pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: new model release for every single photo shoot?  (Read 17945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2009, 10:53 »
0
What about those of us who shoot their own kids and post some of those shots as stock?  From what I read, that's a fair number of us . . .

Say we're out on a walk and I happen to snap a nice shot that I think has stock potential.  Then we go home for lunch and so on and the next morning we take another walk near the same place and viola lightning strikes again and the camera creates some more spontaneous stock magic. 

Is that 2 seperate model releases that I have to draw up, sign and scan?  What constitues a "shoot" when dealing with your kiddos?  Should I plan ahead and make my son wear the same outfit just in case?

I'm not ranting or anything, just a bit confused.

Ben O.


« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2009, 11:07 »
0
 Hi All,

 All stock photos should be signed by the model the day of the shoot. Then we have the model hold up the signed release and take a photo of them and keep it in your archives in duplicate. For those of you not following your rules you are leaving yourself open for some serious danger down the road.

Good Luck,
Jonathan

lisafx

« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2009, 17:30 »
0
I just had the wisdom of this brought home to me today. 

Apparently someone who modeled for me saw himself on a cereal box and did not remember modeling for the picture.  He contacted the cereal company threatening legal action.  They in turn contacted the agency who called me. 

FORTUNATELY this was someone I only shot the one time, so the release is dated the same day the photo is taken.  For some of my past shoots this would not be the case. 

Even so, the release was witnessed by my husband, as many of my releases are.  In retrospect I would feel even more comfortable if I had gotten the release witnessed by the other model, rather than my husband.  Probably it doesn't make a difference, but if it ever went to court I would feel safer having the release signed by someone who wasn't my closest relative and a participant in my business. 

« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2009, 17:41 »
0
Wow __ that must have been a bolt out of the blue! I guess as far as the witnessing is concerned it emphasises Jonathan's recommendation to also photograph the model holding up the MR.

I trust the issue has been resolved now? Is the model unhappy because he thinks he should have been paid more for being on a cereal pack?

RT


« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2009, 18:14 »
0
Photographing the model holding the release is something that's been common practice for many years in macro stock, but the most important thing to remember is that you do it as a RAW file, and then keep a copy of that Raw file straight out of the camera, a Raw file is your digital negative and if you keep a copy that has not been converted should the worse happen you can produce it in court as irrefutable evidence (the court will assign someone to convert the file), you can't do that if you take the shot as a jpeg. You can change the file name to help you keep track of the releases as long as you don't open the file, for Canon shooters it'll mean you have a copy named for instance: JohnDoe_261009.CR2

It's always been my recommendation that every shot you do for stock is done in Raw and an original copy kept, but for some reason a lot of people only shoot jpeg, trust me when I tell you that if they ever had to go to court over any issue concerning an image they shot they'd be wishing they'd shot Raw!

Lisa on a side note you might want to check the compellability of a spouse in legal matters over in the US.

lisafx

« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2009, 13:51 »
0
Thanks Richard and Gostwyck.  Very good advice about the RAW file of the model signing the release.  Wish I had been doing this all along.

The issue just came up yesterday, but with istock's compliance dept in possession of the the signed release, and also with my friend who knows the model giving him a call to explain where the picture came from and remind him of the photo shoot, hopefully it will be resolved. 

The "model" is a PT musician who doesn't have much money so I think when he saw himself on a cereal box and couldn't remember why, he figured it was worth big bucks.  He probably can't afford a lawyer, and even if he can, I wouldn't bet on his winning against Post Cereal.  Still, this is definitely a wake up call...

« Reply #31 on: October 27, 2009, 14:02 »
0
Thanks Richard and Gostwyck.  Very good advice about the RAW file of the model signing the release.  Wish I had been doing this all along.

The issue just came up yesterday, but with istock's compliance dept in possession of the the signed release, and also with my friend who knows the model giving him a call to explain where the picture came from and remind him of the photo shoot, hopefully it will be resolved. 

The "model" is a PT musician who doesn't have much money so I think when he saw himself on a cereal box and couldn't remember why, he figured it was worth big bucks.  He probably can't afford a lawyer, and even if he can, I wouldn't bet on his winning against Post Cereal.  Still, this is definitely a wake up call...

On a side note....  was that image sold EL.?... and how many licenses..?..

Patrick H.

« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2009, 14:31 »
0
I'm not sure I buy into this 'picture of model holding a release' jazz, and I don't plan to do it anytime soon.  I feel the new convention of a dated release with shoot description is plenty.  As I recall, no one took a photo of me signing my mortgage, or any other legal document, ever. 

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2009, 15:32 »
0


On a side note....  was that image sold EL.?... and how many licenses..?..

Patrick H.

You know, that is a very good question.  I just looked it up after reading your question and there was an Unlimited Reproduction EL purchased in March.  

