What happens when a model release isn't signed...

P

philwillmedia

Messages
463
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
But thats in US.

The law is different in the UK. Over her she would have had to bring a defamation or libel claim against the publishers. Had she signed a model release the publishers could of used that as persuasive evidence she knew how the photo would be used (had it been a UK case)
 
Not sure what this story has to do with competition t&c's looks like a simple case of photographer not getting a model release, Getty not checking and the photo being sold?
 
Solicitors start rubbing their hands.
 
A model release is like a contract. When everything goes to plan, there is no need for either. It's only when there is a disagreement that they become useful in clarifying what was agreed.

Neither are a legal requirement.

philwillmedia said:
photo competitions where the T's & C's stipulate that the photographer hand over copyright and all rights to the image to be used in perpetuity by those running the comp.
Click to expand...

I have never seen terms and conditions like that. Usually the organisers just want to be able to use the images to promote the competition.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
A model release is like a contract. When everything goes to plan, there is no need for either. It's only when there is a disagreement that they become useful in clarifying what was agreed.

Neither are a legal requirement.



I have never seen terms and conditions like that. Usually the organisers just want to be able to use the images to promote the competition.


Steve.
Click to expand...

What Steve said, this case has nothing to do with competition T&C's and everything to do with a few people just not doing their job properly.
 
If Facebook et al do actually plan to make use of posted pics without obtaining permission, this may give them pause. Hope she gets $$$.
 
jon ryan said:
If Facebook et al do actually plan to make use of posted pics without obtaining permission.
Click to expand...

They're not planning that. It's just paranoid mythology. Just as it was last time and the time with Instagram.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
They're not planning that. It's just paranoid mythology. Just as it was last time and the time with Instagram.


Steve.
Click to expand...

You know that, I know that, but a lot of people like to believe this stuff. I keep pointing out that 300,000,000 pics are uploaded to FB every day, and the odds of any particular shot being nicked are less than the chances of winning the lottery (even if it happened at all...), but do they listen?

What I mean is, this episode shows why pic eds tend to be careful. Possibly it's significant that the wrongful usage here seems to be at the hands of a public/quasi political organisation rather than a formal publication that understands usage law.
 
On thing that I find interesting is that it shows the effect that the marketing business has had on charity campaigns - when the first port of call for illustrating any specific charity theme is a very unspecific stock image.

"We need to illustrate HIV/AIDS in a positive light."
"That's ok, we've found a photo of a pretty girl."

Illustrated by this story is the dishonesty of the charitable campaign. I know with certain campaigns you have to use actors/models (involving children or violence/abuse), but when the theme is about presenting a positive image for the condition it's a bit ironic when you can't find someone who actually is positive about their health status to represent it.



The comment about competition ts&cs is pointless scaremongering and has no relevance to this story. A relevant point could have been made that photographers should keep very good track on what permissions and releases they do and don't hold for each shot and shoot. The relevance of that varies with legal jurisdiction, but with web facilitated international trade in images being so easy it's always useful to work in accordance with the most restrictive market you think you may want to sell in.
 
boyfalldown said:
But thats in US.

The law is different in the UK. Over her she would have had to bring a defamation or libel claim against the publishers. Had she signed a model release the publishers could of used that as persuasive evidence she knew how the photo would be used (had it been a UK case)
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent and this is the problem with the term 'model release' being used in the UK market.

Even with a standard 'model release' there'd be a very good chance of bringing a case of defamation, unless the original contract was extremely carefully worded.

Classic example of companies trying to advertise on the cheap, and resorting to stock imagery, rather than organise a bespoke photoshoot!
 
Steve Smith said:
I have never seen terms and conditions like that. Usually the organisers just want to be able to use the images to promote the competition...
Click to expand...
Really...?
Ever had a close look at the T's&C's for most competitions.
Here's one running in Australia at the moment.
Point 32 of their TC's & C's

32. When an entrant submits any materials via the Promotion including comments, recordings and images (e.g. photographs) (“Content”), the entrant agrees to assign all of their rights, title and interest (including copyright) in and to their Content to the Promoters. Each entrant also agrees to sign any documentation necessary to affect such an assignment. Each entrant warrants to the Promoters that the Content submitted is an original work of the entrant that does not infringe the rights of any third party. Entrants consent to any use of their Content which may otherwise infringe their moral rights pursuant to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Full T's & C's here https://photocomp.harveynorman.com.au/files/Harvey_Norman_Pets_Terms_and_Conditions_2013.pdf

I've seen plenty in the US & UK that are the same or similar.

a1ex2001 said:
Not sure what this story has to do with competition t&c's...
Click to expand...
Alastair said:
...The comment about competition ts&cs is pointless scaremongering and has no relevance to this story...
Click to expand...
It wasn't scare mongering.
I was simply making the observation and pointing out that even though this was a stock photography image, it's possible for a similar problem to occur after entering a competition.
Once you've signed away the rights to the image - no matter where or you sign it over to, you have no control over what the new owner of that image may do with it, which includes onselling it to anyone they see fit to be used however they see fit.

In other words, you sign away an image and it gets used in a way that you didn't intend and there's nothing you can do about it. Add to that the complications it can cause for the subject of the image and there's plenty of relevance.

and what happened to dad in Canada when he didn't properly read information he was given.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Calgary+feels+cheated+image+Cheerios/8924632/story.html
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Yes, really.

If those terms you posted are real, they're the first I have seen which transfer copyright.

Steve.
Click to expand...

Type the following into Google:

"photo competition copyright grab"
 
Steve Smith said:
...I have never seen terms and conditions like that...
Click to expand...
Here's another one.
This time from global credit card company VISA
20. When an entrant submits/uploads any material in connection with the promotion, including a Photograph (“Content”), the entrant, unless the Promoter advises otherwise, licenses and grants the Promoter, its affiliates and sub-licensees a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, and sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish and display such Content for any purpose in any media, without compensation, restriction on use, attribution or liability. Entrants agree not to assert any moral rights in relation to such use and warrant that they have the full authority to grant these rights.


22. Entrants agree to indemnify the Promoter against all costs and claims by third parties arising from a breach of any warranty provided by them in these Terms and Conditions.
and the full blurb https://www.facebook.com/notes/visa/gosnaphappy-instagram-and-twitter-competition-terms-and-conditions/616709855039708
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
They're not planning that. It's just paranoid mythology. Just as it was last time and the time with Instagram.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I actually got to see the new T&C last week and it does clearly state that by uploading images you grant them a license to use your images royalty free.

No it wasn't from someone posting them, it was a direct email from FB themselves.

I just removed all my images
 
magicaxeman said:
I actually got to see the new T&C last week and it does clearly state that by uploading images you grant them a license to use your images royalty free.

No it wasn't from someone posting them, it was a direct email from FB themselves.

I just removed all my images
Click to expand...

Can you explain how they can show you my images without them having my permission, and without me then billing them for the 'use' of my images should I see fit later?

Because there's a world of difference between me granting FB permission to show my images and me giving them permission to sell them on, which is explained as a different condition. Because in the real world permission to use images and permission to sell them on are 2 very different things. Unfortunately, paranoid photographers can soon be whipped into a frenzy and mistake the 2.

But you might be right to remove your images, after all, of the millions of out of focus, badly composed images uploaded to FB every day, they are waiting for some talented tog to load something worth selling, do you think they have software designed to pick them out, or are there massive processing centre's full of Chinese or Indian 'picture editors' going through them all :wacky:
 
Phil V said:
Can you explain how they can show you my images without them having my permission, and without me then billing them for the 'use' of my images should I see fit later? Because there's a world of difference between me granting FB permission to show my images and me giving them permission to sell them on, which is explained as a different condition. Because in the real world permission to use images and permission to sell them on are 2 very different things. Unfortunately, paranoid photographers can soon be whipped into a frenzy and mistake the 2. But you might be right to remove your images, after all, of the millions of out of focus, badly composed images uploaded to FB every day, they are waiting for some talented tog to load something worth selling, do you think they have software designed to pick them out, or are there massive processing centre's full of Chinese or Indian 'picture editors' going through them all :wacky:
Click to expand...

Stop being so sensible Phil, it's a rights grab I tell you no shut up and panic!
 
The Facebook terms and conditions allow your image to appear in other locations when people 'share' them. Facebook has no interest in anything further than that and the wording is just to cover the use.


Steve.
 
Obviously a model will get upset if unknown to them a billboard with their face saying they have HIV appears, photo release or no photo release. Surely common sense says if you want to create an ad like that you make sure the model is well aware of how it is going to be used.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top