Author Topic: Istockphoto rejection because MR date (Read 18176 times)

vii-studio · « **on:** February 04, 2010, 17:44 »

Hello, my one photo rejected because model release problem, they said that :

The following note was supplied by an administrator:
+ Model releases are only valid for the shoot date they were signed for.
Please supply a model release that is specific to this shoot and date and also provide a shoot description on the form.

But last I upload some images use the old MR, signed 2009, and was accepted.Do you had such experience?

melastmohican · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2010, 17:49 »

I saw it before. Since I am shooting myself and my family I usually got one MR for different sessions. It only fails sometimes on IS and DT.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:13 »

yeah technically you should always get a new model release signed for each shoot even though it's the same model. Most agencies don't care but it's something you should be doing.

melastmohican · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:26 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 04, 2010, 18:13

yeah technically you should always get a new model release signed for each shoot even though it's the same model. Most agencies don't care but it's something you should be doing.

So you are saying there a people that handle hundreds of MRs? UI on most sites is not ready for this, sometimes you have to pick from combo box and it will use whole screen??? I never tried to delete older MRs, maybe this is a solution for clutter?

disorderly · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:34 »

Most agencies don't have a problem with you reusing the same MR for multiple shoots with the same model. iStock used to be that way, but now insists on a release per shoot for any shoot on or after 9/1/2009.

flashon · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:45 »

How do they determine the date of shooting?

Randy McKown · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2010, 18:50 »

Quote from: melastmohican on February 04, 2010, 18:26

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 04, 2010, 18:13
yeah technically you should always get a new model release signed for each shoot even though it's the same model. Most agencies don't care but it's something you should be doing.

So you are saying there a people that handle hundreds of MRs? UI on most sites is not ready for this, sometimes you have to pick from combo box and it will use whole screen??? I never tried to delete older MRs, maybe this is a solution for clutter?

Micro agencies started adding features a long time ago where a buyer could see a shot of a model and then quickly browse all shots of that model. Which is great for sales because often the buyer will buy multiple poses. However, back then they didn't think (or know) about the fact that a MR for one session was not valid for the next so they just took the easy route and made the system display all images linked to that MR. What they should have done was designed the systems so that a contributor created a model entry that could allow multiple releases to be attached to it .. then display results attached to the model entry instead of the model release. It would have made it clutter free when submitting while still maintaining proper business practice. At this point I don't think most of them care .. or even realize the flaw in the first place. Maybe they will catch on eventually. It always amazes me how little microstock companies actually knew about the stock industry when they got the ball rolling in the first place. You'd think it wouldn't take a decade to run to the library and pick up a book on selling stock photography. LOL

Phil · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2010, 19:01 »

istock require a new model release for every shoot (I believe the max amount of time to be around 3-4 days) (including for your own family)

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/new-model-releas-for-every-shooting/

lisafx · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2010, 19:53 »

Quote from: Phil on February 04, 2010, 19:01

istock require a new model release for every shoot (I believe the max amount of time to be around 3-4 days) (including for your own family)

^^ What he said.

FWIW, if the shoot took place before Sept 1, 2009 I write that in the description at IS and that way they know why there is no new release for it. I have DL'd the Getty generic release and am filling out a new one for each shoot since September.

Filling in the information except for the signatures and dates is a real timesaver. Can't remember who suggested it - maybe Sean? - but whoever it was: Thanks!

FD · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2010, 22:12 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 04, 2010, 19:53

Filling in the information except for the signatures and dates is a real timesaver. Can't remember who suggested it - maybe Sean? - but whoever it was: Thanks!

That was me!

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #10 on:** February 05, 2010, 06:44 »

Just have them sign a blank release and scan it in... Then fill out all the data so that you can change the date whenever you need to.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2010, 06:59 »

Quote from: dnavarrojr on February 05, 2010, 06:44

Just have them sign a blank release and scan it in... Then fill out all the data so that you can change the date whenever you need to.

That sounds like legally solid advice...

Quote from: melastmohican on February 04, 2010, 18:26

So you are saying there a people that handle hundreds of MRs?

I think I have about 400 MRs on my hard disk right now. Once you get used to it, you'll find a system to organise them. I sort them by date, so it's easy to assign the right ones to the photos I've taken during that shoot. With DeepMeta it's also very simple to add them to images before uploading them to iStock.

RT · « **Reply #12 on:** February 05, 2010, 07:41 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 04, 2010, 18:13

However, back then they didn't think (or know) about the fact that a MR for one session was not valid for the next so they just took the easy route and made the system display all images linked to that MR.

What fact? A model release is a contract between the photographer and the model, there are no facts you can write on it whatever and however you wish. You can make a release valid for one, two or twenty sessions if you so desire, the only requirement is that it's written in a way thats legal in the country where the contract was made.

The only 'facts' are a) both Microstock and Macrostock agencies have to base their model release requirements on their own individual requirements as they feel appropriate, and b) you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

crazychristina · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2010, 14:55 »

One of the istock admins explained this to me a while back. He said he did a stock shoot with a model one day, and some private work for her the next. An unscrupulous photographer could upload the second days shots as stock if the model release did not make it clear (by date and descriptions) which shots were stock and which were not.

RT · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2010, 15:56 »

Quote from: averil on February 05, 2010, 14:55

One of the istock admins explained this to me a while back. He said he did a stock shoot with a model one day, and some private work for her the next. An unscrupulous photographer could upload the second days shots as stock if the model release did not make it clear (by date and descriptions) which shots were stock and which were not.

That makes no difference whatsoever, if he's unscrupulous enough to upload shots of a model that weren't shot for stock he could just alter the date on the first release for the second days shoot.

Agencies cannot verify the information on the release, agencies have no legal responsibility for the release information, if there is ever a legal implication between a model and image usage (other than those stated in the relevant license - defamatory etc) it is the photographer that is responsible to prove the release is valid. Agencies each have their own requirements for model releases but that is not the law, they make these requirements to help avoid any future problems for contributors, there is no such thing as an universal international employment contract which is basically what a model release is, each country has it's different requirements. If a case ever goes to court the agency only has to prove that the contributor was aware a release was required and that they had submitted one with the image, if that release then proves to be bogus or illegal it's down to the photographer.

Most agencies do a good job of giving guidance for what is required, however a lot of contributors think that information is gospel, it isn't.

Here's a tip that most pro's use that isn't mentioned by any agency, when you do a model shoot always get the model to sign the release before you start shooting, and make the first shot one of her/him holding a copy of the release they've just signed, and do it in RAW and keep an unconverted copy. In the future you might not be able to get hold of the person that witnessed the release but that unconverted Raw file is your proof that the model signed the release.

crazychristina · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2010, 17:03 »

However, if the model signed on the first day it might be hard for the photographer to demonstrate that permission was given for a day later.

RT · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2010, 19:33 »

Averil you're missing the point, your unscrupulous photographer could upload a shot to the stock agency and include a release with completely fabricated details because the agency cannot check those details. The agency would not know if the release was genuine or not.

Some agencies such as iStock impose regulations like they have to hopefully highlight to contributors the importance of having a correctly signed release, but other agencies that accept a release no matter what date it was signed are not technically doing anything wrong. One thing worth pointing out is that the releases that some sites encourage their contributors to use don't contain enough relevant legal information for certain countries and yet some contributors would be easily fooled into thinking they do. I wish every agency clearly pointed out that it is the photographers responsibility to ensure the release is legal.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2010, 02:36 »

Quote from: RT on February 05, 2010, 07:41

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 04, 2010, 18:13
However, back then they didn't think (or know) about the fact that a MR for one session was not valid for the next so they just took the easy route and made the system display all images linked to that MR.

What fact? A model release is a contract between the photographer and the model, there are no facts you can write on it whatever and however you wish. You can make a release valid for one, two or twenty sessions if you so desire, the only requirement is that it's written in a way thats legal in the country where the contract was made.

The only 'facts' are a) both Microstock and Macrostock agencies have to base their model release requirements on their own individual requirements as they feel appropriate, and b) you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Ok let's pretend for a brief moment you know what you're talking about. If a model release was not bound by a specific date then there lies a loop hole where individuals could potentially stalk another individual and photograph them at any time they desire and license those images for commercial use. This type of image activity obviously would be done without the individuals consent and could lead to decades of massive court cases. One reason why the specific date is important if a legal dispute is ever brought up. You had permission to license images of that specific person taken on that specific day. It's short, simple and legal.

Now you did state that a model release is a type of contract and yes .. technically you could write one up that allowed you to photograph a person whenever you want and license images from that single MR .... but that's not the way it's done ... it's not the way it has ever been done .. you basically just wanted to say something intelligent but unfortunately had nothing intelligent to say. Who in their right mind would sign a document like that

?

Instead of sitting there thinking of what statement you could possibly pull out of the back of your pants to show that you're the alpha dog why not put some "real" thought into something. Feel free to re-write the way model releases are used around the world that still avoids anyone from potentially getting sued or screwed and then the world will bow at your feet and we can all sleep better .... LOL you're a goof RT LOL

RT · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2010, 04:50 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 06, 2010, 02:36

Ok let's pretend for a brief moment you know what you're talking about. If a model release was not bound by a specific date then there lies a loop hole where individuals could potentially stalk another individual and photograph them at any time they desire and license those images for commercial use. This type of image activity obviously would be done without the individuals consent and could lead to decades of massive court cases. One reason why the specific date is important if a legal dispute is ever brought up. You had permission to license images of that specific person taken on that specific day. It's short, simple and legal.

Now you did state that a model release is a type of contract and yes .. technically you could write one up that allowed you to photograph a person whenever you want and license images from that single MR .... but that's not the way it's done ... it's not the way it has ever been done .. you basically just wanted to say something intelligent but unfortunately had nothing intelligent to say. Who in their right mind would sign a document like that ?

