pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Model Release or Property Release needed here ?? (not fake)  (Read 8201 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 15, 2010, 00:29 »
0
Now this is a new problem for me :  I shot a few photos of a young woman holding a baby.  Only, the baby is a doll, a REALLY beautiful one, and it looks like a real baby.  It is so real, that any one would believe it is a real mother and baby portrait.

Knowing I would be in trouble with Model Releases, I wrote a "note to editor" while submitting the first image, explaining why I am only adding 1 model release.  
The result ?   6 out of 7 agencies already rejected it for missing MR.  Fotolia accepted it without a problem, so they apparently are the only ones that read my note.

Of course I can resubmit, but if I have to submit and resubmit every picture of that photo-shoot, I'll be quite irritated in the end.  So I thought :  what if I made a fake Model Release, pretending I'm the mother?  Who's going to sue me?   Would I be doing anything illegal that would get me into trouble with the agencies?
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 10:29 by Anyka »


microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2010, 01:45 »
0
not sure about the fake model release, but there may be another issue if the doll is clearly recognisable as a product

« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2010, 03:10 »
0
I would write to support of every agency. It helped with one of my images that needed a property release..at least reviewers thought so. The image was accepted without PR after contacting support. You could also mention that you plan to upload whole series of images with the same doll.

« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2010, 05:22 »
0
wouldn't it be easier so submit a proper property release rather than a fake model release?

« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2010, 06:05 »
0
I would think that a doll as realistic as you suggest would itself be copyright protected either as a design or as a work of art in it's own right. Both of which are big no-no's. It is also probably based on a real baby which might be recognisable. This is simply not suitable material for RF, it's a legal minefield and hopefully the reviewers read your note and rejected it on that basis.

Whatever you do, DON'T upload a fake MR or PR. Ever, ever, ever. Those are legal documents and it's about the quickest way to get your accounts closed down immediately. I'd delete any images on FT too __ they may well be reading this thread.

« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2010, 06:39 »
0
Delete the image on FT ?  Why, I did not send in a fake Model Release, I just asked what would happen if I did.  The note to editor I wrote was honest and correct, telling it was a handmade doll.   
As for the fact that it could be made after a real baby, well - I know who made the doll, so what if I contacted this person and asked for a Property Release?

« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2010, 07:03 »
0
Ok, that's different. If you know the person that made the doll and they will sign a PR then it should be fine. Just don't go down the route of falsifying any documents.

« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2010, 08:38 »
0
OK, I wrote to the Ebay seller who sold me the doll.  I checked her sales text, and she's not REALLY saying she made it herself, so I just hope she did. 

I think we are somewhere between art and craft here.  The doll is a factory product that is supplied in pieces.  It is a kind of new hobby for gifted women to apply special paints to the face, sew a body, attach the limbs, implant hair and eyelashes and if you're good at it, the result is very real.  If this is art, then the creator/painter needs to sign a property release I suppose?  If not, then the owner should sign the release (which is me!).

If you all think this is art, and the Ebay seller sends me an answer that she did NOT paint the doll's face herself ... what next?    :-\

« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2010, 08:59 »
0
I think you should find out as much information as possible, which clearly you are doing, then advise the reviewers accordingly and simply accept whatever decision they come to. Obviously they tend to veer on the side of caution, there's not much point in taking risks when imagery is so plentiful. By the sound of it the danger of legal issues seems remote but you need to stay honest for your own protection and that of the agencies and any buyers. Might be a lot easier to do the shoot with a real baby!

« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2010, 09:15 »
0
In my experience (I had one with a PR on SS) all the hassle mailing back and forth isn't even worth the few bucks an image is going to earn on micro. It took me 3 hrs in total, looking up shots of the environment of the property and pointing it with screenshots on Google Earth, just to prove it was at the location of the PR (somebody at SS claimed it was his house on a totally different location). SS even called the lady/owner but she is dementing and doesn't even understand English. After I removed the image from SS, the case was closed.

I should have done it the first time and save 3 hrs for a shot that sold maybe 10 times = 3.6$. Just abandon the shot and move on...

« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2010, 09:21 »
0
You're absolutely right if only one image is at stake, but the image I'm talking about is just the first one of a series of about 35 of one shoot.  And the shoot cost me about 650 dollars (doll included).  So I'm prepared to do 3 hours extra work to make all reviewers happy. 

vonkara

« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2010, 10:39 »
0
In my experience (I had one with a PR on SS) all the hassle mailing back and forth isn't even worth the few bucks an image is going to earn on micro. It took me 3 hrs in total, looking up shots of the environment of the property and pointing it with screenshots on Google Earth, just to prove it was at the location of the PR (somebody at SS claimed it was his house on a totally different location). SS even called the lady/owner but she is dementing and doesn't even understand English. After I removed the image from SS, the case was closed.

I should have done it the first time and save 3 hrs for a shot that sold maybe 10 times = 3.6$. Just abandon the shot and move on...

Absolutely lovely story, you are right... It doesn't worth subscribing for the release issues in microstock. I have a couple of house images and I guess they were enough generic so I don't need one. I took care to choose patrimonial houses owned by the government though

« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2010, 10:40 »
0
but the image I'm talking about is just the first one of a series of about 35 of one shoot.  And the shoot cost me about 650 dollars (doll included)
Yes that's different. I believe you that the baby must be special, looking at your DT port. A PR for the paintwork would be fine I guess.

« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2010, 10:47 »
0
I have a couple of house images and I guess they were enough generic so I don't need one. I took care to choose patrimonial houses owned by the government though
Well it was generic and I am shooting it in all seasons from my kitchen window.  :P
I use it to test lenses and cam. I see the lady all the time since I'm on the 3d floor. But I really don't like to go there any more with a new PR since she will start making coffee (spilling water and powder all over), then tell me all her great stories about World War II again. And again, and again...

« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2010, 10:49 »
0
How old is she?  Old people can be GREAT models!

« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2010, 11:06 »
0
How old is she?  Old people can be GREAT models!
Yes seniors are great and underrepresented models but in this case I feel it would be degrading for her. I don't like to shoot dementing people since it might take away their dignity, even if they sign. I had a similar grandmother-in-law in Mindanao and the stories she told about the cruelty of the Japanese occupation were breath-taking. I'll keep those for a blog sometimes. But the shots I took have to remain private.

« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2010, 11:14 »
0
Sorry, forgot that you said she was dementing.
I have an 80 year old mother who's still in top-shape, but she's camera-shy and would NEVER model for me.
And I don't think I could find myself an realistic life-size old-lady-doll on Ebay WITH property release  ;D


« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2010, 10:48 »
0
While I'm waiting for any reaction by the Ebay-seller of the doll (and keeping my fingers crossed), I wonder what she should sign ...
Let's assume she is the person who painted the doll's face and there is no resemblence with any real baby.  So I suppose there's no model release needed, but a Property Release.  However the owner = me.  Should I just copy the standard property release and change the word "property" into something like "handpainted doll" ?

I think it's weird that situations like this do not occur more frequently.  Isn't it very common that people are the owner of art they did not create themselves?  For instance : I see hundreds of images of nativity scenes of christmas figurines owned by the photographer, but not created by him/her ...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4554 Views
Last post April 08, 2008, 19:01
by snurder
33 Replies
13869 Views
Last post September 30, 2009, 14:12
by click_click
3 Replies
2126 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 12:43
by Ron
7 Replies
2209 Views
Last post September 16, 2013, 08:30
by gillian vann
11 Replies
1479 Views
Last post April 08, 2019, 13:53
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results