egafd.com

LOUI$E EVANS wrote:

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

Exactly!!


It seems that some people on here don't understand the concept of "common practice".

You may not LEGALLY have to have a model release, but given the common practice in this industry to get models to sign them and provide two forms of ID, anyone publishing photos (irrespective of who owns the copyright) without a model release is going against COMMON PRACTICE and therefore one must assume they are breaking either a written or verbal contract that the photos are NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Bob Singleton wrote:


>
>
> It seems that some people on here don't understand the concept
> of "common practice".
>
> You may not LEGALLY have to have a model release, but given the
> common practice in this industry to get models to sign them and
> provide two forms of ID, anyone publishing photos (irrespective
> of who owns the copyright) without a model release is going
> against COMMON PRACTICE and therefore one must assume they are
> breaking either a written or verbal contract that the photos
> are NOT FOR PUBLICATION
>
>

Your original question did ask for the LEGAL viewpoint, however, not common practice.

Canadian law is based on english law....

So I will take a stab at this.

There is a principle in any agreement called the "meeting of the minds." Whereby, if two parties agree to a mutual and beneficial exchange of goods or services or any combination thereof. It does not have to be in writting and a simple verbal agreement is acceptable.

Therefore saying, "I've changed my mind," won't cut it.

In the case of making a porn I would be concerned if the talent accepted the money or cashed the cheque. If they did that I would say that it is proof that there was a "meeting of the minds." And that the agreement was ratified(sp?) as evidenced by the acceptance of the money.

What if the films were for private use and the producer went and sold them anyway?

Sadly it seems the mods have had the scissors out and this thread doesn't make much sense anymore.

It's a shame that one person in particular thought I was attacking him at the behest of a model and kept emailing me drivel... as I said in one post (now no longer here), the people involved were not named and were not even involved in any of the posts.

I mentioned someone losing a court case simply as an answer to all those who suggested I contact him for guidance... I'm sorry, but the last person I would seek guidance from is someone who openly flouts other people's confidences and then goes on to lose a court case!

The story was girl A agreed to be videod by Mr B for private purposes (hence no signed model release) and a while later girl A finds Mr B selling the scene as part of a compilation DVD

This is plainly wrong and to all of you out there who spout the usual crap of "he owns the copyright so he can do what he wants with it" I hope no model ever agrees to shoot for you ever again.

No wonder the British porn industry is considered a laughing stock the world over when so-called "professional" producers act in this manner!

And if the mods delete this post, all I can say is that they have a yellow streak down their backs wider than the Grand Canyon!

I was beginning to think i didnt make the post to this thread as i have a habit of getting side tracked and clickimg a link before i hit submit.

Bob Singleton wrote:


> The story was girl A agreed to be videod by Mr B for private
> purposes (hence no signed model release) and a while later girl
> A finds Mr B selling the scene as part of a compilation DVD
>
> This is plainly wrong and to all of you out there who spout the
> usual crap of "he owns the copyright so he can do what he wants
> with it" I hope no model ever agrees to shoot for you ever
> again.


Bob, this is an issue I've seen come up so so many times, and whilst the guys who've replied here are right that regardless of a release the photographer owns copyright, you are also correct that if an agreement has been made that the material was for private use only then it's both morally and legally wrong for it to be published.

It does seem to be quite common, especially in TFP situations, and I have to say that I have no sympathy for the model........................... if she didn't want it published then she shouldn't have done the shoot, the only guaranteed way to ensure no publication is not to pose for that material in the first place. Even if she'd had something in writing to state that the material wouldn't be published, all that would mean is that she'd have grounds to take legal action, but the guys that abuse a models trust in this way know that it's highly unlikely that a model would go down that path so they'd still do it.

In this instance, it seems it'd be the models word against the photographers, so all she can do is remind him they had an agreement and appeal to his better nature, should that prove unsuccessful then it's either pay him a visit, or just put it down to experience and learn from it.

Roy

RoyR wrote:


Bob, this is an issue I've seen come up so so many times, and whilst the guys who've replied here are right that regardless of a release the photographer owns copyright, you are also correct that if an agreement has been made that the material was for private use only then it's both morally and legally wrong for it to be published.

It does seem to be quite common, especially in TFP situations, and I have to say that I have no sympathy for the model........................... if she didn't want it published then she shouldn't have done the shoot, the only guaranteed way to ensure no publication is not to pose for that material in the first place. Even if she'd had something in writing to state that the material wouldn't be published, all that would mean is that she'd have grounds to take legal action, but the guys that abuse a models trust in this way know that it's highly unlikely that a model would go down that path so they'd still do it.

In this instance, it seems it'd be the models word against the photographers, so all she can do is remind him they had an agreement and appeal to his better nature, should that prove unsuccessful then it's either pay him a visit, or just put it down to experience and learn from it.

======================================================


Yes the model in question was possibly naive to think that an agreement that the video wasn't for publication would actually be kept.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is so-called professional producers posting here telling everyone it's OK to breach someone's trust and to breach a (verbal) contract because they own the copyright.

They may be "professional" in so far as most of their income is derived from taking pictures (still or moving) of naked women, but they are far from professional in their attitudes.

The thing that concerns me about this particular situation is that because the videographer in question is in charge of all the stages of the video including production and, it seems, distribution, there is no point in the chain where a third party has asked "where's the model release and the two forms of ID?"

Maybe it's a subject the producers group forum Terry Stephens set up could have a look at? There is plenty of room for abuse under the current system.

Still, while there's a few quid to be made, who f**cking cares if a model's nose gets put out of joint... there's plenty more of those on the council estate around the corner! !annoyed!

Call me cynical, but I don't think this post will change the way some of these guys work... they don't have the brains to do anything else in life, and are damned lucky to be doing what they are doing and managing to get away with being so unprofessional. So why change the bad habits of a lifetime just to be a little more honourable?

I know the mods here won't allow me to name and shame... but there's nothing to stop me posting a list on my website. Take me to court if you want... I know you won't turn up!

So, instead of signing a model release to officially give copyright to the tog, could a model get the tog to sign a photographer release giving the copyright to her?