My stock agency seems to have become more cautious in the need for model releases with editorial work.
I'm noticing a bit of a shift in people when asked for a release. Where once a high quality print would suffice, I've been asked for fees of hundreds of dollars recently. Everybody thinks they are Naomi Campbell!
As a consequence, I've been shooting people largely in editorial settings. Now it seems the agency is reluctant to accept that without releases.
It has crossed my mind that with all the low budget Internet stock, it may be that many, unfamiliar with things such as model releases, have opened up a spate of litigation with people seeing themselves on the Internet for sale. To that end are traditional agencies becoming more cautious regarding model releases rather than face litigation.
We're "double-releasing" on asignment work now. We insist that the client get a release from subjects/models (copied to our files) and we have them sign our release as well. In our invoice to the client we spell out the limitations on usage as defined by our model release and the resulting restrictions on how they can use the images. I'm not sure how well it covers us because we haven't tested it in court, but our attorney assures us that the fact that they signed and paid the invoice with those terms included should shift attention to them in case of misuse.
We go one step further in portraits used for advertizing or display in our studio. We ask clients if they are willing to sign a release as a matter of course, but then we also call to give them a heads up that their image is going to appear in print. It's simple courtesy on the surface, but it gives them one last chance to raise the flag if they decide they would rather not appear in our ads. No one has backed out when we make the call, and in fact they feel complimented that we used their image. No new attorneys in town for a while, so that could all change if we do get a new one.
Stock is another matter altogether. I'm more and more reluctant to license photos to companies I don't know. We spell out limitations on use in our invoices the same as we do for assignment work, so we have an extra measure of coverage should they misuse the image, based upon the terms of our model releases.
In the end nothing can prevent you from being sued, but covering yourself with paper will strengthen your hand should it happen. Simple courtesy in our small market seems to go a long ways, too.
Posted by Martin Beebee on July 26, 2006 at 11:08 PM
The worry over model releases (and my inherent shyness) is one of the reasons I mostly shoot either silhouettes or the backs of people I don't know. Okay, maybe that's the chicken way out, and eliminates some saleable photos, but I haven't had time to hit the "self-help" books lately. . . .
Discussion
2 repliesI'm noticing a bit of a shift in people when asked for a release. Where once a high quality print would suffice, I've been asked for fees of hundreds of dollars recently. Everybody thinks they are Naomi Campbell!
As a consequence, I've been shooting people largely in editorial settings. Now it seems the agency is reluctant to accept that without releases.
It has crossed my mind that with all the low budget Internet stock, it may be that many, unfamiliar with things such as model releases, have opened up a spate of litigation with people seeing themselves on the Internet for sale. To that end are traditional agencies becoming more cautious regarding model releases rather than face litigation.
Curious as to others experience.
Cheers,
Dave
We're "double-releasing" on asignment work now. We insist that the client get a release from subjects/models (copied to our files) and we have them sign our release as well. In our invoice to the client we spell out the limitations on usage as defined by our model release and the resulting restrictions on how they can use the images. I'm not sure how well it covers us because we haven't tested it in court, but our attorney assures us that the fact that they signed and paid the invoice with those terms included should shift attention to them in case of misuse.
We go one step further in portraits used for advertizing or display in our studio. We ask clients if they are willing to sign a release as a matter of course, but then we also call to give them a heads up that their image is going to appear in print. It's simple courtesy on the surface, but it gives them one last chance to raise the flag if they decide they would rather not appear in our ads. No one has backed out when we make the call, and in fact they feel complimented that we used their image. No new attorneys in town for a while, so that could all change if we do get a new one.
Stock is another matter altogether. I'm more and more reluctant to license photos to companies I don't know. We spell out limitations on use in our invoices the same as we do for assignment work, so we have an extra measure of coverage should they misuse the image, based upon the terms of our model releases.
In the end nothing can prevent you from being sued, but covering yourself with paper will strengthen your hand should it happen. Simple courtesy in our small market seems to go a long ways, too.