Instead of sitting there thinking of what statement you could possibly pull out of the back of your pants to show that you're the alpha dog why not put some "real" thought into something. Feel free to re-write the way model releases are used around the world that still avoids anyone from potentially getting sued or screwed and then the world will bow at your feet and we can all sleep better .... LOL you're a goof RT LOL

Well I trained in law and use to work for an firm of solicitors (lawyers) so yes I do know what I'm talking about, now on to your reply.

A model release is bound by a specific date, but that date doesn't have to be one day or one session, it can last two, three days or even a week, this is/has and always will be done this way, it's the same for film productions, as I tried to point out (although you seem to have trouble understanding simple things) it's an employment contract and therefore can be written in many different ways with varying stipulations, the problem is people like you read a few guidelines given out by stock agencies and get the wrong end of the stick and think that info is law, and what's worse is that as a reviewer on a microstock agency you're actually advising people on these things!!!!

I'm not even going to comment on this : "If a model release was not bound by a specific date then there lies a loop hole where individuals could potentially stalk another individual and photograph them at any time they desire and license those images for commercial use." because apart from it being one of the dumbest thing I've ever seen you write, anybody with even the lowest level of intelligence would realise that stalking someone to take a photo is outside of the contracted terms would be a breach of the contract, the contract is for a specific purpose so once the 'stock' or other reason shoot has finished the contract terminates. Or do you think that can you stalk your models as long as it's only on the calendar day that they sign the release

However like most of your threads you like to make out you're an expert in anything related to the photography industry, so therefore please feel free show me and everyone else which law relates to model releases and states it can only be for one day or session, I'll even make it simple for you, just show me the US law.

I noticed you started as an exclusive reviewer on DT so as someone who is inexperienced I hope you're not relying on a release downloaded from a stock agency as your only contract when shooting models, they are provided to satisfy the agencies needs and most don't cover enough things that should be included (especially the DT one), you should really get your own contract drawn up by a lawyer in your country to supplement the release you upload to agencies, especially if you intend to do this for a living.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #19 on:** February 06, 2010, 16:37 »

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

Well I trained in law and use to work for an firm of solicitors (lawyers) so yes I do know what I'm talking about.
.... I'll even make it simple for you, just show me the US law.

LOL MR's regard privacy rights .. you're not dealing with a single US law .. it's state law that varies from state to state .. HUGE difference. You expect me to write you a book covering all 50

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

nybody with even the lowest level of intelligence would realise that stalking someone to take a photo is outside of the contracted terms would be a breach of the contract, the contract is for a specific purpose so once the 'stock' or other reason shoot has finished the contract terminates.

if you had MRs not controlled by specific dates then yes it would provide a loop hole because it leaves too much room open for too many arguments. What is the purpose of your activity? She said I could photograph her for stock. So why did you photograph her shopping in the mall a week after the original shoot? Because it was for stock covering retail shopping themes. But why was it being done a week later? Because that's when we scheduled the session and her MR is not bound to a specific date. But the defendant claims you were stalking her. No I wasn't and she knew I was photographing her and I have this signed legal document to prove it. Yes you do have a document to prove it .. case closed .. models privacy rights are screwed.

Can you see now where this leave too much room open for legal disputes? It's pretty obvious why multiple MR's for multiple dates are needed. Unless you plan on having your lawyer draw up custom contracts detailing every single specific every single time you shoot a model. Will a photographer make a profit running a business that way? Not a chance .. good reason why it's not done that way huh.

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

I noticed you started as an exclusive reviewer on DT so as someone who is inexperienced ...

Where did that come from

... I started getting paid as a photographer 20 years ago long before microstock or the internet for that matter.

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

you should really get your own contract drawn up by a lawyer in your country to supplement the release you upload to agencies,

I'm not just a micro photographer working out of the house that was all done a long time ago. I don't use microstock agency provided forms.

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

especially if you intend to do this for a living.

I own a full time photography studio and have been a full time photographer for a long time .. or do you mean do microstock as a living? In which case why would I want to do that?

RT · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2010, 08:29 »

Randy I give up as you clearly don't understand a thing about model releases or the law. You also can't read, I asked you to provide me an example of any law that states a model release has to be dated for one day, you won't be able to because there isn't one.

You stated that agencies weren't aware of the 'facts' concerning releases only being valid for one day/sessions, again please provide evidence of these 'facts', each agency make their own rules on what they require on a model release based on what they feel offers themselves and photographers the most protection, and the reason they do this is because of people like you that don't understand the law, these are not facts based on law but based on their own concerns.

MR are not concerned with privacy law, MR forms part of a contract for the commercial usage of images.

I'm also astonished that in you far fetched example you think that is the way law works, thankfully for the rest of the people that live on this planet it doesn't. I'd also like to point out that in your shopping mall scenario the photographer hasn't broken any privacy or other laws concerning the model, millions of editorial photos get licensed each day featuring people for whom no model release is available, it's how those photos are subsequently used that may be of debate, he may have broken some laws concerning the mall owners but that is too complicated to explain to someone like you. And a point to note if the photographer in your scenario had shot her a week after the shoot then the release/contract would be invalid anyway.

I seriously suggest you get in contact with a trained legal professional to explain what a model release is and how it effects you as a photographer, because YOU DO NOT understand it. Now I don't expect you to believe me, and I'm not going to enter into anymore debate with you over the subject because it's a waste of my time explaining it to you.

