Legal Question regarding Model Releases

[LOUI$E EVANS]

if you don't need a model release to get stuff published then why does just about everyone ask for them???

[EMPREX]

doesnt shock me at all on here lol

EMPEROR

[Bob Singleton]

What personal attack?

[Bob Singleton]

I havn't mentioned any names...

I'm just trying to see how many idiots there are here who think it's OK to use the "I know I don't have your permission to publish these photos, but I own the copyright so I'll do as I please" argument.

It's about time this myth was busted!

As for the persons actually involved, they have not posted or been mentioned in this thread.

So unless you have something useful to say Maurice, (ie you actually have more than a barrack-room grasp of the law!) may I ask you to refrain from posting about what your mother told you!

[Peter]

Bob Singleton wrote:


>
> With respect, unless you are a lawyer, Peter, I'll choose not
> to take what you have written too seriously!
>
>

Well I got a distinction in the Law module of my photographic college course, if that counts!

Yes, most publishers will *want* a model release, but no, they do not *need* one. Its just easier al round if there is one. And thats the major difference in the simplistic situation I was talking about, the difference between *want* and *need*.
But to quote from the excellent "The Photographer and the Law"*** (a book all producers should posess.)

"it should also be noted that although release forms are valuable...(edit ref to other text in the book)...and should always be used whenever possible, a models refusal to sign at the end of a session does not necassarily mean that the photographer is then unable to make use of the pictures. Unless copyright has been passed to the model, he or she has no legal grounds for preventing subsequent publication of the photographs"

BTW I'm not saying the guy is morally right, to do this, just that the law says he can.


***Written by Don Cassell National Council for the training of Journalists with responsibility for photographic law, in consultation with Richard Gordon MA LLM, Barrister at Law.

[Cenobitez]

Hey Bob,

My understanding is, each part of owned by a different person.

Now a very valid argument, that i heard was WON i dont know the case number so i cant look it up but next time im in my legal peoples office i shall get it.

Basically Photographer A took images of Model B and Paid Model B Sum D of cash, he argued that he paid her for her image and time, so he was able to sell said images. The case was more indepth but thats the gist as i recall.

I really should have looked into it with more than a passing interest.

If anyone is stupid enough to shoot a model without verifying the ID, id be concerned, I wont even shoot a model unless i have seen Valid ID and always take a copy.

[Bob Singleton]

Cenobitez wrote:

> Hey Bob,
>
> My understanding is, each part of owned by a different person.
>
> Now a very valid argument, that i heard was WON i dont know the
> case number so i cant look it up but next time im in my legal
> peoples office i shall get it.
>
> Basically Photographer A took images of Model B and Paid Model
> B Sum D of cash, he argued that he paid her for her image and
> time, so he was able to sell said images. The case was more
> indepth but thats the gist as i recall.
>
> I really should have looked into it with more than a passing
> interest.
>
> If anyone is stupid enough to shoot a model without verifying
> the ID, id be concerned, I wont even shoot a model unless i
> have seen Valid ID and always take a copy.
>
>


Thanks Cenobitz.

The problem as I understand it is that, regardless of copyright law, if there was an agreement between the model and the photographer that the shoot was for "personal" use only, the publication of those photos is a breach of that trust.

In effect it's a breach of contract (the verbal agreement that the photos are for personal use being a contract) and no amount of arguments from people like Joe A (and this isn't in any way meant to be an attack on Joe A... it's just everyone here seems to think of him as some sort of guru of the copyright laws, when in fact he's lost a court case regarding the use of a model's photos) stating that because they have the copyright they can do as they please over-rides the breach of contract/breach of confidence argument.