, US. The agency is in the UK. Seems so crazy to get lawyers involved over a $700 licensing fee, but it sounds like this is what will happen. </p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>Okay, I suggest you make this group your next stop. People there will know exactly what to do and how to go about doing it.</p>

<p>https://vlany.org/</p>

[matt_flannery1]

<p>Thanks Brian. I already took your advice earlier and visited them and created a request. Just waiting to hear back from them. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>You're welcome! Keep us posted and tell us how it goes. I wish you the best of luck, I know how these letters can be very upsetting.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>(and since when does a yoga instructor, not a model or actor, have a talent agency?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://yamatalent.com/what-we-do</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/nyregion/0320stretch.html?_r=0</p>

[matt_flannery1]

<p>Thanks. I definitely will, so it may help someone else in the future. <br>

Yeah, actually plenty of them have talent agencies. These are the bigger names that do workshops around the world and get involved in other things like presentations, publishing books, etc. </p>

[johne37179]

<p>You will need more information for your lawyer than you have provided here -- what does your release say? Is it a general release? Does it include commercial use? How long does it apply? Does it give you unlimited rights? Are any rights retained by the model? Are your rights limited or exclusive? For $700 it is not worth getting a lawyer involved. As a lawyer and photographer I think it is a mistake not to try to resolve this yourself instead of making a lawyer your first stop. I would supply the talent agency with a copy of your release and discuss it with them.<br>

They are probably under the impression you did not have a release. Your generous action in allowing the model to use the images is really irrelevant. There is a cheap lesson to be learned here.</p>

[AzDavid]

<p>As Brian already noted, your advice should come from a lawyer not a group of well-meaning photographers. I find it hard to believe that the yoga instructor hasn't already mentioned the photo release to her lawyer. It could be that the lawyer is just trying to scare you into coughing up money for his client and won't take you seriously until he/she hears from an opposing attorney. Again, what Brian envisioned is entirely possible ... that the two lawyers will negotiate a settlement that will appease the yoga instructor and minimize the damage to you and your pocketbook. Lawyers don't work for free, so such a negotiation process may prove less expensive than doing battle over the release. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Second that your advice should come from an atty. You do not need to tell us everything the release says, in fact I would just keep it where it is. </p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>David, I just want to clarify one point; you state that "Lawyers don't work for free." But this isn't always correct - in this case, the OP has a chance at free representation though an organization that offers legal representation to creative professionals. Sometimes it will be because they will deem you as a sort of charity case, but far more often, your case will be handled by a law professor who'll use the specifics to teach future IP lawyers. You'll be amazed by what's out there for free.</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>Not to sound like a salesman here or anything, but if I were running my own business (photography or other) I would buy a LegalShield membership. It's not terribly expensive, and will cover your legal needs in the same fashion as medical insurance covers your medical needs. <br>

<a href="https://www.legalshield.com">https://www.legalshield.com</a><br>

Abby and I have Legalshield and it is definitely worth it.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I can't see how they have a case if you have a release, but I ain't a lawyer.</p>

[AzDavid]

<p>Thanks for your comment, Brian. You are correct, of course. There are some sources of free legal advice and they can be life savers for those who need them.</p>

<p> </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

This is more of a business question than a legal question. The simple solution it seems to me is to send them a copy (not

the original) of the signed model release. That should settle the matter.

[johne37179]

<p>I agree with Ellis. While there may be legal questions involved, a lawyer should be the last resort, not the first response.</p>

[matt_flannery1]

<p>The outcome...<br>

I responded to the talent agency letting them know I have signed release, which clearly states I can do exactly what they are arguing, and will send it. ( it's in storage and I haven't been able to get there yet) They have not yet responded.<br>

I think the agency did not respond because I then heard from the magazine, saying they think it's best to just not use the images because they don't want to get involved with any legal issues, and want to talk about me refunding them. So, the magazine must have responded to the agency telling them they won't use the images. (and they are off the site already)<br>

I'd hate to give in, being that I have a signed release and believe I'm not at all in the wrong here. However, it will cost more (much more maybe!) if I need to get a lawyer, so I think this is what I'll do. I could just refund the magazine partially, but then I tarnish that relationship, so I think I'll just do the full refund and be done with it. It sounds like the magazine has not yet had promo materials printed, so there's no loss there either. <br>

Well, thanks for all your suggestions, thoughts, comments. Appreciate your time, as always!</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

If you have a model release you are not in the

wrong. Not at all. But "not wanting to get involved"

is the first reaction of most management types and

taking the avenue of least risk is the first reaction of

most lawyers. For whatever reason that is stated or

assumed, this kind of outcome is predictable. It's

not just, nor is it easy to accept... But it's

predictable. I'm sorry for you.

[User_6502147]

<p>I see couple of problems. The mag should have asked for the release....and if they didn't, I'd have provided it with the photo/s. Sorry, but to me that's pretty much the abc of it. Most of us know that release is required for publishing....this may have taken different course.</p>

<p>Les</p>