FREE to use Model releases etc

[Sammi]

Thought this may be benifical to all those questions out there on model releases, quotes, etc, and how to do them.

http://www.reedservices.com/standard.htm

[Kym]

Handy!
Be careful - these are US forms and may need changes for Australian Law.

Also site rule 15:
[15]Requesting/Providing Financial, Medical or Legal Advice on Ausphotography:

Australian Photography is a website with broad topic coverage. However, when it comes to medical, financial and legal advice, it's always recommended to seek advice from a qualified professional, rather than asking about it on Australian Photography. As such, Australian Photography takes no legal responsibility for posts seeking or providing Medical, Financial or Legal advice. Members use any advice provided via Ausphotography at their own risk. The site owner, moderators or members cannot be held liable for any Medical, Financial or Legal advice posted on the site.

[I @ M]

Good find Sammi, thanks for sharing. :th3:

[FeedMeTrance]

thanks sammi, have been searching for these for ages

[SpaceJunk]

thank you sammi, never know when they might come in handy :th3: :th3: :th3:

[Dylfish]

This may be more relevant for australian law

http://www.bookdesign.com.au/pdfs/learn/illustration%20and%20images/0408_model_release/Model%20Release%20Form.pdf

[cupic]

Thanks for the find simplifies a lot


cheers

[Inspired]

This may be a sillt question..but i was just wondering, is a "Model Release" the only paperwork/contract you need to get your clients to sign? Or is there something else i haven't thought of?

Thank you
Nicole
:)

[pixelphotographics]

Thanks!

[Xenedis]

Yes, be aware of the fact that some of these model releases are written by and for Americans.

There's not a lot to a model release, basically, and you can write your own.

What's most important is that you're aware of the fact that you need a signed model release if you wish to depict the subject in advertising or any sort of product/service endorsement.

[vk2gwk]

This may be a sillt question..but i was just wondering, is a "Model Release" the only paperwork/contract you need to get your clients to sign? Or is there something else i haven't thought of?

Thank you
Nicole
:)

I think this is a different matter. A "model release" is the contract with a person that agrees to pose for you - and usually gets paid to do so ("the consideration"). The release makes sure you have the right to publish the photo's taken for commercial purposes.

If you have "clients" posing for you it is usually the client paying you for the privilege. Implied in the contractual relation with the client is their right to have prints of the photo's you take - that is what they are paying for. Also implied is the right that you can hang onto the originals (usually the RAW files) and do not need to hand them over to the client. Another matter is whether you can use the shots for promotional or other purposes. If you want to use them that way you'll have to ask the client for his/hers consent and preferably have him sign something similar as the model release - albeit without the "consideration" clause.

[thinkimages]

thanks for the link,have already printed a few out!

[NickH]

I think this is a different matter. A "model release" is the contract with a person that agrees to pose for you - and usually gets paid to do so ("the consideration"). The release makes sure you have the right to publish the photo's taken for commercial purposes.

If you have "clients" posing for you it is usually the client paying you for the privilege. Implied in the contractual relation with the client is their right to have prints of the photo's you take - that is what they are paying for. Also implied is the right that you can hang onto the originals (usually the RAW files) and do not need to hand them over to the client. Another matter is whether you can use the shots for promotional or other purposes. If you want to use them that way you'll have to ask the client for his/hers consent and preferably have him sign something similar as the model release - albeit without the "consideration" clause.

I think vk has put it perfectly - the release form should be for those people who you have shot that you are planning on selling or using commercially (ie portfolio) whereas people who have paid you to shoot them probably need another document if you wish to use the images for your website or portfolio.

[pitdroidtech]

It may also be worth noting that there is no law against taking a photo of someone in a public place (providing your actions don't amount to harassment). However when you use that image commercially you are making money off of that person's image and they will have have recourse in law to seek compensation. So you should seek signed release forms off any people in images you wish to use commercially, even if they are a passerby not being contracted as a model as such. This is to protect you incase of any future claim against you for the use of the image. I believe this only applies when the person is recognisable, if they are not they generally won't get any joy in court trying to get money out of you.

