Model or Personal Property Release for Pets?

[Rick Anderson]

I primarily do pet photography and was wondering which release form I should use. California considers pets personal property but recognizes the pet's ability to earn an income.

also, are there any links to generic release forms?

[musicmaster]

lol. A dogprint as a signature.

Sorry, I know that wasnt helpful.

[amfoto1]

Hi Rick,

I'd only worry about it with pure breds and competitive animals. Simple household pets aren't really a concern.

However, just to be safe, use a property release signed by the pet's owner.

People are often sort of flattered that you are asking them to sign a release, I find.

Note that for any release to be valid (it's a contract) there must be "valuable consideration" given in exchange. $1 or $1000s per hour, a pack of chewing gum or a free 8x10. Something.

[MrsKitty]

I had no idea if I did it the right way or not (maybe I didn't since it isn't right for CA according to amfoto) but I have had the dog owner to sign a model release for before.

I was unsure if the dogs are considered models or property, so I decided to treat the dog as a minor and listed them by their registered name (and nickname, if applicable).

[breal101]

For legal purposes I believe that pets are considered property. My dog thinks otherwise, he thinks that the house is his and I am his property. Read that as slave, personal chef and doorman.

[sfaust]

I also believe a property release is the correct release to use, and the owner of the property is the one that needs to sign it.

[tim]

Just to be safe have both the animal and the owner sign the release. A paw print should be acceptable, the trouble will be proving the animal understood what it was signing if you're taken to court. You may want to retain scooby doo or dr dolittle as a translator.

[amfoto1]

I suspect a model release with a pet listed as a "minor" wouldn't hold up in court!

Use a property release! Pets are property... even if they think and act otherwise.