As for you being in the business for 20 years - you surprise me, but not nearly as much as the fact you are a reviewer judging other peoples work.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2010, 15:21 »

Quote from: RT on February 07, 2010, 08:29

Randy I give up as you clearly don't understand a thing about model releases or the law. You also can't read, I asked you to provide me an example of any law that states a model release has to be dated for one day, you won't be able to because there isn't one.

You stated that agencies weren't aware of the 'facts' concerning releases only being valid for one day/sessions, again please provide evidence of these 'facts', each agency make their own rules on what they require on a model release based on what they feel offers themselves and photographers the most protection, and the reason they do this is because of people like you that don't understand the law, these are not facts based on law but based on their own concerns.

MR are not concerned with privacy law, MR forms part of a contract for the commercial usage of images.

I'm also astonished that in you far fetched example you think that is the way law works, thankfully for the rest of the people that live on this planet it doesn't. I'd also like to point out that in your shopping mall scenario the photographer hasn't broken any privacy or other laws concerning the model, millions of editorial photos get licensed each day featuring people for whom no model release is available, it's how those photos are subsequently used that may be of debate, he may have broken some laws concerning the mall owners but that is too complicated to explain to someone like you. And a point to note if the photographer in your scenario had shot her a week after the shoot then the release/contract would be invalid anyway.

I seriously suggest you get in contact with a trained legal professional to explain what a model release is and how it effects you as a photographer, because YOU DO NOT understand it. Now I don't expect you to believe me, and I'm not going to enter into anymore debate with you over the subject because it's a waste of my time explaining it to you.

As for you being in the business for 20 years - you surprise me, but not nearly as much as the fact you are a reviewer judging other peoples work.

A sphincter says what?

UncleGene · « **Reply #22 on:** February 19, 2010, 20:31 »

I received a new one:

++Releases for photos shot September 1st and later require both a shoot date and a shoot description.

Is this yet something new?
(my releases have signature date that is exactly the shoot date. Even this is not enough now?)

MichaelJay · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2010, 03:26 »

Quote from: UncleGene on February 19, 2010, 20:31

I received a new one:

++Releases for photos shot September 1st and later require both a shoot date and a shoot description.

Is this yet something new?
(my releases have signature date that is exactly the shoot date. Even this is not enough now?)

Do you have an appropriate Shoot Description? It's not really new anymore, it was announce half year ago in this article.

madelaide · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2010, 11:16 »

To tell the truth, regardless of any laws, it doesn't seem ethical not to have a release at every session. I would in fact add contact sheets of the photos under a specific release as part of the MR.

I'm glad I don't shoot people.

UncleGene · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2010, 11:57 »

Oops. For some reason I never noticed second page in IS article.

All the discussions were around the requirement to have separate releases with appropriate _dates_, description got 'lost in translation'

danhowl · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2010, 08:40 »

Quote from: RT on February 06, 2010, 04:50

... it's an employment contract and therefore can be written in many different ways with varying stipulations, the problem is people like you read a few guidelines given out by stock agencies and get the wrong end of the stick and think that info is law, and what's worse is that as a reviewer on a microstock agency you're actually advising people on these things!!!!

A model release is not nor ever has been an Employment Contract. It is astonishing to hear that from anyone who has any experience with law or the photography industry.

FD · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2010, 09:08 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 11, 2010, 08:40

A model release is not nor ever has been an Employment Contract.

Correct. If it would be an employment contract, in a collectivist country like Belgium you would have to follow the vast social security legislation and associated red tape pertaining to hiring employees. One of the smaller consequences is that you as an employer are responsible for all accidents on the way going to and returning from "work". It is just a "release" whereby the model releases the photographer from any liabilities of harming its rights by publishing its likeness, in consideration of something valuable, like copies of the images or 1$. You can make it a contract, but the minimal release is just that... a release.
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

RT · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2010, 09:12 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 11, 2010, 08:40

A model release is not nor ever has been an Employment Contract. It is astonishing to hear that from anyone who has any experience with law or the photography industry.

Wow you better let all the legal minds that compile the law dictionaries know then

Employment is a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee. An employee may be defined as: "A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed." Black's Law Dictionary page 471 (5th ed. 1979).

RT · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2010, 09:38 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 11, 2010, 09:08

Correct. If it would be an employment contract, in a collectivist country like Belgium you would have to follow the vast social security legislation and associated red tape pertaining to hiring employees. One of the smaller consequences is that you as an employer are responsible for all accidents on the way going to and returning from "work".

You might want to check into that statement, I think you'll probably find there's a minimum specified number of hours a week an employee has to work for you before that and other considerations like sick and holiday pay become applicable.

FTR there is no legal definition for 'model release' anywhere in the world, it is a contract between two parties. When you shoot a model they are in your employ and under your direction, if they have an accident it is you they will sue under employment law, if they damage any property belonging to a third party it would be you the employer who would be liable. Like it or not it's an employment contract.

