i just have 2 thoughts, hope some seniors can share some pointers..
1) what rights does the model has over the images, i have seen a lot of samples of MR but mostly is regarding the photographters right of usage over the images, how about the models ?? to what extend can the models make use of the images without the permission of the photographers ?
2) A photogragher have rights over the images even in the context of commercial usage ? is this true ? Does this means the photographer need not seek permission from the model for the images are publish in the magazine for example...if thats the case, how about the model ??
seems to be a lot of grey area, if all the rights goes to the photographers, than the model seems to be on the losing side
the only rights the model has over the images is for their own portfolio usage?? but portfolio also some many grey area, if a agency representing the model, and the agency uses/shows the portfolio to potential clients, can the photographer who has the rights over the images made a compliant?
time and time again we see cases of complaints in the kopitiam of copyright infringements, maybe those with experience with TFCD can share. Thanks
Model releases started exactly because of the gray area, ie who owns the right to use the image and for what purpose.
Thus the model release makes everything clear. You charge me $$$, you give me the right to use the image according to what is stated in the model release (which is typically for everything under the sun), you charge me for what you think the rights are worth, and after I pay you, you have no further rights to claim against me.
Models do not lose because they are supposed to price in everything according to the model release when they quote their fees.
I am prepared to be corrected on this...
But as I understand it (here in Singapore) once you give the model a copy of the photo they can do anything she wants with it, even sell it on and make money from it. If all you have is a verbal exchange between the photographer and the model then basically to quote Samuel Goldwyn, " A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on".
That's why a Model Release often has listed things she is able to do with it. Usually self-promotion, portfolio and even send it to potential clients (as self advertising) as long as the photographers credit or watermark remains intact. Some will allow her to sell it on to potential clients as long as the photographer is credited and then remunerated. How detailed you want to get is often up to, and any legal advice you have?
If you go to Google and search for "Model Release" you will find lots of examples that show the usual rights granted to the photographer and the Model.
Based on the above you have made the claim that: -
Nat Geo requires a release signed by every individual that is recognisable in a photo...even street photography
I suppose Nat Geo has obtained releases from the Afghan Girl, various Presidents of the United States, etc?
My earlier question still remains, whether editorial use (and the more important question perhaps: what constitutes editorial usage) requires a release.
As an aside, if: -
Question: Are life jackets required by law for open water canoeing; and
Answer: Company A mandates the use of life jackets for open water canoeing
I hope you see that the answer doesn't satisfy the question, it only states that Company A makes it compulsory to use life jackets.
Again, under Singapore law:
1. Model has no rights over the images. They do not own copyright. If they want to use the image, they need to obtain permission (or what is legally known as a license to use) from the photographer.
2. Under Singapore law, yes. No permission need be sought from the model. Models are not on the losing side because they were paid for their time. I don't see how anyone being paid loses out.
Models do not even have the right for usage in their portfolio without a license from the photographer. However, most photographers choose not to enforce this although legally speaking they can.
Not really. Catchlights merely said that an underaged model is incapable of entering into a contract or model release (actually for MRs, I don't really know since it is technically not a contract, but lets assume that it is for just this discussion - more research in US laws is required if this point is necessary).
However, that does not mean that you cannot shoot underaged models without their guardian's knowledge. Even if you do, there is legally nothing anyone can do to you about it. Hence do not jump the gun from "no MRs" to "cannot shoot". This is precisely the type of misunderstandings that I'm trying to clarify for everyone.
You maybe able to answer this, and I for one would be interested to know, as I suggested above (so please correct if wrong)
"But as I understand it (here in Singapore) once you give the model a copy of the photo they can do anything she wants with it, even sell it on and make money from it"
Is this true? I know, or rather understand, that the photographer is free to do anything they wish the photos they take? But is the model also so free with the photos given in exchange?
Update: As I was typing this, Vince was already answering it above. (Thanks for the clarification)
Last edited by aselley; 26th November 2008 at 10:55 AM. Reason: Answered above
basically it is a piece of paper to cover your backside
how it is written and the terms and clauses depends on you the photographer
if the model agrees then he/she will sign
if not then no deal