egafd.com

A while back I did a number of shoots with an American publisher at the Hedonism 3 resort in Jamaica. The rule was that EVERYBODY in the shots had to sign releases and produce IDs, that included people in the background...on the beach etc.

Although this was for publication in a magazine rather than on the 'net I've always taken this guideline as gospel...that what was good enough for a major company was certainly good enough for me!!

In these situations Maximum Ass Coverage is the best policy.

Its simple if you are publishing the stuff on your own web-site and you told the people then go ahead who the fuck is going to sue you, If it was a private party then thats different. I was in court in the 80's with a girl who I shot for a magazine. I paid her but she forgot to sign a release. she rang me saying if I gave her a grand she would not sue me after the photos were published. At the first sitting the Judge asked her why she was smiling durring the photo's, and was she smiling when she got paid, he answered it for her by saying I am sure you were so keep smiling and leave my court before I think you may well have not signed the document obn purpose, costs against...Nice one I thought.
As for people in the background etc. If its in the open or a public place they are open game mate.


Phil McC

I agree with Phil, the photographer has the copyright, but save hastle and be sure to get the release. Just a point, I have never been asked to produce a release and I have them going back to the days of glass plates and upside down pictures...Shit I am getting old! If the girl turns up for the job without docs then two choices, do the job and tell her she gets paid when she has the paperwork or send her away to come back another day, or not at all depending on how much money you have wasted.

yes u can.

i did a photo set for a very well known fetish phoptographer - that i did nt get paid for, and found the pics in a well known fetish mag. only to be told by the publisher. we dont require model releases.


think it depends who u are dealing with.

however stating that i, wouldnt risking filming or shooting without id.

just look at tracy lords.

she had a fake id - not no id

very true.
point being that ur at least seen to be doing the right thing even if u really dont give a dame.

cant think of 1 producer who actually looked at my id. they just took mug shots.
my id may say sweeny todd for all they care.

infact it may well do. there u go scott. take id but it probably is some girls library pass and says sweeny todd.

What exactly was she suing you for? Not breach of copyright surely.

a whole load of shit including damage to her good carricter, I even had miss ugly threaten to sue me coz I made her look good, But we paid her out of court.


Phil McC

Working in non adult TV stuff I think that from a legal point of view you are probably covered, if the content shows that the participant was obviously aware there was a camera there then they have very little to argue.

On the adult front there are different issues. A lot of models work without release because they feel it preserves them from being published. As video / photo graphers we pay extra for release forms because we intend to publish, there are loads of people that work with no intent to publish. With that in mind I would certainly never publish without release, when all models charge for a release you cannot claim ignorance. My advice would be ALWAYS cover yourself, get a release, get an id and if you are really unsure film the model giving verbal consent.

Happy Days!!