UncleGene · « **Reply #30 on:** March 11, 2010, 10:38 »

RT is absolutely right.

Model release is an employment contract between you and model.
Property release is an employment contract between you and property.
Model release for minor - you'd better never use it in civilized country!

(I was told couple times that even for obvious ones I have to add

)

danhowl · « **Reply #31 on:** March 11, 2010, 17:54 »

Quote from: RT on March 11, 2010, 09:12

Wow you better let all the legal minds that compile the law dictionaries know then

Employment is a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee. An employee may be defined as: "A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed." Black's Law Dictionary page 471 (5th ed. 1979).

Again, that is not, nor has it been a standard that applies to model releases. Just because you empty the bins at a law firm does not make you a legal scholar.

The industry never thought of a release as an employment contract and never would. Model releases are specifically intended to outline the rights being granted to the photographer and his reps for licensing purposes. The subject/model is pre-approving the designated future uses (usually anything and everything in the case of stock) and releasing the licensor and licensee from liability. It is titled very aptly - it is a release of rights and liability, plain and simple.

It is more akin to a licensing or royalty agreement than any kind of employment contract. In fact, several modeling agencies create contract documents that specifically state that models are not employees. Similarly, when I shoot an assignment for a magazine or advertiser, I am not an employee nor do I sell my photography to them. I license the use of my photographic product, usually for a fixed period of time and specified usage.

Seriously, if you do not understand this distinction you might want to reconsider your activities in both law and photography--at the very least refrain from littering discussion forums with misinformation.

RT · « **Reply #32 on:** March 11, 2010, 19:24 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 11, 2010, 17:54

Quote from: RT on March 11, 2010, 09:12
Wow you better let all the legal minds that compile the law dictionaries know then

Employment is a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee. An employee may be defined as: "A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed." Black's Law Dictionary page 471 (5th ed. 1979).

Again, that is not, nor has it been a standard that applies to model releases. Just because you empty the bins at a law firm does not make you a legal scholar.

The industry never thought of a release as an employment contract and never would. Model releases are specifically intended to outline the rights being granted to the photographer and his reps for licensing purposes. The subject/model is pre-approving the designated future uses (usually anything and everything in the case of stock) and releasing the licensor and licensee from liability. It is titled very aptly - it is a release of rights and liability, plain and simple.

It is more akin to a licensing or royalty agreement than any kind of employment contract. In fact, several modeling agencies create contract documents that specifically state that models are not employees. Similarly, when I shoot an assignment for a magazine or advertiser, I am not an employee nor do I sell my photography to them. I license the use of my photographic product, usually for a fixed period of time and specified usage.

Seriously, if you do not understand this distinction you might want to reconsider your activities in both law and photography--at the very least refrain from littering discussion forums with misinformation.

I'll refrain from any personal insults because I don't want to come down to your level.

Apart from the fact your definition of a model release and what it does is wrong, neither you or the industry can change or make legal definitions, and whether you or anyone in the industry who chooses not to accept that a model release forms part of an employment contract does not detract from the fact that it does.

As I tried to explain earlier there is no specific legal definition of a model release, however you seem to know otherwise so please rather than give your opinion and insults share with us your knowledge of the law and prove me wrong, show me where in law a model release is defined.

I'm at a complete loss at to why you have such a problem accepting this, or why you want to make a big issue over it, it's no big deal really 'model release' is just a generic term used for the form.

As for this: "Similarly, when I shoot an assignment for a magazine or advertiser, I am not an employee nor do I sell my photography to them. I license the use of my photographic product, usually for a fixed period of time and specified usage."
Why did you bring that up in the discussion over a model release? Interesting though that even then you don't know what you're doing.

Out of interest I notice your username is new here and you've only made two posts on this subject, you wouldn't happen to be someone already registered here who's trying to pretend to be another person would you, I only ask because you've the same characteristics i.e. lack of knowledge and eagerness to make everyone think you're an experienced photographer despite your own trip ups. I wonder who you could be

Let me know when you've found that law.

danhowl · « **Reply #33 on:** March 11, 2010, 19:39 »

Quote from: RT on March 11, 2010, 19:24

Apart from the fact your definition of a model release and what it does is wrong, neither you or the industry can change or make legal definitions, and whether you or anyone in the industry who chooses not to accept that a model release forms part of an employment contract does not detract from the fact that it does.

Out of interest I notice your username is new here and you've only made two posts on this subject, you wouldn't happen to be someone already registered here who's trying to pretend to be another person would you, I only ask because you've the same characteristics i.e. lack of knowledge and eagerness to make everyone think you're an experienced photographer despite your own trip ups. I wonder who you could be

Let me know when you've found that law.

Actually that language comes from a litigator in the rights & clearances department of one of the largest law firms in the world--not from myself. They confirm what countless people who actually work in this industry practice every day. And yes, I work in the industry as a professional fashion and commercial photographer and work with model releases on a constant basis. And no, I don't need to create a double identity to contrast your intellectual errors. This user name is the same I use on iStock--and after all, isn't this what the thread is all about?

And to remind...you made the statement that model releases are 'employment contracts' an assertion without attribution. I think that the burden is on you to site a case where a MR equals a employment contract, not me.

Your emphatic stance almost make me think that you are trying to bring up the argument wether models are employees. More of an argument can be made in this avenue and debate has been made on either side. But, and this is the important part, a model release is NOT the document that has any bearing on this. If you have an ounce of legal experience you should realize this salient difference.

FD · « **Reply #34 on:** March 12, 2010, 06:38 »

Quote from: RT on March 11, 2010, 09:38

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 11, 2010, 09:08
Correct. If it would be an employment contract, in a collectivist country like Belgium you would have to follow the vast social security legislation and associated red tape pertaining to hiring employees. One of the smaller consequences is that you as an employer are responsible for all accidents on the way going to and returning from "work".
You might want to check into that statement, I think you'll probably find there's a minimum specified number of hours a week an employee has to work for you before that and other considerations like sick and holiday pay become applicable.

Correct, that's what I meant by the social security and social laws' red tape. There is also a minimum wage. Perhaps the UK labour laws are more liberal after Thatcher, but a few continental countries still have very tough employment laws. You certainly don't want to hire a model there as an employee. Laws are so though that for house personnel and job students, they came up with a different arrangement. A (semi-)professional model (in Belgium) is hired, as a far as I know and by the commercial model agencies, as a free-lancer, performer, artist or consultant. The person is not employed but rather her services are paid by an all-inclusive fee, and she has to take care of her own insurance and her own taxes etc... The legal status is totally different and I checked that with a friend that runs a (professional) agency in Antwerp. Of course, laws in other countries may be totally different.

If you want to hire your models under an employer-employee contract, you will have your reasons. Perhaps that you have a much higher volume than a modest microstocker, or perhaps you work very regularly with the same models.

But a simple minimal release as required by the agencies is not a contract in the usual sense, as there are no obligations from both parties mentioned. It is just an authorization from the model, a promise that it will safeguard the photographer and his licensees from liability concerning (commercial) use and alterations, and a recognition that the photographer has the copyright. If it were a contract, the obligations of both parties would be mentioned (like to show up on time and perform as agreed) and each party would have a copy. In principle, a Release just comes in one copy: a simple release/authorization/recognition from the model to the photographer. The photographer promises nothing, not even to use the photos. Protection from slanderous use is not even required (although safer).

Whatever your compensation or contract with the model might be (TFP, free-lance with an independent model-contractor, employee), it is independent from the release itself. It's not the agent's business. I really hate to disagree with you respectfully on this one.

Quote from: RT on March 11, 2010, 09:38

FTR there is no legal definition for 'model release' anywhere in the world, it is a contract between two parties. When you shoot a model they are in your employ and under your direction, if they have an accident it is you they will sue under employment law, if they damage any property belonging to a third party it would be you the employer who would be liable. Like it or not it's an employment contract.

First of all, it's not because it's not a standard thing that a release can't be valid. You can agree/allow anything as long as it's not illegal nor immoral. A Hire to Kill contract can't be used in court if the killer runs away with the money. You can also argue that our case is a cooperation between two artists/independents that work together to produce a result. A good model sometimes takes the lead in free posing or insists on some concepts to be done. In that case the photographer just follows.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess that what you warn for is that any release not intended as an employment contract can and will be deemed like that in a labour court in case an accident happens to the model. I know this happened (in Belgium and in the construction trade) in case of fake-subcontractors deemed employees of the main contractor, that wanted to avoid the high taxes on employment. A key element was the sub-ordinance of the employee vs the independence of a subcontractor. So the verdict will also depend on whether you use a model occasionally or very regularly. A clown with a daily act in a theme park will probably be deemed an employee, while a guest or occasional clown will not.

Thanks for cautioning against this.

FD · « **Reply #35 on:** March 12, 2010, 06:53 »

Quote from: UncleGene on March 11, 2010, 10:38

Model release is an employment contract between you and model.

Not. It is a one-sided obligation of the model not to sue the photographer (release from liability) about violating her rights as to divulging likeness, privacy and portrait right. It is also a recognition of copyright. If it were a contract, obligations of both parties would have to be mentioned, and there would be two copies of it.

Quote from: UncleGene on March 11, 2010, 10:38

Property release is an employment contract between you and property.

Contracts can only be between two persons that have legal status to engage in a contract. A property, thing or animal is not a person and you can't make a contract with it. You also can't have a contract or a release from a minor since he is legally incapable. You can only have it with the parent or legal guardian. A minor's signature is void on the release.

Quote from: UncleGene on March 11, 2010, 10:38

Model release for minor - you'd better never use it in civilized country!

It depends on the country probably, but in Belgium it's all too correct. Using children under 14 as models is prohibited under the child's labor protection act. If the presence of such a child is necessary (for instance in a musical, a play, a performance, a shoot) you will have to ask permission 3 months in advance with the Labor Department. It entails a lot of paper work, specifying exact date/time/place of the shoot, along with a number of rules to follow as to stress level, breaks, working conditions etc... Permission can be granted only a few times per year.
Legally, you can't even shoot your own children commercially under the age of 14. Crazy perhaps, but it's the law.

