john_h.1

<blockquote> <p>Unless the parents orally agreed to much more than indicated here, all they have done is to ask with insistance to see and have the opportunity to sign or not sign the release.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not according to the fact pattern written. Richard never said he required the release as a condition precedent. Only that THE STUDIO required it. The only reason it does, is to avoid liability and/or to have the consent become binding contractually. These are two complete different scenarios legally. The former a condition for consent. The latter, proof of consent or contractual perpetual consent. We were not told it was the former situation. We were told facts consistent with the latter.<br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p><br />They have not yet entered into a binding agreement of any kind.<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>A binding agreement is not needed for consent to count. The only thing a binding agreement does is prevent consent from being revoked unilaterally. Even when there is a revocation, it doesn't count until it occurs and applies to uses that can be reasonably prevented going forward. Moreover, as already explained but ignored, sample use promotion may nullify a misappropriation claim anyway. <br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p>Just to clarify that I've not given permission of any kind (chasing for a form isn't permission to me...its chasing for a form) for any use of the picture.</p> </blockquote> <p>Subjective viewpoints don't govern. Instead, it is if a reasonable person COULD (not would) conclude consent was given. Implied circumstances count too. We weren't told that the writing was an advance requirement for the consent, just that the studio said it was needed in general. It is within the bounds of reason, under the facts provided here, that the use was agreeable. Since a release isn't ACTUALLY needed and its essentially just a matter of proof after the fact, it is easy for consent to be implied. <br /><br />Perhaps material information about the communication was left out of the story here that will alter the situation. In any event, any respectable studio will discontinue use of a likeness upon request regardless the legal status. Plus, it's not good for business to have unhappy people out there when they can easily get other samples. Certainly the groupon use was beyond the scope that was described. I'm confident the situation will be resolved without a bunch of fuss.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"You stand where you stood the day the photos were taken. The studio has used your family photo for commercial purposes without your consent or authorization.</p> </blockquote> <p> Not really. Richard posted about his eagerness to sign release forms, even "chasing" after them. This demonstrates an intention and/or desire that the image be used for promotional purposes. Hardly a strong case for lack of consent. Especially after being acknowledged here online.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />The problem for them and you has nothing to do with money. The problem for them is that they are using the photo of a minor without a release from the child's guardians.</p> </blockquote> <p>A release is not required at all nor is it even relevant as a genuine problem. Consent can be given without a release and is done constantly. A release only memorializes permission and may also form a contract allowing long term or perpetual use if the elements of a contract are met within. That is why the studio wanted to send one. To protect itself, more easily, from situations such as that being promoted in this thread. In that regard it erred.</p> <blockquote> <p>it only requires that people be reasonable with each other. Use the savings in lawyer's fees to help come to an agreement.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is all WAY over the top. The studio contacted the proper parental authority, was signaled that consent was given for the use described and merely was going to send paperwork to cover itself. The use exceeded the specific scope but not as to the type of use. Plus this is sample use which is an exception in many jurisdictions to misappropriation (the type of claim being made here). Reasonableness does not include all this litigation talk and portraying the studio so harshly. This isn't a misappropriation of an image that puts anyone in a bad light or used as an unfounded endorsement. Its not a bread winning legal case. All that needs to be done is for the two sides to clarify what scope of use is agreed to. The studio should get on the ball to cover itself be sending the properly worded release should the clarification be reached.</p>

<blockquote> <p>It's not like someone is ripping off your picture and telling the world it's their photo. Now that would be a crime</p> </blockquote> <p>It's an infringing use and suggesting to the world it is OK, for one reason or another, to post it. As to being a crime, certain criteria needs to be met first.</p> <p>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319<br /><br />So, not really.</p>

<p>I find a belt with pouches work better, faster and more securely. Same with other mobile people. Contractors, police and, yes, Batman. </p>

<p>Arguably it is an implied license to use your image for such a display, namely that your intent of sending the image was for it to be used for that purpose. Especially if it is posted at the same wall or page you sent it to. I, personally, don't agree that it rises to that level and that it is merely a gratuitous and arbitrary posting on your part. It would, however, be a rational defense if this rose to the level of an infringement claim actually being made. Such a claim not being practically worthwhile in any event.<br> <br />If you are unhappy, I suggest you take them up on the offer of the unopposed take down.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"much of this has very little to do with <em>photography</em>. It has to do with picture taking... ..the people I'm talking about are not doing it as a hobby."</p> </blockquote> <p>How dare these inferior unwashed cretins share the same space as and not yield to the grand artists among them. Don't they know who we are?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"If the photos of a public event are used for editorial purposes by the magazine, there should not be a need for model releases"</p> </blockquote> <p>Incidentally, the same applies for photos at private events that are used for editorial purposes except in a couple distinct situations.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"there are several "all-in-one lenses" you may find suitable for your purposes. This might alleviate the need to lug around all of your gear."</p> </blockquote> <p>Perhaps, but, unless those have specs better than a 25-600mm equivalent lens with F2.8 across the zoom range, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to spend a bunch of extra money. Especially since the results with the current are deemed to be satisfactory. </p>

<p>I doubt that any compensation for such 'modeling' would amount to much not withstanding the net worth of the university. Nor do I see much damage to you personally that would count for anything. Indeed, you even concede that you don't mind the use. If the principle of the issue and a desire to fetch some small amount of money is important to you, knock yourself out and go for it.</p>

<p>Assuming you are in the U.S...<br /><br />If you did not sign a release that qualifies as a binding contract or enter in to some other kind of contract allowing that kind of usage, you can revoke your permission which should be effective as to new printings and other uses not in progress. There are not enough details provided about your agreement for anyone to know the extent to which your likeness in the image can currently can used the university. If the use is not advertising, promotional or an endorsement, the university can it whether permission is granted or not.</p> <p>http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I'm not famous. I'm not particularly attractive. I don't have a single tattoo or piercing - my hair is short and slightly messy most of the time. I'm not visually interesting in any way"</p> </blockquote> <p><br />That's the point.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"As it is they want $5.95 for return shipping plus $10.95 for processing. When shipping is over 50% of your total cost you know something is out of whack."</p> </blockquote> <p>Why? Does the carrier offer discounts based on the price of what is inside the box? In any event, if six bucks is just too much to have something moved across hundreds or thousands of miles to your designated location, you could drive there instead and pick it up, sparing you these outrageous fees.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You didn't. You had an agreement.</p> </blockquote> <p>While agreeing to do something for nothing in return (consideration) is an unenforceable agreement, "working for free" does not necessarily mean there is nothing given in return. Allowing one's wedding to be shot for practice has value. Especially considering that the client could have obtained someone with more experience. To say that I will shoot your wedding next year is unenforceable. To agree that I will shoot it if you let me get the experience probably is.<br /><br />Also, there can be a substitute for consideration. Detrimental reliance can make a promise with no value exchanged enforceable. Reasonable reliance on a promise to shoot a wedding, and that another photographer need not be secured, can make the promise enforceable when obtaining a replacement photographer is not feasible. The remedy in that event is a more uncertain issue due to the special nature of the service. That kind of reliance can make an agreement a contract in general however.<br /><br />People shouldn't be given the impression that they can agree to shoot a wedding "for free" and have a legal basis to walk away. Alternatively, they should also know that their contract could wind up being a mere unenforceable agreement. Even that, however, affords some protection in that there would be nothing to legally enforce against anyone.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"there was no contract."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Game over.</p>