News photography is generally considered exempt from this provision. So for example, if you photograph people at a news worthy event, and later use that image in the reporting of the event, individuals who appear in those photos will generally have no recourse against the photographer for compensation, nor will they have the right to refuse you the use of the image.

I'm no lawyer, it's probably worth while researching this for yourself as well (I'd say that goes for any advice inthis thread).

[ricktas]

It may also be worth noting that there is no law against taking a photo of someone in a public place (providing your actions don't amount to harassment). However when you use that image commercially you are making money off of that person's image and they will have have recourse in law to seek compensation. So you should seek signed release forms off any people in images you wish to use commercially, even if they are a passerby not being contracted as a model as such. This is to protect you incase of any future claim against you for the use of the image. I believe this only applies when the person is recognisable, if they are not they generally won't get any joy in court trying to get money out of you.

News photography is generally considered exempt from this provision. So for example, if you photograph people at a news worthy event, and later use that image in the reporting of the event, individuals who appear in those photos will generally have no recourse against the photographer for compensation, nor will they have the right to refuse you the use of the image.

I'm no lawyer, it's probably worth while researching this for yourself as well (I'd say that goes for any advice inthis thread).

Except if the person you photograph in a public place is paying you. In Australia 'domestic portraiture' under the copyright act states that the copyright belongs to the person who commissions the shoot, not the photographer. So even if you do shoot them in a public place, you will need some sort of contract in place if you intend to post in on your own website/forum/facebook etc as it could land you in trouble if the person who commissioned the shoot wanted to pursue it, as they own sole copyright over the photo(s).

Re doing research themselves. Site rules state:

[24] Requesting/Providing Financial, Medical or Legal Advice on Ausphotography:

Australian Photography is a website with broad topic coverage. However, when it comes to medical, financial and legal advice, it's always recommended to seek advice from a qualified professional, rather than asking about it on Australian Photography. As such, Australian Photography takes no legal responsibility for posts seeking or providing Medical, Financial or Legal advice. Members use any advice provided via Ausphotography at their own risk. The site owner, moderators or members cannot be held liable for any Medical, Financial or Legal advice posted on the site.

[Longshots]

I know this has been pointed out before. And I dont want to sound like the proverbial grumpy old man - but serious caution is needed here.

I feel its imperative to STRESS and repeat that all of these forms are designed for the United States.

The worse thing about the internet in my very personal view, is how many people ignore countries individual laws and regulations, and still think that this is a "good find".

Sorry it isnt - its about as daft as can be to ignore the Major differences in laws, rules, and regulations.

And a great deal of the following advice is also incorrect, and again mainly relevant to the United States.

I find it confusing that there has been plenty of good advice on where to source the correct information, and yet thats buried away in the discussion sections, and yet this topic is considered to be a resource on AP.

Please people, do your research with it limited to reading about Australian laws - this country at the moment is still not part of the United States, and its seriously dangerous to your business to assume that by following these forms, that you're doing the right thing.

It really isnt hard to seek and gain advice that is not only relevant to Australia, but also particular for the State you're in. State governments generall have small business centres that make this type of advice very easy to gain access to. There are also a wealth of creative industries and associations that will offer to both members and sometimes non members a similar and again relevant to Australian Law level of advice - and dare I say it much better than whats offered in this link.

The issue of model releases, is like so many areas a particular grey and sometimes complex area - heavily discussed in many AP discussions. Most of the time, I've posted links to AUSTRALIAN organisations who can give you the definitive and relevant information.

If you live in the United States - yeah go for it. But if you live in Australia - forget it. I just wish people would remember that www stands for world wide web, and not United States Web. ;);)

[pitdroidtech]

@ricktas, thanks for the important clarification. By taking photos in public I did mean photos of the general public and not someone who you have an arrangement with. You are quite right about domestic portraiture, if someone is paying for something they own the end result.

btw, how does this apply to wedding photography? I've come across people who have had wedding photographers tell them that they can't have access to the original files and that any future reprints have to be through the photographer since he owns the pictures? I always wondered if this is in fact the case, or is it a case of the specific contract that photographer has the wedding couple sign?

[ricktas]

Weddings, under the Copyright Act the photos belong to the couple. Most wedding photographers have a clause in the contract that assign copyright back to them either exclusively or a combined copyright with the couple. Certainly though I reckon there are a lot of people out there who take weddings but do not have a copyright clause in their contracts. legal minefield!

[Perfectoarts]

What about Street Photography and then entering these images in competitions etc.
How do we fare with these?

[ricktas]

What about Street Photography and then entering these images in competitions etc.
How do we fare with these?

Depends on the Competition, read the T@C. Take the Moran Portrait Competition, they state in the rules that you must have a signed model release. But unless you are making money out of the photo by using it in a commercial sense (advertising something) then generally you do not need a model release. But I personally would be careful, say using a street photograph in a competition by a commercial company. Cause often the competition contains a clause giving the organiser the rights to use the winning photo for whatever they want, this could include commercial use, and thus, if a model release is not available, land a few parties on hot water. It is all about common sense in what you do with your photos. Certainly, entering them on AP or other forum competitions is generally not going to be regarding as commercial use.

[Longshots]

Actually thats not entirely true Rick. Regardless of the commercial use, most competition terms and conditions, as a standard, include some provision for a statement or a requirement that states that the entrant has the permissions required to cover their entry.

Most competitions actually insist on a model release - regardless of the issue of "commercial use" etc. If organisers dont have a model release, while they may not in the technical sense need one, they may still be putting themselves at risk of at the very least a takedown notice.

So even the very best competitions (and I check a great number of them) put a standard rule in about model release or permission - for instance

"# You confirm that each person depicted in the Entry has granted permission to be portrayed as shown."

And

"Each entry must not infringe upon the copyrights, trademarks, contract rights, or any other intellectual property rights of any third person or entity, or violate any person's rights of privacy or publicity."

And this is from a good competition.

Its worth noting that competitions produce their own terms and conditions a bit like the way any other business chooses the terms they choose to do their business. So, while terms and conditions cannot ignore state and federal law in Australia - they can certainly be more careful then the actual law or laws offer individuals. Why ? Because as I continue to say, there is no Black and White in Law - its interprative. And its also worth noting that most competitions produce Terms and Conditions that are produced by legal specialists, that are very experienced in the associating areas of law.

The most important clause in a Competition Terms and Conditions, is the "organiser get out clause", which puts the legal and possible resulting financial costs back to the entrant, in the case of the competition organiser being sued for someone's image being used, when they had not signed any waiver/release or provided permission - and this is again a typical one direct from (again a good) competition:

"You agree to fully indemnify ________________ in respect of all royalties, fees and any other monies owing to any person by reason of Your breaching any of the foregoing."

So I wouldnt be too quick to feel safe by assuming that somewhere as unassuming as AP would be safe because there is no money being made out of the use of the photo. I dont mean to sound alarmist, but the clause stipulating that you have permission to upload images - even to Flikr, Facebook etc, you are agreeing that you have permission to upload that image. If you dont, then you are breaching that site's rules and you will be held responsible.

My advice for competitions is read the rules - read them well. And if you think its easier at the time t get someone's permission, or acquire a signed release, please trust me that its much easier to do it then, as opposed to a month, a year, or years down the track, when you want to enter an image into a competition, or post it on your own website, or someone elses.

[ricktas]

But isn't that what I said in my first line? "read the T&C"?

[Longshots]

But isn't that what I said in my first line? "read the T&C"?

? Yes you did. And clearly we both agree on that


But you also said this part -


But unless you are making money out of the photo by using it in a commercial sense (advertising something) then generally you do not need a model release. .


which why I said that part wasnt entirely true.

And while you continued with an explanation of why you said that, I was pointing out that the commercial use defence isnt necessarily an issue, and I was also highlighting that even Flikr and Facebook ask you to obey their terms and conditions which includes permission/releases.

Its also worth highlighting to AP, that if you dont have something similar in your terms and conditions of photo competition entries - for AP's sake - you would be wise to. :)

[Xenedis]

"Each entry must not infringe upon the copyrights, trademarks, contract rights, or any other intellectual property rights of any third person or entity, or violate any person's rights of privacy or publicity."

If we're talking about images of people which are not taken in locations and/or circumstances in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, most of that doesn't apply. Copyright will be the most relevant if the subject is the copyright holder. In the case of a candid image or non-commissioned shoot, it's irrelevant.


And its also worth noting that most competitions produce Terms and Conditions that are produced by legal specialists, that are very experienced in the associating areas of law.

It's worth noting further that competition T&Cs are almost always far more favourable to the competition promoter than the individuals entering, and often give the promoters far more rights than those to which they are entitled.

Sure, if you happen to win a $10,000 cash prize or something else of substantial value, you may not be concerned, but most of us aren't in that position.

So, based on what you've said, and what I've said in reply, I'd agree with your advice below:


My advice for competitions is read the rules - read them well.

[Longshots]

Can I just ask you to have a look at what I said, and continue to say ?

Thanks as PhotoWatchDog I am very aware of how competition organisers want to cover themselves in excess of Australian and International Laws.

So whether you think something is irrelevant or not - it is, I'm afraid very relevant. And I'm afraid that you're missing my (IMHO an important point). If competition want to use a term ( of which I was quoting one, its not an opinion of mine or a fact; but what it is, is a term of condition of entry, and by entering you agree to abide by them), then that is their perogative.

So going back to the original question, its one thing to be arguing about the relevancy of Australian Law, and I suspect, you (Xenedis) are both well informed and well experienced (which I certainly respect and acknowledge), but if we want to agree, that if the competition organiser want a permission agreement or model release, then the entrant, will have to supply one.

Please note that I was responding to this on topic question:


What about Street Photography and then entering these images in competitions etc.
How do we fare with these?


"then entering these images in competitions" .....

So I'm afraid that following the topic and relating the responses back, it is all very relevant. And very important. Perhaps you could note that I was quoting and referring to a typical competition term and conditions.

Also please note that I completely agree with your explanation of what the law is in relation to photography in public. But if a competition want you to comply with their (at times overly excessive - of which I lobby and fight against), then by entering, you AGREE to how they want to do business.

It is far easier to get permission if you think you may need it in the future, at the time of the shoot. If you dont have it, and you do want to enter a competition, of which a release or permission is standard and normal request, then you have little chance of being able to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the competition.

[Xenedis]

Longshots,

We're both pointing out the way it is.

It's just that we're pointing out different aspects of the way it is.

Yes, entering a competition means you agree to the rules the competition organiser specifies.

I'm simply pointing out that the rules are often in favour of the competition organiser.

People should read the terms and conditions and decide whether or not said T&Cs are acceptable.

To me, they're not. I've made my decision and I don't enter those competitions.

[Longshots]

We agree on most parts then Xenedis :) And I have understood that. :th3:

And certainly we're both stressing the same point about reading the terms and conditions before entering competitions.

But where we clearly have a point of difference is that not all competitions are bad. Which includes many excellent ones that are around, including Moran/APPA. Both of those examples require model releases/permission from subjects.

So while we're both point out the way it is, we're disagreeing on what is relevant. It is relevant to ensure that if a competition asks for you to agree to their terms and conditions, and that includes agreeing that you have people's permission, that you have indeed done that. To say yes you have, when you have not, puts the entrant in a difficult situation.


For the benefit of the question about street photography and its relationship to entering competitions in the future; while we clearly both agree, my advice/opinion is that if you can get permission or release at the time, then it simply is much easier to do it then (as most, even the very best ones - including the Moran/APPA - which I'd be quite happy to enter and win either), as opposed to risking breaching the terms and conditions of a competition which is reputable.

So where we differ is that I personally think that some competitions are acceptable, and in that case, regardless of the law, gaining a release or permission (and even verbal - albeit hard to prove - but better than nothing) simply makes sense.

[Perfectoarts]

Well thank you for such an interesting interlude of answers, point of views etc.
Just caught up with it all. OK...I will just have a small pocket model release form in my camera bag. Have these signed where I think fit. May never have to use them, but at least I am sort of covered.
And yes, always read competition rules. Especially the tiny wording :)
Thanks again. Cheers Ingrid.