RT · « **Reply #36 on:** March 12, 2010, 07:34 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 11, 2010, 19:39

Actually that language comes from a litigator in the rights & clearances department of one of the largest law firms in the world--not from myself. They confirm what countless people who actually work in this industry practice every day. And yes, I work in the industry as a professional fashion and commercial photographer and work with model releases on a constant basis. And no, I don't need to create a double identity to contrast your intellectual errors. This user name is the same I use on iStock--and after all, isn't this what the thread is all about?

And to remind...you made the statement that model releases are 'employment contracts' an assertion without attribution. I think that the burden is on you to site a case where a MR equals a employment contract, not me.

Your emphatic stance almost make me think that you are trying to bring up the argument wether models are employees. More of an argument can be made in this avenue and debate has been made on either side. But, and this is the important part, a model release is NOT the document that has any bearing on this. If you have an ounce of legal experience you should realize this salient difference.

I must apologise I had searched for you on google with no avail and because of the lack of knowledge you displayed in your previous posts and the way you versed you replies I came to the conclusion you were someone else who also often gives opinions on things they know nothing about. But I see now that you are indeed a different person and have some nice photos on iStock that would indicate you've been shooting models for a while, which judging by your previous comments surprised me.

Now you say that this statement:

Model releases are specifically intended to outline the rights being granted to the photographer and his reps for licensing purposes. The subject/model is pre-approving the designated future uses (usually anything and everything in the case of stock) and releasing the licensor and licensee from liability. It is titled very aptly - it is a release of rights and liability, plain and simple.

"comes from a litigator in the rights & clearances department of one of the largest law firms in the world" which totally surprises me, I find it hard to believe that a someone in the legal profession would make such a sweeping generalised statement and I'll explain why -
As I mentioned earlier there is no set legal standard for a model release but there are common clauses set in the releases supplied by most agencies, the legal definition of a release is that it's a contract, whilst the releases supplied by most of the sites mention the site by name it is not a legal requirement to do so and all the sites accept a release that does does not name them individually so for now lets deal with this general release, when a model and photographer sign a release it is a contract between the model and the photographer only the contract will most likely then contain a clause that allows the assigning of rights to "his reps" or 'assigns' as most model releases refer to them but those are clauses the "reps" are defined by law as having signed or formed the contract.
The model does not "pre-approve the designated future uses" because the model at the time of release does not generally know what the future uses are and the possible uses are not designated on the release instead there are some suggested possible uses normally including the phrase "amongst others" which is deliberately added exactly because the future uses are not designated.
But the biggest surprise in that statement is "...releasing the licensor and licensee from liability" no it doesn't it only releases them from certain liability claims as listed in the clauses contained in the contract, which is why as I said earlier I would be very surprised that someone in the legal profession would make such a general definition of a release.

Now onto the 'model release' itself, as i stated earlier it is a contract that for simplicity the industry has named as a 'model release' which is fine you can call a contract whatever you want, however whilst this contract does indeed contain release clauses it also contain clauses relating to property, identity, data protection,privacy & payment so unknowingly you see it is so much more than just a "release of rights - plain and simple"

Now onto the employment side of things. Do you understand that when you shoot a model you are employing that person? or am I right in assuming that you're having trouble with understanding that, which I could understand because employment law is one of the most complex things there is. You need to understand that you can employ someone without that person being an 'employee' for the purposes of employment law and employee rights.
The most basic definition of employing someone is when you control the work of another, to put that into the context of shooting models, when you shoot a model it is you the photographer that directs/controls what that model does for the purpose of obtaining the product in this case the photo (I can see you know how to shoot a model and what's involved so I won't go into anymore technicalities) and in some shape or form you then reward that model be it financial, tfp, bananas or whatever and at some point be it written or verbal you have made a contract with the model, in the case of licensing the photos for commercial stock you get the model to sign a legal contract (model release) and that contract relates to the period of time and work the model did (the shoot) which by definition of employment means it would be defined by law as being (or part of) a contract of employment. Now I'm not going to insult you because you clearly understand why you need a release and the whole point of the exercise in getting them to sign one but I still don't understand why you can't accept that it is more than just a simple release.

Law is defined by interpretation or stated cases, there are no stated cases that I'm aware of that legally define a model release, the generic model release issued by most agencies is simplified to cover most worldwide usage but it is not a definitive contract as each country has varying laws and intricacies, my interpretation is that it forms the basis of an employment contract for the reason I've explained above, if you can find any legal definitions to defy that then please do so.

RT · « **Reply #37 on:** March 12, 2010, 07:51 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 12, 2010, 06:53

Not. It is a one-sided obligation of the model not to sue the photographer (release from liability) about violating her rights as to divulging likeness, privacy and portrait right. It is also a recognition of copyright. If it were a contract, obligations of both parties would have to be mentioned, and there would be two copies of it.

Hey FD we must have crossed over posts, were going off topic a bit here but where did you get the information that a contract has to mention obligations of both parties and that there has to be two copies?

