model release---yes again ! please read on

model release---yes again ! please read on

15 posts
15 June 2016
photostore
Photographer
photostore
So,  i have spoken with another photographer who has also had this issue and i know it is regularly brought up on forums, and like others i have been burned before with "Removal requests" at a later date from models despite a signed release and having done it for the sake of peace and quiet i want some opinions from photographers and especially models on a thought i had

to give some background i have had a model in the past state that "even though she signed a release she would deny it was her signature anyway if i did'nt remove her images 
so as a solution what do you think about having a model state on video (most cameras are video equiped these days) at the start of the shoot/ memory card that she has read the terms on the release understands and accepts them, then video them signing the release at the time and also video the release as well ?

So thoughts from both sides, if i was a pro model i don't think i'd have any issue with this but thats just my opinion,  i rarely shoot these days but that makes it worse when i get asked to remove any images
Posted 15 June 2016
wiltshiretog
Photographer
wiltshiretog
Ask them to bring two forms of Id to the shoot,one that will verify her signature,and photograph that document,if you sign a model release with me,and i post images,then you ask me to remove,it ain't going to happen,end of

Posted 15 June 2016
photostore
Photographer
photostore
wiltshiretog

Ask them to bring two forms of Id to the shoot,one that will verify her signature,and photograph that document,if you sign a model release with me,and i post images,then you ask me to remove,it ain't going to happen,end of


yep, good shout.

Posted 15 June 2016
AegeanSoft
Photographer
AegeanSoft
wiltshiretog
Ask them to bring two forms of Id to the shoot,one that will verify her signature,and photograph that document,if you sign a model release with me,and i post images,then you ask me to remove,it ain't going to happen,end of
Definitely. I always have a photo of the model holding her photo-ID by her face to prove she was who she says she was. If I have paid for a model then I will not remove her images without being recompensed for the cost of the shoot and return of her fees. Photography is part of my business and as such I expect models to behave in a businesslike manner.
Posted 17 June 2016
click_gotcha
Photographer
click_gotcha
Model releases are not a legal requirement in the UK, unless you are using the images to defame the model she/he has no grounds for any legal recourse.

Posted 18 June 2016
Millzy82
Photographer
Millzy82
click_gotcha
Model releases are not a legal requirement in the UK, unless you are using the images to defame the model she/he has no grounds for any legal recourse.
Indeed they're not a requirement but they're a good fallback in the event of a dispute. There doesn't need to be malicious intent involved with the images being published for a model release to be handy. If a model comes back to a photographer asking/demanding that the images be taken down, the photographer can cite the release showing that the model waived her right to make such a request so the model's case is void. With any content I have any intention of publishing, I usually tell the model in advance of the shoot that I'll ask for them to read and sign a model release and provide government issued ID.
Posted 19 June 2016
AndyGStudios
Photographer
AndyGStudios
Yup, shot of the model holding her age card and signed release is the way forward. They do video interviews at the end of stuff like 'kink university' or 'sexually broken' - so that's iron clad, just depends how scared you are or how stringent you want to be about it I guess; it's just as valid, bit extreme for modest photography, but yes, just as valid. Like you, i've been burned, that's when I learned to do the above. I have Amazing shots just sat on my hard drive gathering dust that probably won't see the light of day till I die - after that, the angry boyfriend or hubby can't 'kill me' anyway. They can either ensure the images are deleted by buying the copyrights and returning the fees, or they can just do what in my mind is a temporary takedown request... there's no guarantee the images can be hacked out of your pc or appear eventually if you hold on to them. What if is a big thing on the net, what if 50 people downloaded the image? then post it elsewhere - it's out, the end all they are doing is damage control. What if someone uses it on say, a book cover ! and they see it before you do - yes you could sue, and then they will beg you to - will you wipe your hands of it? or sue anyway and choose not to share... they asked you to ignore the 'contract / agreement'. What if it's been added to one of those web archiving sites? Takedowns achieve very little in the long run. Only way to be sure... don't take off your clothes in front of a camera in the first place.
Posted 19 June 2016
click_gotcha
Photographer
click_gotcha
They're handy to have but have no legal status in the UK.   A model can't just demand you take her photos down, they are your images, not the model's.

Posted 19 June 2016
AndyGStudios
Photographer
AndyGStudios
Also worth noting, a 'real' model (and as long as the pictures aren't frankly shiiiiiit)... will NEVER ask for a takedown. Free-loaders who SAY they 'want' to be a model, and do one shoot tf (new profile with 5 selfies they don't care about), probably will - especially if the goal is to take the photographer for a ride instead of actually paying for their time and skill to achieve the same images, it's a classic scam.

Posted 19 June 2016
ziggypot
Photographer
ziggypot
click_gotcha

Model releases are not a legal requirement in the UK, unless you are using the images to defame the model she/he has no grounds for any legal recourse.


I aggree

Posted 19 June 2016
As an ex model heres my take on it. Some models aren't happy to supply ID on shoots -unless its just to double check their age. I've never been asked for ID and I wouldn't have agreed to be photographed with it even if I did (because thats kind of what they do in adult shoots when its being published in the states). There are a few reason models would rather not show their ID. Our real names - I don't mind people calling me Christine, but I don't want my full birth name tagged in images or on publications. Years ago a photographer got published in a magazine and they used my real name - So I presume he gave them it, I only discovered it long after he stopped doing photography and I have no way of contacting him. It's floating about on the internet and its not an un-classy publication but I am nude in the image. Who knows what my future might hold, I may want to adopt and even the most entitled photographer could have a tiny bit of sympathy if an 8+ year old image stopped or at least hindered me from starting a family because of how he freely gave out my name to be published. If he was still around and I asked him to have the image removed from the internet then I'm sure he would because he was pretty reasonable and it was his mistake for using my birth name and not my modelling name anyway. When it comes to address I prefer not giving it out to just anybody, I've heard so many horrible stories about photographers texting models saying "hey I'm working in X today and i just so happen to be across the road from your house want me to pop in for a coffee?!!" after one shoot and her not giving him her address he memorised it and just so happened to be across the road that day. Likely story, or theres the ones who find out where a model works and stays and bombards her with gifts. It's not cool . I think in my last 5 years I only signed a handful of releases, people don't use them much at all apart from old schoolers. My take on it is - (now i do photography) if a model I took pictures of asked me politely to remove an image then its gone no matter what the basis. I've not shot in a while though so they would be 3+ years old anyway so out of date and my photography has improved from then. If I was into model photography then it would give me a kick up the arse to shoot more/better stuff. I think there should be a time limit - if a model asks politely 5 years after the shoot that she would like the image removed or at least have herself untagged then the photographer should respect that and not be stubborn about it. Yes you paid but 5 years use out of it is pretty good going better than most electrical appliances or even cars these days so just be cool.
Posted 20 June 2016
somph
Photographer
somph
I did a group shoot once with an attractive young woman (in her 20's before I get slated). She asked that I take down the images, as she wanted to start a course in child welfare of some sort. There were only about 6 images that had put up. I do know that one of the other photographers refused to remove the images, as we had all paid for her time. My images are not easily visible on the web (archives must exist), but his images, taken at almost exactly the same time and almost exactly the same poses, are still visible. I've complied but her face and body are still out there...