So assuming that was Post, then they really have done everything right and shouldn't be having to deal with this.

« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2009, 16:03 »
0
I'm not sure I buy into this 'picture of model holding a release' jazz, and I don't plan to do it anytime soon.  I feel the new convention of a dated release with shoot description is plenty.  As I recall, no one took a photo of me signing my mortgage, or any other legal document, ever. 

True enough! However adult film-makers always video new starlets holding up their ID to prove they're 18, I think it's part of the records they have to keep. Maybe that's where it came from.

RT


« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2009, 16:31 »
0
I'm not sure I buy into this 'picture of model holding a release' jazz, and I don't plan to do it anytime soon.  I feel the new convention of a dated release with shoot description is plenty.  As I recall, no one took a photo of me signing my mortgage,  

Nobody says you have to it's just another option that would save a whole lot of hassle should you ever need to legally prove the model signed the release, in the case of your mortgage if you turned round at a later date and denied signing the form they'd just take your house back!

or any other legal document, ever.

Passport, drivers license, membership cards  ;)

« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2009, 19:20 »
0
I can live with the new requirements. It's ok and I follow the new rules since september 1st. But it is annoying that they DO reject old (include images back from 2008) images because of the old general releases (what they accepted many times before). They promised they will not but they do. And I can't go back in time to rewrite and resign the old releases. :(

« Reply #37 on: October 30, 2009, 01:41 »
0
Hi Gostywick,

 I agree. I actually beleive a mortgage is signed or stamped by a notary for the proof and that is what notaries are trained for. I might be wrong on the notary but like you said, why not do it. It take a second and it helps cover your butt.
 Lisa there is a good point behind using someone other than a close relative for witness. At least in the U.S. your lawyer would rather have a non related witness although it doesn't mean your husband won't work it just leaves a loop hole for the other lawyer to try to leverage. Glad you missed it on that one, thats kizmet for ya.  :D  For what it's worth here is a link to what a notary does in a mortgage closing.  http://www.notarytrainer.com/whatisasigningagent.html

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2009, 06:29 »
0
Jonathan, you do look a bit silly when you reply to my posts by attributing them to other people or their responses.  It's ok, you can adress me directly.  You're right.  You do have a notary at a mortgage and some other legal document signings.

However, no one has really addresed what the point of having someone hold up a release for a picture proves.  That they were there (obviously they were there).  That they signed it (it doesn't actually show them signing it).  So what does this give you that stands up in a court case?   Has this process actually ever been tested?

« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2009, 06:50 »
0
However, no one has really addresed what the point of having someone hold up a release for a picture proves.

That it was actually them. I came across models that were all too happy to pose for their facebook etc... for their personal promo and to show off, but refused to sign a MR for stock. It would be tempting for some to let a friend sign the release then, claiming the real "model" filled in fake info. I'm talking about the Philippines where photo IDs are rather exceptional and do cost a day wage. The model holding up the signed release would be a great safeguard in those cases.

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but has anybody cooked a generic istock release with the logo cloned out? I tried it last night but I got stuck in Word. I don't like to let sign two releases: one for iStock, and one for all the rest.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 06:54 by FD-amateur »

RacePhoto

« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2009, 12:08 »
0
Photographing the model holding the release is something that's been common practice for many years in macro stock, but the most important thing to remember is that you do it as a RAW file, and then keep a copy of that Raw file straight out of the camera...

Then do you have to get a release for the shot of the model holding the release since it's a different shoot?  ;D :o ::)

Hey Lisa, was that musician a Blond by any chance? Doesn't remember a photo shoot? Kind of up in the clouds isn't he? Makes me want to go to the store and look at Post cereal even though I don't eat breakfast.

One a day releases, this is funny. What next are you going to need every model release to be notarized? ps I blame lawyers, not the agencies for this kind of stupidity. Pets need releases, now buildings need releases, silhouettes need releases, pictures in the pictures need releases, what the heck?

« Reply #41 on: October 30, 2009, 12:22 »
0
One a day releases, this is funny. What next are you going to need every model release to be notarized? ps I blame lawyers, not the agencies for this kind of stupidity. Pets need releases, now buildings need releases, silhouettes need releases, pictures in the pictures need releases, what the heck?

I've got a model signing anything and it was rejected for LCV or "lighting" at most sites. Kubrik might have gotten away with candle light in Barry Lyndon but stock sites have a different agenda.  ;) (PS - the notary couldn't attend since there was a brownout and the bridge to town was flooded by a typhoon - photography is fun)

« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 12:28 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #42 on: October 30, 2009, 15:40 »
0
Hi Race,

 Nope you just need a clear Raw file of the person holding up their signed model release and some ID and that will cover you. Captured in a single frame for your archives. it only takes a second. It is also the time we shoot the head shots of our talent to place on our model release. Many agencies need photos of the person in the shots so we use these. two birds with one stone. This is just what we do it is not law or right or wrong we just have found it an extra level of security for the years our images are going to be available for sale, that could be a very long time.

Best,
Jonathan

ap

« Reply #43 on: October 30, 2009, 16:06 »
0

One a day releases, this is funny. What next are you going to need every model release to be notarized? ps I blame lawyers, not the agencies for this kind of stupidity. Pets need releases, now buildings need releases, silhouettes need releases, pictures in the pictures need releases, what the heck?



race, i think it's all down to the photographer's comfort level. even if he has all the required paperwork, but if he still gets spooked by even just the threat of a lawsuit, he's gonna want all the notaries he can get. i have been following this photographer getting sued by her model over on ss. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72229  even though she dotted all her i's, she's just in such a vulnerable state, as a result, she not only incorportated herself but thinking of getting out of 'glamour' stock photos.

you, obviously, are made of stronger stuff.  ;)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 17:33 by ap »

« Reply #44 on: October 30, 2009, 17:19 »
0
If you shoot a lot of hot women in little to no clothing, and offer those images RF, you should expect to have to deal with situations like that.  To be surprised or distraught over it happening is just silly .

« Reply #45 on: October 30, 2009, 17:44 »
0
If you shoot a lot of hot women in little to no clothing, and offer those images RF, you should expect to have to deal with situations like that.  To be surprised or distraught over it happening is just silly .

Exactly. She covers aforementioned hot women in baby oil (and not much else) then shoots them in flattering seductive lighting. What did she (or the models) design those images for __ Post cereal packaging maybe? Pre-school education? Financial? Or strips clubs and adult entertainment industry? Tricky one to decide really.

lisafx

« Reply #46 on: October 31, 2009, 14:24 »
0
Lisa there is a good point behind using someone other than a close relative for witness. At least in the U.S. your lawyer would rather have a non related witness although it doesn't mean your husband won't work it just leaves a loop hole for the other lawyer to try to leverage. Glad you missed it on that one, thats kizmet for ya.  :D  For what it's worth here is a link to what a notary does in a mortgage closing.  http://www.notarytrainer.com/whatisasigningagent.html

Best,
Jonathan


You're absolutely right, IMO, that it will be better to have someone other than my hubby sign the release.  When I was just photographing friends and relatives it didn't seem important, but as I have widened my model pool to include people I don't know personally this is a good example of the type of issues that can arise.  

FWIW my hubby IS a notary public - although he didn't notarize the releases :)


Hey Lisa, was that musician a Blond by any chance? Doesn't remember a photo shoot? Kind of up in the clouds isn't he? Makes me want to go to the store and look at Post cereal even though I don't eat breakfast.



LOL.  Quite the opposite.  He is an older Carribbean man who plays steel drums.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2188467-caribbean-steel-drummer.php

They play on the beach - a lot of Jimmy Buffet type stuff for the tourists.  Maybe there was some Margaritaville action going on that caused it to slip his mind...?  LOL.
Funny thing is he isn't even a good seller.  I haven't made nearly enough money from him to justify the hassle  ::)
« Last Edit: October 31, 2009, 14:26 by lisafx »

« Reply #47 on: October 31, 2009, 17:20 »
0
Hi Lisa,

 He's a notary, Maybe he can notarize your releases. Boy, the agencies couldn't say much to that. ;D

Best,
Jonathan

Batman

« Reply #48 on: November 01, 2009, 13:30 »
0
What was she thinking they were used for?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 20:52 by Batman »

« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2009, 16:23 »
0
The latest Getty Images release looks to be adapted from the iStock one...basically the same wording but without the logo...I use it for everything and it's accepted by all whether for RM, RF or micro.



However, no one has really addresed what the point of having someone hold up a release for a picture proves.

That it was actually them. I came across models that were all too happy to pose for their facebook etc... for their personal promo and to show off, but refused to sign a MR for stock. It would be tempting for some to let a friend sign the release then, claiming the real "model" filled in fake info. I'm talking about the Philippines where photo IDs are rather exceptional and do cost a day wage. The model holding up the signed release would be a great safeguard in those cases.

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but has anybody cooked a generic istock release with the logo cloned out? I tried it last night but I got stuck in Word. I don't like to let sign two releases: one for iStock, and one for all the rest.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
6629 Views
Last post March 20, 2008, 16:58
by snurder
12 Replies
5526 Views
Last post October 31, 2011, 07:53
by Sean Locke Photography
14 Replies
4164 Views
Last post April 08, 2012, 02:06
by gillian vann
4 Replies
2212 Views
Last post June 20, 2012, 11:28
by lisafx
1 Replies
1137 Views
Last post May 17, 2018, 02:51
by mindstorm

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results