Model release forms

Model release forms

8 posts
28 April 2016
Havocphotography
Photographer
Havocphotogr..
Howdy gang

Trying to clear something up, not for me, for a model friend.

She had a shoot and wants the resulting photos removed from a public website, where the photographer has put them. She didn't sign, and wasn't asked to sign, a release. She was paid.

My understanding is that under UK law, she has no legal right to ask for this unless the photos are "being used in a libelous way" (which they were not).

I'm sure some of you know far better than me, so anyone any thoughts?

Posted 28 April 2016
redbaron
Photographer
redbaron
The UK law is quite clear. The photographer owns the copyright and as long as he is not breaking any other law or breaching the 'Moral Right To Privacy' clause in the copyright act there is not a lot I can see in the way of comeback. I don't think the moral rights will fly here as she has been paid so there must be a presumption of use surely. That would only be relevant if say I used one of my customers Boudoir images on a site without consent.

The only suggestion I have is to approach the photographer in a courteous manner asking if he would be willing to remove the images. Some who just do it for enjoyment may be perfectly happy as long as it is just the one site and not one they are using as a main portfolio. Others may suggest a fee to cover the costs of reshooting the set. Most will probably decline. A few alas will just use it as an excuse to be a real arse for no other reason than they can.

I don't know the photogrpaher so cannot answer that. All I can say is my response would depend heavily on how I was approached. Raging boyfriends or stupid threats would only get my back up for example

Posted 28 April 2016
Bob
Photographer
Bob
Havocphotography

She had a shoot and wants the resulting photos removed from a public website, where the photographer has put them.

That is a bit like taking a cake, eating it, and then wanting to have the original cake back again.

Havocphotography

She didn't sign, and wasn't asked to sign, a release.

A model release is not necessary under UK law, but if she had signed one she would possibly have even less rights over image usage than she does now so not signing one of these contracts could work in her favour.

Havocphotography

She was paid.

She could try returning the fee and offering to compensate the photographer for commercial losses and for loss of the ability to make future use of his work.

Putting the genie back in its bottle is likely to be difficult, though discussing the matter politely and resonably with the photographer might bear fruit.

Bob

Posted 28 April 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
If the website is hosted on a server in the US, then I believe she may have a case to getting them removed.

Posted 28 April 2016
Havocphotography
Photographer
Havocphotogr..
Thanks, you've all pretty summed up what I thought - no real rights BUT yes the website is US hosted.

The guy had actually taken them down, which I don't get but hey.

thanks

Posted 28 April 2016
photomane9
Photographer
photomane9
RedChecker

If the website is hosted on a server in the US, then I believe she may have a case to getting them removed.

I'm guessing that you are referring to the use of a #Notice_from_copyright_owner">DMCA takedown notice. However only a legitimate copyright owner or their authorised agent can issue a takedown notice, so that wouldn't work as the model has no claim to copyright.
It is true that some states in the USA have #United_States">Right of Publicity statutes but again that would not apply in this case because she is neither a citizen of one of those states, nor were the images shot within one of them.

Posted 28 April 2016
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
photomane9

I'm guessing that you are referring to the use of a #Notice_from_copyright_owner" target="_blank">DMCA takedown notice. However only a legitimate copyright owner or their authorised agent can issue a takedown notice, so that wouldn't work as the model has no claim to copyright.
It is true that some states in the USA have #United_States" target="_blank">Right of Publicity statutes but again that would not apply in this case because she is neither a citizen of one of those states, nor were the images shot within one of them.



It was along the lines of Right of Publicity I was thinking.  So why then (2257 aside) are content providers / stock libraries so insistent on model releases being signed if it's a non-issue for UK models?
Posted 29 April 2016
Bob
Photographer
Bob
RedChecker

So why then (2257 aside) are content providers / stock libraries so insistent on model releases being signed if it's a non-issue for UK models?

It's called CYA - Cover Your @rse - and in simple terms means they do not have to bother requesting one for those situations or jurisdictions where a property and/or model release might be a buyer requirement.

Over the last twenty years I have only been requested to provide two Model Releases - once for H&E, which sets this as a standard T&C and brought the matter up prior to the image being taken, and once for a television company which bought two still images to insert in a Reality TV show which they were planning to syndicate overseas.

Yesterday I lodged a batch of requested images with a specialist stock photo library, and fully expect to see one or two of them appearing in the Nationals over the weekend to support a breaking story, but no model release was either requested or necessary (though if the library were to subsequently sell any in which the subject was readily identifiable for commercial advertising use a release might well be requested by the buyer).

Bob
Posted 29 April 2016
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join