Page 4 of 4
Re: Another First Timer, 32FF natural (I think!)
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:03 am
by tdfcash
samsung the reason I am many UK sites carry a 2257 statement is due to processing, if you are using any 3rd party processors such as epoch or ccbill you will never get your site accepted without a statement.
Re: Another First Timer, 32FF natural (I think!)
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:54 am
by Rico78
Hang on, I'm confused now..
Is there any point in me getting models to sign a model release?
Or is it a waste of time...
I had originally thought you could only publish pics with a release (or with verbal agreement, as I did with my earlier shoots)?
Thanks
Re: Another First Timer, 32FF natural (I think!)
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:05 am
by tdfcash
you can only publish images with a release signed thats what its for. the photographer retains copyright but thats a different thing to publishing rights without a release content cant be published and samsung claims thats wrong when its not.
Re: Another First Timer, 32FF natural (I think!)
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:06 am
by KayJay
Model releases do not have any legal foundations in UK Law. A release protects the model more than the photographer as it can impose limits on the potential sale outlets. The photographer/copyright holder is free to do anything they desire with the images including selling/publishing. It is implied in the contract when booking that the images may be used for publication especially when money changes hands.
US Law requires a release and ID to be available at the registered offices under 2257. You do not need a 2257 statement on your site to be accepted by CCBill.
It is prudent to get one signed to protect against deformation of character if you use narratives in your products. Also if the images are to be used in advertising campaigns for genital warts creams then a release would be needed.
Getting ID another matter and although it is not legally required it is worth checking and recording models are over 18.