MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Make sure your model release is in good order.  (Read 6455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 21, 2010, 13:38 »
0
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/17386/181765

This model is suing for US $2 million over use of her image.


« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2010, 14:26 »
0
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/17386/181765

This model is suing for US $2 million over use of her image.


The kicker is that this thing even got sold, not to mention taken in the first place.

Try submitting this to the Micros: Rejected: unnatural facial expression.

« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2010, 15:04 »
0
Well, either she signed it or she didn't.

« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2010, 15:19 »
0
Well, either she signed it or she didn't.

LOL. That's what I thought.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2010, 15:20 »
0
Man that image is terrible. It looks like a snap shot and would never make it on the micros. I wonder why they chose it. It's probably some guys girlfriend and they broke up and she's mad because she only got $1.00 to pose so now she's screaming forgery.

« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2010, 15:30 »
0
Well, either she signed it or she didn't.
Option 3: she signed but says now it's a forgery. For 2 million, it's worth trying.

« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2010, 15:35 »
0
Well, either she signed it or she didn't.
Option 3: she signed but says now it's a forgery. For 2 million, it's worth trying.

She gets her 15 minutes of fame either way. In fact, the buzz is likely to make her the next big star ala Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, ad infinitum.

« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2010, 15:42 »
0
Well, either she signed it or she didn't.
Option 3: she signed but says now it's a forgery. For 2 million, it's worth trying.

She gets her 15 minutes of fame either way. In fact, the buzz is likely to make her the next big star ala Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, ad infinitum.

I doubt that unless her parents own BP or something like that...

RT


« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2010, 17:09 »
0
Option 3: she signed but says now it's a forgery. For 2 million, it's worth trying.

Until she discovers that it's the photographer she'd be suing not the band.

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2010, 17:12 »
0
Well, either she signed it or she didn't.
Option 3: she signed but says now it's a forgery. For 2 million, it's worth trying.

Should be easy to prove one way or the other.  Surely they can get ahold of something with her signature on it?

I think most of us are pretty safe with our releases as long as we don't forge anything.

Additional note - I have started having the model's friends, spouse etc. witness their signature.  Before I was just having my hubby do it.  They are less likely to contest if their friend is the witness IMO.  

Probably an impartial third party would be best, but rather impractical having to round up a stranger every time you do a shoot.  

« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2010, 17:27 »
0
90% of my shoots involve a MUA.
So I usually have her/ him sign as witness.

RT


« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2010, 18:38 »
0
Additional note - I have started having the model's friends, spouse etc. witness their signature.  Before I was just having my hubby do it.  They are less likely to contest if their friend is the witness IMO.  

Personally speaking I'd never want a friend or relative of the model to be the witness, and spouses as witnesses are a dodgy area on both sides as far as the law over here is concerned (and in the USA I believe)

But to put your statement into the context of this thread, you're the photographer and she signs the release and gets her friend to witness it, then she sees the photo in question and the dollar signs light up in her eyes, do you think she's more likely to 'bribe' her friend (the witness) to deny everything about the release, or someone who you got to witness the release that she's never met before?

I've said it before many a time, get the model to sign the release before you do the shoot and make sure the first frame is a RAW image of them holding the release they just signed, then keep an unopened copy of that RAW file, they can't deny that. If you're a bit timid about what to say when the model asks what you're doing ( you don't want to get into a 'don't you trust me' situation ) tell them it's a handy visual reference for your records and that it's a great way to set the white balance for the subsequent shots. In practice I've never had a model question it, it's pretty much standard practice for most models who've got a bit of experience.

« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2010, 19:09 »
0
Additional note - I have started having the model's friends, spouse etc. witness their signature.  Before I was just having my hubby do it.  They are less likely to contest if their friend is the witness IMO.

Since almost a year, I follow the sound advice of RT.
Shoot the model's head holding up the signed release next to it.

« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2010, 19:29 »
0
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/17386/181765

This model is suing for US $2 million over use of her image.


As someone else said, it's not even anything that micro would approve. Wrong white balance, look more like a polaroid. I am not sure what it got to do with Vampire.
But yes, she has a look that is very pretty but the quality of the picture is like snapshot.

I think model will not care if you use picture if you get paid 25 cents, or $2. Maybe the fact that famous band use the picture, she might think photographer get million dollars for use of her photo which was maybe she get no money or anything from photographer.

The use of her picture with the word vampire is not nice too. You don't want your daughter or girl friend to be used in a title like Vampire Weekend.
My thinking is this.

« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2010, 20:21 »
0
and hang on to the releases, the image was taken in 1983 :)

« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2010, 21:01 »
0
actually the photos is nice..got the 'feeling'.. i guess it can sell in macro.

« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2010, 23:47 »
0
The kicker is that this thing even got sold, not to mention taken in the first place.

Try submitting this to the Micros: Rejected: unnatural facial expression.



Note that she is wearing a RL polo shirt complete with logo.
This could not have been sold as micro, it would have been rejected for copywrite issues.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2010, 03:49 »
0
The use of her picture with the word vampire is not nice too. You don't want your daughter or girl friend to be used in a title like Vampire Weekend.
My thinking is this.

You or anyone else may not think it's nice, but it's a perfectly acceptable use for RF images. That's why you need to be very careful that you need to explain very carefully to your model the enormous range of uses their image could be used for - whether it's your daughter/girlfriend or a complete stranger.

lisafx

« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2010, 08:06 »
0

Personally speaking I'd never want a friend or relative of the model to be the witness, and spouses as witnesses are a dodgy area on both sides as far as the law over here is concerned (and in the USA I believe)


Maybe it's less of an issue for me since I only shoot people I know personally.  I maintain a personal relationship with all my models.  In 5 years nobody has ever tried to screw me over.  If I was shooting strangers that I see once and never again I would be a lot more worried.

Not that it couldn't happen, of course.  Richard's idea about photographing the model holding up the release is about as foolproof as you can get. 

Having liability insurance helps a lot too. 

« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2010, 06:42 »
0
even it is written in english in model release, but i wonder if a photographer explained it clearly like that's mean i will not pay you anymore and your photos will be used for magazine, book even book cover and cd cover. Most people may think twice because signing it.

RacePhoto

« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2010, 06:05 »
0
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/17386/181765

This model is suing for US $2 million over use of her image.


Someone can sue for anything, the problem is collecting.  :)

There should be a penalty for frivolous lawsuits where the claimant will have to pay the defendants court costs. It would stop wasting the courts time and protect the innocent from get rich quick, gold diggers. If she has a legitimate claim, fine, but if it turns out that she signed the release and this is all a grab for money, make her pay. $2 million is the asking price. Sometimes these things can be settled out of court to save time and money. The alternative is for the lawyers from Rolling Stone to say, "go for it..." and not roll over just because someone hires a lawyer to make a big claim.


« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2010, 03:34 »
0
Additional note - I have started having the model's friends, spouse etc. witness their signature.  Before I was just having my hubby do it.  They are less likely to contest if their friend is the witness IMO.

Since almost a year, I follow the sound advice of RT.
Shoot the model's head holding up the signed release next to it.



Ditto, that is the most secure method I would think.  This is what iStock does for their iStockalypse models.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
7877 Views
Last post June 23, 2006, 04:27
by leaf
10 Replies
7552 Views
Last post February 04, 2008, 13:00
by strikerx98
11 Replies
2869 Views
Last post April 19, 2013, 16:05
by Sadstock
2 Replies
1758 Views
Last post February 02, 2016, 16:56
by MilanStojanovic
12 Replies
1930 Views
Last post June 16, 2019, 17:47
by Clair Voyant

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle