Should I sign the photography release form?

[noxcuses1]

My son has a field trip coming up and there's a photography release form attached to the permission slip.
I really don't want to sign it because the photographer and company will be able to use any photographs if him however they see fit, i.e. advertising, print, brochures, and everything else, for their profit.

I'd like to hear from some of the other parents out there. What would you do if you were in this situation? Would you sign?

This is the first time I've been on the "other side" like this.

[DunnoWhen]

If the field trip is not dependant upon signing the release then, no, I would not sign it.

[spkerer]

Perhaps a few more details? Is the field trip at a distance where it may be practical for you to transport yourself there on your own and not officially be part of the field trip - especially if the destination is somewhere the organization running the field trip doesn't have exclusive control? As asked, what's the downside of not signing the release?

If this is a trip to some tightly controlled environment where you can't get in without being part of the organized trip, and you can't be part of the organized trip without signing the release, then maybe this is a time to leave the camera behind and just enjoy the trip with your son.

[noxcuses1]

As asked, what's the downside of not signing the release?

I don't want my son's picture on a brochure or some poster somewhere.

It's just an elementary grade field trip. It's a conservation organization which focuses on birds and wildlife.


then maybe this is a time to leave the camera behind and just enjoy the trip with your son.
The release is from the organization and the organization's photographer, not me.


How do I know what the photographer is going to use the photos for? I don't want pics of my kid holding an animal, and seeing it on some stock photography site.

[SoaringUSAEagle]

Okay, well this is easy.. DON'T SIGN THE FORM.

[spkerer]

I don't want my son's picture on a brochure or some poster somewhere. It's just an elementary grade field trip. It's a conservation organization which focuses on birds and wildlife. The release is from the organization and the organization's photographer, not me. How do I know what the photographer is going to use the photos for? I don't want pics of my kid holding an animal, and seeing it on some stock photography site.

My bad. I completely misunderstood what the release was for. I thought it was saying any pictures you took they would own.

[bwolford]

Will your child be allowed to go on the trip if you don't sign? Thinking as a parent, I could care less about photos at a mass trip like this popping up somewhere. And if multiple classes are going at the same time, from many schools (highly likely) what makes you think your kid will be the start making the brochure.

For me it would boil down to whether signature / non signature made a difference about attendance. If he couldn't go without signature, you could always not sign, complain to the principal/school board, see the trip canceled and make a lot of new friends because you were the only one who spoke up. Also, many times, admittance tickets to some of these venues have standard disclaimers that admittance = consent to be photographed and since you aren't seeing the actual ticket this could be their way of letting you know about the policy.

What's the real worry about your kid making it to a brochure? They aren't going to name him or his address... Is it financial? They don't profit unless you do?

[Maddog12]

Sounds like you are uncomfortable with it.....so don't sign it.

[sfaust]

From my experience, you don't have to sign the form, and they will still be allowed to go. It's optional. A school would have a hard time defending themselves if they required a student to submit to commercial exploitation in order to gain access to their education. So generally they try to get the forms signed, but in most cases it is optional.

I would check with the school to be sure, but if you are uncomfortable with it, just don't sign it.

[sspellman]

I'm not really sure why you are so concerned with the use of a few pictures of your child by a photographer, school, or conservation organization-but that is your choice. You can always simply cross out and initial the release clause of the agreement to make just that section null and void, leaving the other terms valid.

-Scott

[noxcuses1]

From my experience, you don't have to sign the form, and they will still be allowed to go. It's optional. A school would have a hard time defending themselves if they required a student to submit to commercial exploitation in order to gain access to their education. So generally they try to get the forms signed, but in most cases it is optional.

I would check with the school to be sure, but if you are uncomfortable with it, just don't sign it.

This makes a lot of sense, sfaust, thanks! :)



I'm very protective of my kids and don't want their images used commercially. I'm surprised at the responses from a few of the professionals here. I've read threads many times about parents not wanting their kids on someone's website or photogs not getting a model release and the model wants them to take down the pics. Maybe that hasn't ever happened to you yet(?) or maybe those pros who commented don't shoot children or people(?)

As long as I have the option to accept/refuse. I just don't think it should be the determining factor as to whether or not he is able to attend the trip. :rolleyes:

Thanks again.

[Aweitzel]

I say dont sign it. They included it, so they must think some parents dont want there child being photographed. My bet is you wont be the only one not to sign it.

[RDKirk]

I'm very protective of my kids and don't want their images used commercially. I'm surprised at the responses from a few of the professionals here. I've read threads many times about parents not wanting their kids on someone's website or photogs not getting a model release and the model wants them to take down the pics. Maybe that hasn't ever happened to you yet(?) or maybe those pros who commented don't shoot children or people(?)

If you don't want your child's image to be used, then don't sign it.

But why are you surprised that any photographers would suggest signing the form?

Considering that a commercial photographer's business depends on models signing release forms, and many other photographers need it for their own essential marketing, you should expect photographers to view signing such forms in a favorable manner, despite the knowledge that some parents won't sign them.

[neil_r]

Why not just sign it. Why the big issue :confused:

[breal101]

I say dont sign it. They included it, so they must think some parents dont want there child being photographed. My bet is you wont be the only one not to sign it.


I've been a involved in a few shoots where we recruited kids off the street for commercial shoots. Frankly, I was surprised at the number of parents who accepted the invitation with no pay involved. I didn't keep track of numbers but my guess is about 60 per cent of the parents accepted. I'm also thinking that you won't be alone in declining to sign the release.

[noxcuses1]

But why are you surprised that any photographers would suggest signing the form?

We're talking about a 3rd grade field trip. This isn't some kind of commercial event or sporting event.


Besides, I just came on here to get some thoughts from other Parents who are also photographers and to see if any of them have ever had to make this kind of choice before.

I don't need to be castigated from some of you for having issues with signing a release form. :rolleyes:

[noxcuses1]

I've been a involved in a few shoots where we recruited kids off the street for commercial shoots. Frankly, I was surprised at the number of parents who accepted the invitation with no pay involved. I didn't keep track of numbers but my guess is about 60 per cent of the parents accepted. I'm also thinking that you won't be alone in declining to sign the release.

Wow, that's a large % of parents.





I think that I'm more aware of these things because I am a photographer. Maybe if I wasn't, I'd be more inclined to sign without thinking twice.

[neil_r]

What exactly is the objection? Is it that you don't want pictures of your kids out there period or that if there are pictures of your kids out there you want paying for it?

[noxcuses1]

you don't want pictures of your kids out there period

yes. I thought I stated that in my first post.


I think that I'm more aware of these things because I am a photographer. Maybe if I wasn't, I'd be more inclined to sign without thinking twice.

[neil_r]

My son has a field trip coming up and there's a photography release form attached to the permission slip.
I really don't want to sign it because the photographer and company will be able to use any photographs if him however they see fit, i.e. advertising, print, brochures, and everything else, for their profit.

yes. I thought I stated that in my first post.

No you didn't

[noxcuses1]

No you didn't

neil, are you trying to help?
How are your replies contributing to this thread? :rolleyes:

[sfaust]

No you didn't

I don't want my son's picture on a brochure or some poster somewhere.

Seems straightforward to me ;) Regardless of why he doesn't want them out there, he doesn't want them out there. Its his right. Lets not argue that as its pointless, no?

[neil_r]

Sorry, am trying to understand the situation. I really would not have any objection to pictures of my kids on a field trip being used as long as they were not being used inappropriately. If they are anonymous, i.e not named and there were no personal details I do not think I would have any objections. Indeed I have people in my pictures that I use commercially and whilst I may have a contract with the B&G I do not with the three people also included in that killer shot that I may use on my website or portfolio.

I simply wanted to understand if the objection was to the pictures being used per se, and to explore why, Or if the objection was to the company making a buck with the images and you not getting a slice of it as it was your kids that were featured.

I am not trying to be unhelpful, I am trying to understand what element of the situation presents a problem.

Of course, having said that you have every right to say yes or no for whatever reason you want. But were that the case and you were simply going to say no, you would not have started this thread, would you :-)

[breal101]

Wow, that's a large % of parents.





I think that I'm more aware of these things because I am a photographer. Maybe if I wasn't, I'd be more inclined to sign without thinking twice.

I use the standard ASMP form for minors without the bit on AIDs, too frightening in my opinion.

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/custom_forms/customize.php?fname=MinorModelRel

There is no freaking way I would sign this form or the adult release which is similar without striking some of the stuff about distortion of the images, etc. It amazes me that most people sign them without question.