A contract can be anything you want, it doesn't have to be written it can be verbal, it doesn't have to mention obligations of both sides and there doesn't have to be two copies either, the things you mention would indeed make the contract more watertight but they're certainly not a must have as far as the law is concerned, same goes for witness signatures.

As for your comment about the model release being a recognition of copyright, not really, copyright is assumed at creation, the standard release most agencies put out have a clause for the recognition of ownership of the content but that's not in relation to copyright. Not to say that you couldn't include a clause if you wanted to but it would be a pointless operation.

danhowl · « **Reply #38 on:** March 12, 2010, 08:03 »

Quote from: RT on March 12, 2010, 07:34

Do you understand that when you shoot a model you are employing that person? or am I right in assuming that you're having trouble with understanding that, which I could understand because employment law is one of the most complex things there is.

I figured that you were trying to fold the issues of modeling and employment into the issue of model releases. I fear that it shows possibly too much experience with the law and not enough experience dealing with models. Models can be 'hired' with or without a release. Model releases exist for many situations where there is no issue of employment. Any attempt to cement those issue together is folly.

This grandstanding has taken this thread too far away from the OP's original question and thrown too much misinformation into the air. I'm sticking to the issues with iS going forward.

RT · « **Reply #39 on:** March 12, 2010, 08:10 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 12, 2010, 08:03

This grandstanding has taken this thread too far away from the OP's original question and thrown too much misinformation into the air. I'm sticking to the issues with iS going forward.

Burying your head in the sand, ignoring and refusing to accept or trying to understand things is probably the best course of action for you to take.

FD · « **Reply #40 on:** March 12, 2010, 08:17 »

Quote from: RT on March 12, 2010, 07:51

Hey FD we must have crossed over posts, were going off topic a bit here but where did you get the information that a contract has to mention obligations of both parties and that there has to be two copies?

From my brother on Yahoo Messenger having his daily lunch chat. He studied law but he is a politician now. So I don't know if he can be trusted.

His message was also that the existence of an employer-employee relation or rather a freelancer/contractor relation between model and photographer would have to be tested in a court. One element is sub-ordinance/authority, second is regularity or frequency. I can image that a judge would rule for freelance/sub-contractor status if you don't own a professional studio and if you infrequently shoot models, and in favor of employee if you are a full-time model photographer with an established studio. But this is just guesswork.

Quote from: RT on March 12, 2010, 07:51

A contract can be anything you want, it doesn't have to be written it can be verbal, it doesn't have to mention obligations of both sides and there doesn't have to be two copies either, the things you mention would indeed make the contract more watertight but they're certainly not a must have as far as the law is concerned, same goes for witness signatures.

Yes but the burden of proof in case of a verbal contract renders it useless in case of a dispute. It's one word against another.

Anyways bringing up the employee point was useful, even if off-topic, since I didn't find it at any forum.

RT · « **Reply #41 on:** March 12, 2010, 09:09 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 12, 2010, 08:17

Quote from: RT on March 12, 2010, 07:51
Hey FD we must have crossed over posts, were going off topic a bit here but where did you get the information that a contract has to mention obligations of both parties and that there has to be two copies?
From my brother on Yahoo Messenger having his daily lunch chat. He studied law but he is a politician now. So I don't know if he can be trusted. His message was also that the existence of an employer-employee relation or rather a freelancer/contractor relation between model and photographer would have to be tested in a court. One element is sub-ordinance/authority, second is regularity or frequency. I can image that a judge would rule for freelance/sub-contractor status if you don't own a professional studio and if you infrequently shoot models, and in favor of employee if you are a full-time model photographer with an established studio. But this is just guesswork.

You can look up the legal definition on google and get loads of results that pretty much tell you what I have. Your brother isn't wrong in what he mentions but FTR as I mentioned earlier you can employ someone without them being classed as an employee, none of the models I shoot would be classed in my country as my employees, they could be classed as freelancers/contractors and yet when they come to do a shoot I have still 'employed' them, same applies to you or anybody else.

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 12, 2010, 08:17

Quote from: RT on March 12, 2010, 07:51
A contract can be anything you want, it doesn't have to be written it can be verbal, it doesn't have to mention obligations of both sides and there doesn't have to be two copies either, the things you mention would indeed make the contract more watertight but they're certainly not a must have as far as the law is concerned, same goes for witness signatures.
Yes but the burden of proof in case of a verbal contract renders it useless in case of a dispute. It's one word against another.

Anyways bringing up the employee point was useful, even if off-topic, since I didn't find it at any forum.

Well generally speaking most contracts are best in writing, but where a verbal contract exists and then there's a dispute which results in a court case the judge would make a decision based on a number of factors including circumstantial evidence, for example if you and I were neighbours and I asked you if I could cut the tree down in your garden that's blocking out my light to which you verbally agreed and then you sat in your garden and watched me do it, only to take me to court the next day, the judge would most probably rule in my favour by taking the circumstantial evidence that if you didn't want me to cut the tree down you'd have taken some form of action instead of sitting there watching whilst I happily chopped away. It may be different in your country, I don't know.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istockphoto rejection because MR date (Read 18176 times)

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors