The IPOS site merely talks about copyright, which is a separate cause of action from this whole concept on model releases. In the Hanis Hussey case, the person who published the photo didn't have copyright and copyright infringement was one of the causes of action.
Where you own copyright in the work, that demolishes that one ground, and you are probably with the defamation ground, which honestly, isn't very easy to prove.
If asking for a model release will break the project, and if the project is important enough, I'll just forgo it if I were you. The risks and costs of someone trying to sue you in an uncertain case is so high that the risk to you becomes comparatively small. See what happened to that whole ruckus kicked up by that model Niki, only to die a quiet detah.
the model release is just an agreement between the model and the client
on who owns what and who can or cannot do what with the images
it is a piece of paper used just in case you need to cover your behind
you don't need it, but it is always good to have
The original sense of a model release isn't really so much on who owns what and who can or cannot do what with the images. The concept of model releases was a result of specifically enacted legislation in the United States prohibiting commercial usage of photographs unless such a release is obtained. A model release in its original incarnation is intended to be that, not a bilateral agreement.
This has slowly morphed into agreements governing usage and some even call agreements where the Photographer agrees NOT to use for certain purposes, as "model releases", when such labelling is in fact, inaccurate.
EDIT: The best part is that such morphing actually occurs more in countries which do not have laws governing model releases, such as in Singapore.
Last edited by vince123123; 27th September 2007 at 01:41 AM.
The question is, what if your request is refused, do you then take the view that "Oh ****, no release, can't do anything liao", or do you take the view that since the issue of releases is questionable under Singapore law, I'll go ahead anyway?
Also, what if the subject says, "Release? okay, add another X% to the fees", what do you do then?
It is of course easy if your subject is cooperative and gives no further thought to that little scribble. It is a different question altogether if you encounter some resistance, or attempts to capitalise on an additional request. which is what this is all about anyway.
I doubt it's about laziness in asking for that scribble.
I think it may be more apt to replace the bold/underlined words with "then you're in for some action from me". The photographer may or may not be screwed, but you're surely entitled to commence action against him and see how the courts decide.
Just as a photographer may need a lawyer to advise on the issue of model releases (and trust me, I doubt many lawyers really know the answer - and it isn't an issue on Contract Law if no contract was signed), the subject would also require a lawyer to advise on his whether he has a cause of action against the photographer. I guess it works both ways.
Another model release primer
Think of concepts and work towards it.
Many are culled, few are chosen
SPF will not advise you on points of law, and definitely not when it doesn't even involve criminal laws.