[noxcuses1]

Sorry, am trying to understand the situation. I really would not have any objection to pictures of my kids on a field trip being used as long as they were not being used inappropriately. If they are anonymous, i.e not named and there were no personal details I do not think I would have any objections. Indeed I have people in my pictures that I use commercially and whilst I may have a contract with the B&G I do not with the three people also included in that killer shot that I may use on my website or portfolio.

I simply wanted to understand if the objection was to the pictures being used per se, and to explore why, Or if the objection was to the company making a buck with the images and you not getting a slice of it as it was your kids that were featured.

I am not trying to be unhelpful, I am trying to understand what element of the situation presents a problem.

That's OK. :)
I understand sometimes when writing something, it can be misinterpreted to mean something else, especially on these forums. :lol:

Being a MOM ;) (maybe I'm a little overprotective) and a photographer, I just think that there really is no point of this company or photographer taking pics of kids who are on a field trip. Maybe they can organize another event to get photos of kids, with parents who don't mind.

I know they wouldn't be used maliciously, but I'm sure a lot of you folks know that there may be third parties who would save the images. Then a year down the road, I find his photo on some other site which has no relevance to the original company.
There are people who steal photos all the time. I read it here on these threads all the time.

My bottom line it that I just don't want jpegs of my kid floating around on the internet.....unless I took the photo.


You know, if I wasn't a photog, I probably wouldn't think twice about signing the release. But since I know what happens to photos and what people can do with photoshop, it scares me.

[neil_r]

It is a very unfortunate sign of our times and I understand fully.

It is always a real shame when the innocent enjoyment of the many is curtailed by the unacceptable behavior of the few.

[sfaust]

Once you sign a broad commercial release, it can open up a big can of worms. Suppose 2 years from now you see an advertisement for a non-profit organization to prevent AIDS in young children. There front and center is your daughter. Or maybe its about teen pregnancy, illiteracy, drugs, alcohol abuse, and so on.

If the release you sign is broad based, you may have a very hard and expensive time resolving the issue. If the release is limited to say school papers, school website, etc, I wouldn't have an issue with it. But a broad release I would.

I'm really surprised the release isn't limited to school use (website, newsletters, etc), and actually includes commercial use. I would bet the school has no clue what the release can allow, and are looking at it with regard to their own smaller issues. Bring it to their attention and see what they say.

[noxcuses1]

Once you sign a broad commercial release, it can open up a big can of worms. Suppose 2 years from now you see an advertisement for a non-profit organization to prevent AIDS in young children. There front and center is your daughter. Or maybe its about teen pregnancy, illiteracy, drugs, alcohol abuse, and so on.

If the release you sign is broad based, you may have a very hard and expensive time resolving the issue. If the release is limited to say school papers, school website, etc, I wouldn't have an issue with it. But a broad release I would.


^^^This is primarily my concern- That it is way too broad.


I'm really surprised the release isn't limited to school use (website, newsletters, etc), and actually includes commercial use. I would bet the school has no clue what the release can allow, and are looking at it with regard to their own smaller issues. Bring it to their attention and see what they say.

I am going to call the principal tomorrow morning.

[burnxkr]

Why not just sign it. Why the big issue :confused:

I totally agree. Thirty years ago when I was a kid there were no photo releases and we survived just fine. The world is getting paranoid and greedy and its getting worse.

Get over yourself.

[hypertech]

It doesn't have anything to do with greed. If the OP doesn't want pics of his kid running around used for whatever purpose someone could imagine up - just don't sign it.

[u_loco_local]

Thirty years ago when I was a kid there were no photo releases.
There was no internet way back then either. ;)

[sfaust]

I totally agree. Thirty years ago when I was a kid there were no photo releases and we survived just fine. The world is getting paranoid and greedy and its getting worse.

Get over yourself.

Thirty years ago, there were indeed photo releases. I've got a stack of signed ones in my studio. But thirty years ago you needed to have physical access to the negatives or prints in order to use them. That's no longer the case, and the crux of the problem.

[Milamu'g]

...
My bottom line it that I just don't want jpegs of my kid floating around on the internet.....unless I took the photo.
...


???

[noxcuses1]

???

:rolleyes:

[superstes]

Well I'm glad you started this thread noxcuses1, it's got me thinking.

Would I sign a broad release, that would be a big fat NO.

Using kids on an innocent school trip that the photos could potentially be used for anything IMHO is wrong, we send our kids to school and trust they have their best interests at heart, in this circumstance they seem not to, the school should be more savvy.

If the release was for an in house rag only to highlight the trip, yes, no problems.

Steve

[noxcuses1]

Well I'm glad you started this thread noxcuses1, it's got me thinking.

Would I sign a broad release, that would be a big fat NO.

Using kids on an innocent school trip that the photos could potentially be used for anything IMHO is wrong, we send our kids to school and trust they have their best interests at heart, in this circumstance they seem not to, the school should be more savvy.

If the release was for an in house rag only to highlight the trip, yes, no problems.

Steve

Well said, Steve.

If I sign this release that gives "full consent to publish and display photographs taken", I have no idea how they will be used in 10 years, or 20, etc. Just like sfaust said, it could be on a brochure about youth drug abuse, pregnancy, etc.

[Aweitzel]

Once you sign a broad commercial release, it can open up a big can of worms. Suppose 2 years from now you see an advertisement for a non-profit organization to prevent AIDS in young children. There front and center is your daughter. Or maybe its about teen pregnancy, illiteracy, drugs, alcohol abuse, and so on.
.

Reminds me of that TV show Friends, when Joey had his photo taken and it was going to be his big break. He ended up being the spokes person for STDs.
A release is a release, you just dont know what the photo will be used for, and when. Or whos hands it will end up. Maybe im making more of this then i should for a simple field trip.
I still say dont sign it. Or better yet if at all possible find out who the photographer is and why he needs a release to be sign, who he works for and so on.

[sfaust]

If it was the school asking for the release, that's one thing and I've signed those even if they were broad in nature. The school isnt likely to do much more with the images than publish it in newsletters, yearbooks, and such. So I'm not against signing a release for the school.

But since this involves an outside photography company, it puts up a read flag for me. Why is an outside photography company involved? What is their purpose and motivation for doing this? Stock sales? Commercial use? or?? It's something out of the ordinary, and that begs for more scrutiny.

I agree that noxcuses1 has cause for concern and glad it was brought up for discussion.

[noxcuses1]

Spoke to principal. She said it was OK if I declined the release. So no worries...

....this time :rolleyes:

[DDCSD]

Any chance of posting the release? I'm curious as to what exactly it says.

[beegeeboy]

Hi,

I'm a teacher and there's a huge amount of things that now have to be taken into consideration when considering photos etc. We have to make sure that ANY photo/video we want to take of children at our school, or that other parents want to take, even for the purposes of academic evidence or just for use within the school, has to have consent from the parent of that child. Whether we like the way these things are going or not, that's the way it is. As a school we CANNOT take the chance that a photo or video taken by a parent at a school event ends up being used for something that it shouldn't be. We are responsible. End of.

Whether "the world is getting greedy and paranoid" or not, to use the comment "get over yourself" smacks of ignorance and an arrogance bordering on pathetic.

David

[beegeeboy]

And over here, there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER that a child could be refused the chance to go on a trip based on the fact that their parent refused to let them have their photo taken.

David

[burnxkr]

Hi,



Whether "the world is getting greedy and paranoid" or not, to use the comment "get over yourself" smacks of ignorance and an arrogance bordering on pathetic.

David

Because of your attitude and those of like mind one can't sneeze now without being sued or threatened. Believe it or not I too am a teacher and a great many of my colleagues agree with me that the rule book sucks. Having an opinion and being allowed to express it may be ignorant and pathetic but it's an opinion none the less.

However this is a photography forum so I wont get into the "Why teachers lack of control in schools is leading to the demise of society." argument.

[burnxkr]

Hi,

I'm a teacher and there's a huge amount of things that now have to be taken into consideration when considering photos etc. We have to make sure that ANY photo/video we want to take of children at our school, or that other parents want to take, even for the purposes of academic evidence or just for use within the school, has to have consent from the parent of that child. Whether we like the way these things are going or not, that's the way it is. As a school we CANNOT take the chance that a photo or video taken by a parent at a school event ends up being used for something that it shouldn't be. We are responsible. End of.



David

Are you suggesting that within the entire framework of your schools activities there are no parents with cameras? Sports days, football matches, school plays?
How do you as an education body check the use of photos taken by all parents?

[beegeeboy]

Hi,

Burnxkr, think you may have taken what I said the wrong way. It's not MY attitude that no photos should be taken, not at all. I don't agree with it. However, I, as does the rest of my school, have to follow the guidelines sent down to us by our education authority. And they, rightly or wrongly, to cover any eventuality, take the stance that NO photos can be taken unless parental agreements are signed beforehand.

And many schools now will not let parents take photos of their child at school plays, matches, sports days etc because there may well be other parents there who have refused to sign agreements about their child being shot and as a consequence no-one is allowed to. Not saying it's right, but that's the way it is. And I'm sorry if I offended anyone, wasn't my intention. Of course everyone is entititled to their own opinion - so long as it matches mine ;)


Like the teachers' lack of control argument...made me smile :)

David

[Red73]

Hi,

Burnxkr, think you may have taken what I said the wrong way. It's not MY attitude that no photos should be taken, not at all. I don't agree with it. However, I, as does the rest of my school, have to follow the guidelines sent down to us by our education authority. And they, rightly or wrongly, to cover any eventuality, take the stance that NO photos can be taken unless parental agreements are signed beforehand.

And many schools now will not let parents take photos of their child at school plays, matches, sports days etc because there may well be other parents there who have refused to sign agreements about their child being shot and as a consequence no-one is allowed to. Not saying it's right, but that's the way it is. And I'm sorry if I offended anyone, wasn't my intention. Of course everyone is entititled to their own opinion - so long as it matches mine ;)


Like the teachers' lack of control argument...made me smile :)

David

I'm thankful that our schools haven't established these rules yet. I have some great pics of my kids in their school plays and sporting events that we'll have to share for many years to come. That would really suck for many parents if those rules were implemented across the board.

[photoguy6405]

My bottom line it that I just don't want jpegs of my kid floating around on the internet.....unless I took the photo.
I've been following this thread with interest. My kids are grown now, and I used to be the only parent in my kid's classes that would question stuff like this, so I feel like I understand where you're coming from.

Having said that, your statement quoted above confuses me. Why would jpgs "floating around on the internet" somehow be more acceptable just because you took them? I mean, once they're out there, they're out there.

[noxcuses1]

I've been following this thread with interest. Why would jpgs "floating around on the internet" somehow be more acceptable just because you took them? I mean, once they're out there, they're out there.

Think about it from your own perspective.

Say you email a relative in your family a small resolution jpeg of your child, max pixel at about 500 on the longer side. What are the chances of them printing brochures or making a billboard out of that little jpeg?

What I meant is that if I take a photo, then I have the hi-res, not anyone else, and I OWN IT AND I CONTROL IT.

I mean, really, if I wanted to I could make a private gallery for just my family to view. Doesn't mean everyone else is going to see a photo because I put it on the internet. :)

[DDCSD]

Again, any chance that you can post the release? I'm curious as to how it is worded.

[Concretin Nik]

For the ones who don't get it... it being why not to sign the release...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_card_photo_prague;_ylt=AvWhIw68LNudJSxQLL83 SN0DW7oF

[spkerer]

For the ones who don't get it... it being why not to sign the release...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_card_photo_prague;_ylt=AvWhIw68LNudJSxQLL83 SN0DW7oF

While that article is interesting in its own right, I doesn't do much for the topic of signing a release. In this story, it appears the image was lifted from her site or one of her social networking sites and used without permission. So no release was involved.

[DDCSD]

Again, any chance that you can post the release? I'm curious as to how it is worded.

[nphsbuckeye]

Profit? My guess is the conservation is a non-profit, if not entirely public, so therefore you aren't having someone making money. I would take the idea of someone profiting out of the equation. If anything, it would be to keep it up and running.

[benjaminbunny829]

I remember all through school for any trip or major activity we had to have our parents sign release forms. It's more for appearing in the school's newspapers, local news etc.

[Concretin Nik]

@spkerer - Fair enough about no release involved with the article, but I thought it was relevant in regards to the op concern about pics "floating around out there..." (whether you sign a release or not)

Apparently not as obvious or relevant as I thought. Sorry.