Posted 20 June 2016
Millzy82
Photographer
Millzy82
Chrissie_Red
As an ex model heres my take on it. Some models aren't happy to supply ID on shoots -unless its just to double check their age. I've never been asked for ID and I wouldn't have agreed to be photographed with it even if I did (because thats kind of what they do in adult shoots when its being published in the states). There are a few reason models would rather not show their ID. Our real names - I don't mind people calling me Christine, but I don't want my full birth name tagged in images or on publications. Years ago a photographer got published in a magazine and they used my real name - So I presume he gave them it, I only discovered it long after he stopped doing photography and I have no way of contacting him. It's floating about on the internet and its not an un-classy publication but I am nude in the image. Who knows what my future might hold, I may want to adopt and even the most entitled photographer could have a tiny bit of sympathy if an 8+ year old image stopped or at least hindered me from starting a family because of how he freely gave out my name to be published. If he was still around and I asked him to have the image removed from the internet then I'm sure he would because he was pretty reasonable and it was his mistake for using my birth name and not my modelling name anyway. When it comes to address I prefer not giving it out to just anybody, I've heard so many horrible stories about photographers texting models saying "hey I'm working in X today and i just so happen to be across the road from your house want me to pop in for a coffee?!!" after one shoot and her not giving him her address he memorised it and just so happened to be across the road that day. Likely story, or theres the ones who find out where a model works and stays and bombards her with gifts. It's not cool .
I genuinely understand your reasons but I ask for proof of ID for both proof of age and so that if I publish, the model has not given a false name thus their consent to the publication is invalid. I write my releases so the model understands I agree not to publish under their legal name. As long as there are people involved in something, there will usually be some disagreement hence why I usually seek a release in the hope of resolving a dispute before it can turn ugly.
Chrissie_Red
My take on it is - (now i do photography) if a model I took pictures of asked me politely to remove an image then its gone no matter what the basis. I've not shot in a while though so they would be 3+ years old anyway so out of date and my photography has improved from then. If I was into model photography then it would give me a kick up the arse to shoot more/better stuff. I think there should be a time limit - if a model asks politely 5 years after the shoot that she would like the image removed or at least have herself untagged then the photographer should respect that and not be stubborn about it. Yes you paid but 5 years use out of it is pretty good going better than most electrical appliances or even cars these days so just be cool.
That's a nice, progressive analogy comparing models to objects.... By that rationale, would you said you got "good going" for 5 years on a brand new house that you paid for? When buying a car, you buy it knowing you will have to maintain it for it to last due to wear and tear at best. Similarly when you buy electrical appliances, you buy them knowing they will either fail at some point and the cost of repair exceeds the value of the appliance due to depreciation. When you take a photo, you don't really expect it to degrade or break down unless your storage medium goes kaput (shame on you for not having a backup). I think your comparison is deeply flawed at best. Untagging is a perfectly reasonable request but if a model wants to have a set time limit on publication after the shoot, she should discuss that with the photographer beforehand - pre-shoot comms are something I pride myself on to minimise misunderstanding or disputes down the road. If an actor/actress stars in a film that was critically panned (or their performance), should the film studio/distributor "just be cool" if the said actor/actress asked them to cease publishing the film after 5 years when the actor has aged and possibly done better for themselves? I do agree that it's good for a photographer to shoot more/better content but if they're particularly proud of work they did X number of years ago, why should they remove it?
Posted 22 June 2016
AndyGStudios
Photographer
AndyGStudios
Competent and fair points, people do need to be mindful though, especially doing what we do, that there is an element of trust, a duty of care, and several laws of protection, involved - not least the data protection act.

Participants who know their stuff, are aware of pitfalls, will account for it in any conversation, agreement, and release.

Where neither party wants to use their real name or contact details, how is any contract going to be binding when an issue occurs or demands are made on takedowns etc... food for thought.

Posted 23 June 2016
arkady001
Photographer
arkady001
AndyGStudios

Competent and fair points, people do need to be mindful though, especially doing what we do, that there is an element of trust, a duty of care, and several laws of protection, involved - not least the data protection act. Participants who know their stuff, are aware of pitfalls, will account for it in any conversation, agreement, and release. Where neither party wants to use their real name or contact details, how is any contract going to be binding when an issue occurs or demands are made on takedowns etc... food for thought.


I think the point is that any contract isn't going to be legally binding (assuming it was ever going to be) if the signatories didn't use thier legal names... When I do use a Model Release/Usage Agreement, the model has to use her real name, even though I agree to only use her stage name when tagging or for online references.

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