1. Jules B

    Jules B

    Messages:
    70
    Name:
    Julian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Oliver Pohlmann and omens like this.
  2. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    5,362
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks for that. :) A very interesting story, and cautionary tale to read any contracts or release forms. ;)
     
  3. HoppyUK

    HoppyUK

    Messages:
    22,566
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It's kind of funny and scary at the same time :eek:

    It sounds like the photographer was deceitful - and that doesn't do the industry any favours. There are billions of images of people floating around, but very few are accompanied by a watertight Model Release so most stock photo agencies will not take them for fear of possible legal repercussions. Therefore, those images that do have a full release have potentially high commercial value.

    But a Model Release Form is not a legal document and simply states that the model knew of possible uses and was okay with that, in return for a 'consideration' - usually cash, but could be anything such as a free print. In this case though, it seems that the model, and dozens more like her involved in the same shoot, were not made fully aware. If they could collectively persuade a court that they'd all been hoodwinked, the photographer might be in trouble. I think they'd also have to prove some kind of 'loss' though, such as if the images had been used to promote 'adult' services or something else damaging to reputation. Accidentally appearing in a McDonalds ad in China probably doesn't count.

    If the photographer had any sense, they'll have ensured the photo agency didn't sell to anyone dodgy, in which case they're probably in the clear and for the model, staging some kind of legal claim would be a major undertaking with no guarantee of outcome. On the other hand, courts are not immune from some daft rulings and massive compensation awards.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
  4. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    5,362
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    From the different uses the woman's image has been used I don't think the Photographer has been too worried about who the image has been sold to. If this Photographer has the model release it would be interesting to see what it actually said. Just saying that you signed for this and that use may not have actually been the case. I wouldn't take his word for it. ;)
     
  5. LongLensPhotography

    LongLensPhotography

    Messages:
    13,312
    Name:
    Truth Teller
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I guess it just simply said model release for anything and everything and it was simply handed over to anyone who had asked. Hands up if you would simply do the same. I certainly would. They can read.
     
  6. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I also doubt whether the release gave permission for all kinds of use.
    Most photographers at this level are using standard boilerplate releases for TFP work.
    If the release was this wide ranging I’d guess the whole thing was premeditated.

    That says a lot about your character that we had already guessed at. ;)
    The moral thing to do with any contract is to go through it with the client to ensure understanding.
    They should also have been given a copy.
     
    LCPete likes this.
  7. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,402
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    There was something on the radio some time ago... as a test "they" went to a high street somewhere and offered people a free download of something tempting, and all the people had to do was sign this form.... and of course they did sign it and the small print committed them to giving their first born over for sacrifice :D

    The point was that we should read before signing.
     
    AndrewFlannigan likes this.
  8. AndrewFlannigan

    AndrewFlannigan

    Messages:
    138
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I won't sign anything unless I fully understand the deal on offer. Then again I'm old and cynical and have seen time after time how people love to cheat others. Youngsters don't have that experience and are often impatient of being told so what can you do? :(
     
  9. HoppyUK

    HoppyUK

    Messages:
    22,566
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That was my first thought. The way it reads, and we've only heard one side of course, the whole thing looks like a rights grab with the clear intention of getting fully model released images of 100 attractive young people for nothing. If this girl's experience is typical of the other 99, he's probably done very well out of it.
     
  10. LongLensPhotography

    LongLensPhotography

    Messages:
    13,312
    Name:
    Truth Teller
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The girls are almost certainly getting the images "for free" / don't have to pay for out of their pocket / to use and print as they please. That is their part of the bargain. They could as well go and pay for a shoot and have it all for themselves. There is no free lunch. But there is choice, and freedom to choose.
     
  11. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    5,362
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Freedom to choose if you are told all the usage options for the images at the time, and what you may be signing away. And that is if what they signed actually legally covered what he has allowed to be done with and to the images he has sold. It is all very well saying you should read what you sign, but the person with the contract / release should be clear about what the person is signing imho.
     
  12. LongLensPhotography

    LongLensPhotography

    Messages:
    13,312
    Name:
    Truth Teller
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Like I said if you want free lunch you have to pay for it.

    Do we have to start distributing leaflets like the drug companies to say that it may cause nausea, death or alien abduction? They sign a model release, images are likely to go to a stock agency and then you can let your imagination go wild. If you don't like this the deal is not for you. It is self evident what it entails. It says the model is authorising the photographer to reuse and resell images for self promotion and commercial gains. What is not clear about that?!

    When you use google and facebook they sell your data and track you all over the place. But because its "free" you are happy. Well that's potentially far worse.

    Don't expect anyone to be doing free photoshoots with no strings attached unless they are just a complete beginner or else! The results then probably wouldn't warrant any form of payment anyway.
     
  13. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I’m impressed that you appear to be the only person in this thread with an in-depth knowledge of what the release contained.
    Could you possibly share the text with us so that we can also make a value judgement?
     
    redhed17 likes this.
  14. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    5,362
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    So you have seen what they signed then! :eek: Or was it you, seeing as you seem to know the wording? :thinking: :LOL:
     
  15. LongLensPhotography

    LongLensPhotography

    Messages:
    13,312
    Name:
    Truth Teller
    Edit My Images:
    No
    These are standard very simple legal terms. For example google Getty model release form and see for yourself. I'd just use one of these for anything 'generic'.
     
  16. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    5,362
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    But with no knowledge of what the Photographer put in front of these people you are assuming it was at least as comprehensive as a Getty release form, who can afford very expensive Lawyers to draft such things. :thinking: Only the Photographer knows for sure because it seems the woman in the story doesn't have a copy of it. :rolleyes:
     
  17. LongLensPhotography

    LongLensPhotography

    Messages:
    13,312
    Name:
    Truth Teller
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Take it easy. She is alive and well and she has agreed to everything. There is no need for manufactured outrage and snowflake melting due to second thought four years later after the fact.
     
    AndrewFlannigan likes this.
  18. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    5,362
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I don't understand the usage of 'manufactured outrage' or 'snowflake melting', could you elaborate please? :thinking:

    As for outrage, we are discussing the article linked to. I am surprised, not outraged, at how the images have been used, and was interested enough to question the release form the woman, and the other people who were photographed at the same time, signed and whether it allowed for the uses the photographer has sold the images to be used for. I don't know, but you seem 100% certain the release form was all legal and above board. Unless you are the photographer, or have knowledge of this situation that I don't, then you know nothing either and can't be 100% certain about anything. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2018
    Phil V likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice