portofio is a form of self-promotion am i right, but to what extend ? A agency representing the model can they use it ? If they already have the right of using the images as portfolio, still need to to seek permission from the photographer ? Then what self-promotion really means
im getting more confused
As with any contract, there is nothing to stop anyone from saying anything. If the "victim" is sufficiently cheesed off, he can start an action in court - and then it would be up to the other party to prove that such an agreement was made. This is no different from any contractual case or any "he says she says" case.
Just a side note here that my own personal stance when providing such nuggets of legal discussion is that I'm necessarily inclined towards the photographer's point of view, simply because this is a photography forum. I will not provide legal ammunition to others to bash photographers but I will provide legal ammunition to photographers to bash others.
Hence, if those "others" are seeking legal ammunition to bash photographers, maybe you should engage your own legal counsel. I will not be bashing photographers in a photography forum like ClubSnap as I think it is not right to, and it is out of respect to the forum administrators/owners who set up this place for us photographers.
There's no need to be confused. The MR is to clarify what you can do.
As mentioned, if you are paid, it tells you what you are allowing the photos to be used for.
If it's TFCD, the smart models would typically limit what the photos can be used for. So they would not allow the photos to be used for advertising, sold as stock, etc. Typically one would only allow the photos to be used for the photographer's own portfolio, eg on his website or in his studio.
The exact limitations of use depend on the language of course. But a smart model would not want her services, rendered for free, to be used without restriction by the photog.
The smart photog would also not give away high res pix to the model, thus limiting her ability to use the pix for commercial purposes.
Last edited by waileong; 26th November 2008 at 01:00 PM.
i have some questions regarding the MR.
If i understand correctly, Singapore laws does not require a Model Release to be signed by the model. But let's say i want to have a model release to cover my back(so to say)
1) What's the legal age for a model to sign the MR so as to be recognised under SG's law as legally binding?
2) If the model is below the legal age, then i should approach the parents instead?
3) If on the day of the shoot, the model is below the legal age, but on the day the MR is signed, she has already passed the legal age, then do i still need the parents to sign instead?
1) In order to be binding, the contract should be signed with a person attaining the age of majority. In Singapore, as far as I'm aware, case law is unclear what constitutes majority, whether 18 or 21. If someone knows of a case that decides this affirmitively, do let me know.
2) Where the model is below the age of majority, you sign the contract with the parents. The usual way to impose an obligation on a minor is to still sign with the minor, but with the parents also signing an indemnity clause. In this case however, it is a release, so perhaps it can be a three party agreement since there isn't really anything to indemnify. Perhaps the parents can indemnify you if the model breaks the agreement not to sue you for use. Not quite sure, better to consult a lawyer. Already MR has so much debate, now we are talking about MR with a minor. Perhaps you can research how they do it in the US.
3) It doesn't matter what the day of the shoot is, you count from the date the MR is signed.
It's also the reason DBS is active refunding the obvious cases of mis-selling of the minibonds, and getting the people to sign a waiver/agreement that they cannot ever follow up on the issue again legally... No?
If you get them to sign the forms without telling them what it is for, what they would sign away in the MR..
SPH ever quietly settled a case out of court with a model before, because she wanted to sue them. They paid her to do a shoot with the understanding that it was for something, but when they started using her photos for advertisement purposes, she countered that it was not correct.
In the same case, I'm not sure if it applies, do correct me if i'm wrong, but if the photographer tells the model that it's just to protect the model and himself, but subsequently sells her photos, he's still open to suits that he misrepresented the extent of the contract.
That's a different issue, namely the specific purpose exception in copyright when a specific purpose is communicated. Other than more obvious breach of contract (if it was even discussed and agreed as a term). That said, its probably a commercial decision rather than a legal decision because the remedy available is to simply restrain the use other than for the specific purpose communicated. There is no remedy for damages that I'm aware of so I'm not sure what damages the model can claim other than to stop the continued use. It sounds more like a settle to keep it hush hush rather than anything else. The model will face a big uphill battle and SPH can easily outlast the legal proceedings. Hence my conclusion that its a commercial decision. Anyway, such settlements are usually of a confidential nature so I think caution should be exercised before discussing it in the open.
In the MR case, you don't have to tell the model anything. If it's such an arm's length transaction and you didn't misrepresent anything to induce her to enter into the MR (misrepresentation of fact, not of law), it is up to the model to get her own legal advice.
This is the same for any contract two parties enter into. Party A does not have any legal obligation to explain to Party B what the contract is all about. Both parties seek their own legal advice if they want to.
Besides, a model release in its true form does not protect the model, not in any way and not by what it is intended to be used for. Singaporeans have warped the concept of model releases into so many different creatures that I don't even want to bother untangling it for them other than to say that it is not required nor recognised under SG Law.
Even in the US, there is a reason why its called a "release"; you release the other party from his usual legal obligations. In Singapore law parlance, the equivalent is a legal waiver. Hence if you release someone else from his obligations, you are protecting him, not yourself. You are giving up your rights.
If you want a MR, and you must say something, I don't see what's wrong with saying "I need this so I can sell your photos". Such language is already present in the document she is signing anyway.
Last edited by vince123123; 9th January 2009 at 01:55 AM.