[spkerer]

@spkerer - Fair enough about no release involved with the article, but I thought it was relevant in regards to the op concern about pics "floating around out there..." (whether you sign a release or not)

Apparently not as obvious or relevant as I thought. Sorry.

I wrote that response quick. I guess it makes me think that at least the original place is up-front in wanting releases. Some don't even care and will use whatever they find. And when they get caught, "oh, I thought that was computer generated. I _never_ would have used a photo of real people without their permission (cue the fake swoon)."

[noxcuses1]

Again, any chance that you can post the release? I'm curious as to how it is worded.
Sent the release in, don't have it now.

[harroz]

No biggie, no drama, don't sign it and send it in, they will just delete the ones with your kid in it. all it means is your kid isn't going to be the big model on the front of the new brochure next year and your neighbors kid will.

[rx7speed]

just one quick thought that kind of makes me wonder is it seems photogs get unahppy at the idea of being paid lets say $20 bucks for rights to use a photo. many would say it's absurd, idiotic, wrong, and god knows what other words to describe that kind of situation. and if I wanted to have uncontrolled usage rights and figured ok lets call it $25 bucks to make it fair what would you say?

now though when the photog is dealing with a model the general idea seems to be that the model should give rights to use his rights/likeness free and charge with no restrictions as to it's usage with sole control going to the photographer as to what he/she wishes to do.


I know the main thought here might not be as to profit and getting reimbursed here but I do believe my idea here would still as it does seem to be a double standard. honestly how many photogs would be willing to give up rights on one of their images with a broad use license with no compensation not knowing who is going to use that photo or how they are going to use that photo?

[sfaust]

FWIW, when I shoot with a model in an unpaid situation, the release I have them sign gives them the same rights I have. We both get self promotion, portfolio, website, etc. I never ask for full rights without payment for the reasons you just stated. Its just not fair.

And I agree, any photographer asking for full rights without fair compensation is taking advantage of the model.

Another interesting thing I've noticed, is that we all complain about people using our images without permission. Yet I see dozens of photographers using images that I can almost guarantee they haven't licensed for avatars, etc (celebrities, etc). That seems like a double standard also. But I guess its only an avatar, much like a company using their images for only web use ;)

[DDCSD]

just one quick thought that kind of makes me wonder is it seems photogs get unahppy at the idea of being paid lets say $20 bucks for rights to use a photo. many would say it's absurd, idiotic, wrong, and god knows what other words to describe that kind of situation. and if I wanted to have uncontrolled usage rights and figured ok lets call it $25 bucks to make it fair what would you say?

now though when the photog is dealing with a model the general idea seems to be that the model should give rights to use his rights/likeness free and charge with no restrictions as to it's usage with sole control going to the photographer as to what he/she wishes to do.


I know the main thought here might not be as to profit and getting reimbursed here but I do believe my idea here would still as it does seem to be a double standard. honestly how many photogs would be willing to give up rights on one of their images with a broad use license with no compensation not knowing who is going to use that photo or how they are going to use that photo?

Really has nothing to do with this thread, but the model is often compensated for their time. If they don't like the terms and compensation, then they don't sign the release.

Should the guy that pushes the "record" button get all of the rights to a band's music just because they were involved in "making" it?

[rx7speed]

Really has nothing to do with this thread, but the model is often compensated for their time. If they don't like the terms and compensation, then they don't sign the release.

Should the guy that pushes the "record" button get all of the rights to a band's music just because they were involved in "making" it?

agreed with the model not signing it if they don't agree and in this situation it sounds as though the OP did not sign the form. it just amuses me though that some people expect him though to sign that form yet if the shoe was on the other foot I bet they wouldn't give up rights to use one of their photos. in this though it doesn't sound like the photog was compensating the model in anyway. instead sounded like he was just wishing to use the child for his own needs unless there is some work in the back that I don't know about.

not sure what you are getting at though by your second comment.

[Concretin Nik]

Just to follow the tangent a bit... the guy pushing 'record' doesn't get rights to the music, but he/she is compensated otherwise, as in being paid to be there, for their recording tech skills, using their studio and is usually given credit on the album notes... much like a photog assistant. No control over the photos taken, but gettin' paid. (but the original post wasn't about payment, but control over the use of her child's image)