Looking for a generic model release

[PaintballPhotography.com]

I am looking for a generic model release both for adults and minors. Anyone have any suggestions when I should look?

Thanks

[Patrick]

Search on here and Google for "model release" or "model agreement".

You'll get more than enough info to make your own or use one you find.

[Mark1]

I second the google idea. I downloaded several that way when I first needed one. several sites have them up for you to take and edit your name into.

[PhotosGuy]

CA, being on the left coast, may have legal technicalities that void this, so it's always a good idea to have it reviewed by a lawyer. ;) And it's usually a good idea to call it a "Agreement"

Model Release - Longwatcher
http://www.longwatcher.com/model_release_standard.htm

[3Honu]

Gary, I'll sign anything you want.....just don't make me do that "thing" with paintballs again.

[Alleh]

contributors.gettyimages.com They should have one somewhere on there site. I just downloaded their updated version today.

[ChrisRabior]

Alleh, I totally forgot about those.. thanks for the reminder =)

[antricacy]

contributors.gettyimages.com They should have one somewhere on there site. I just downloaded their updated version today.

What does this line mean? From Getty Images' model release:

"I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and
perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of
conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest
to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York,
Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand."

[Mark1]

"I agree that this release is irrevocable, -- They cant change thier mind

worldwide -- self explanitory

and perpetual, forever, no time limit


and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of
conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest
to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York,
Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand."

If in the US it will fall under the laws of New York state.
if in Canada it will fall under the laws of the Province of Alberta
Or if in the rest of the world. The laws of England, Australia and New Zealand... which ever is closer to where the model is. Such as If you shot on safari in Kenya and had a model sign but wants to contest. It will fall under the jusisdiction of the nearest country on the list.

[antricacy]

and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of
conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest
to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York,
Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand."

If in the US it will fall under the laws of New York state.
if in Canada it will fall under the laws of the Province of Alberta
Or if in the rest of the world. The laws of England, Australia and New Zealand... which ever is closer to where the model is. Such as If you shot on safari in Kenya and had a model sign but wants to contest. It will fall under the jusisdiction of the nearest country on the list.

Thanks for clearing that part up. I was confused by the phrasing "given opposite." I wonder why the lawyers chose those specific states/countries? Why not California instead of New York law?

[T2000]

In the US there are basically three choices attorneys have when it comes to picking the law that will govern an agreement: (1) the home state of the parties. Presumably their lawyers are familiar with it and therefore comfortable that they can achieve what they want when they draft. (2) Delaware, when dealing with major entity level transactions because so many companies (especially public) are incorporated there and (3) NY. Arguably even more so than Delaware, NY has a large and mature body of corporate law. As a consequence most attorneys can get comfortable that there isn't anything funky to worry about and that the agreement they write should generally be respected.

So while Getty is a DE company with its principal place of business in Seattle, NY is a logical choice for their model release.



The "law of conflicts" is that body of law that determines what law gets applied when multiple jurisdictions are involved. You want to exclude it. If you want a judge to interpret your agreement using NY law the last thing you want is for her to rule that NY "conflicts of law" provide that some other law should govern. So the language says to a judge, we want you to apply NY law but not the part of NY law that might tell you to use another body of law. Get it ?

[T2000]

PS, this is funny

"You'll get more than enough info to make your own or use one you find."

Let's put it this way. If you're competent to figure out what's good and what's crap you could write your own. If you're not then it's not a very good suggestion.

[antricacy]

In the US there are basically three choices attorneys have when it comes to picking the law that will govern an agreement: (1) the home state of the parties. Presumably their lawyers are familiar with it and therefore comfortable that they can achieve what they want when they draft. (2) Delaware, when dealing with major entity level transactions because so many companies (especially public) are incorporated there and (3) NY. Arguably even more so than Delaware, NY has a large and mature body of corporate law. As a consequence most attorneys can get comfortable that there isn't anything funky to worry about and that the agreement they write should generally be respected.

So while Getty is a DE company with its principal place of business in Seattle, NY is a logical choice for their model release.



The "law of conflicts" is that body of law that determines what law gets applied when multiple jurisdictions are involved. You want to exclude it. If you want a judge to interpret your agreement using NY law the last thing you want is for her to rule that NY "conflicts of law" provide that some other law should govern. So the language says to a judge, we want you to apply NY law but not the part of NY law that might tell you to use another body of law. Get it ?

Fantastic explanation, thanks!