Photographers release

[stargazer77517]

Is their a standard form for a Photographers Release? I searched the forum and didnt find anything.
Thanks Fred

[exile]

Do you mean a "Model Release" and/or "Property Release"?

[stargazer77517]

The one I am looking for is the one that says its ok to make prints of my Photos. I thought it was called a Photographers Release...but then again maybe not. I was asked for something of this nature here a while back when ordering prints at a local printer, but when I told them I was the photographer they said they did need one. Ive never ran across this before so I assumed it was something that had come about because of the pirating of internet photos.

Do you mean a "Model Release" and/or "Property Release"?

[exile]

Maybe just use a different printer?

What they are saying is that they don't believe you are the photographer. They want you to sign a bit of paper giving yourself permission to have prints made of your own stuff - nuts! They haven't thought it through.

I would expect that such forms are used by photographers who give their clients high res files so that the client can do what they want with them (print them, stick them online, etc), but you don't need to sign a piece of paper to give yourself a right that you are already in possession of.

If they think that they need to see such a piece of paper then write it out in front of them and see what they say!

[stargazer77517]

Now thats an Idea, :lol: I thought it was a bit nuts, but I wasnt sure. If I do give a client a pic to use is there such a form?

If they think that they need to see such a piece of paper then write it out in front of them and see what they say!

[exile]

I sure there are templates out there but essentially all it needs to say is:

I, [photographer's name], grant to [client's name] permission to [state what they can do].

You can make it more complicated depending on how prescriptive you want to be. For example, you might want to add that they specifically can not assign the rights (that you have granted to them) to a third party.

[stargazer77517]

Great! Thanks for the info
Fred

[Lonnie]

Fred,
I had to fill one of those out at Walgreens to have some of my own photos printed out. They told me since I was printing "Proffesional photos" I would have to have the photographer sign a "photographer's release". So...go to your local Walgreens or whatever you have there and ask for one...

[stargazer77517]

Thats the very place I was at here. Thats what propted the question. I told them I was the Photographer and I still had to have one. Ill just keep sending to MPIX. Never a problem there. I just didnt know if it was a new requirement.
Thanks


Fred,
I had to fill one of those out at Walgreens to have some of my own photos printed out. They told me since I was printing "Proffesional photos" I would have to have the photographer sign a "photographer's release". So...go to your local Walgreens or whatever you have there and ask for one...

[joedlh]

Maybe just use a different printer?

As in, one that will violate copyright laws?

What they are saying is that they don't believe you are the photographer. They want you to sign a bit of paper giving yourself permission to have prints made of your own stuff - nuts! They haven't thought it through.

Perhaps they have indeed thought it through. It is possible that they have this policy to cover themselves. If the prints do get pirated, the investigation could come to them. If they have a release on file, they can show it and say that they don't know what happened to the prints after they left their doors. As a business practice, I would think that they would have a blank release on file for the photographer to sign.

[exile]

As in, one that will violate copyright laws?



Perhaps they have indeed thought it through. It is possible that they have this policy to cover themselves. If the prints do get pirated, the investigation could come to them. If they have a release on file, they can show it and say that they don't know what happened to the prints after they left their doors. As a business practice, I would think that they would have a blank release on file for the photographer to sign.

No! The original poster is the owner of the copyright, he doesn't need a release from anyone to get his own photographs printed.

The only thing that is required to cover themselves is to do what other sensible businesses do and include in their T&Cs that to place a print order the customer must hold the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder.

Asking a photographer to sign a release for their own photographs is just a bureaucratic impediment to business and a pointless one at that. Consider this:

I go to Walgreens and place a print order, they look at the pictures and make a subjective call:

These are non-professional picturesor

These are professional picturesIf they decide that they are professional pictures then they ask for proof that the customer has the rights to have copies made. Does the fact that they don't ask for a release from "non-professional" pictures mean that they are "willing to violate copyright laws"? Non-professional photographs are protected by copyright law in the same way as any other photograph.

Perhaps the fact that this is a rare occurrence suggests that most other print businesses have adequately protected themselves in their T&Cs - which is the way it should be. Those other print businesses certainly don't deserve to have an allegation of being willing to violate copyright laws made against them.

[RDKirk]

No! The original poster is the owner of the copyright, he doesn't need a release from anyone to get his own photographs printed.

The only thing that is required to cover themselves is to do what other sensible businesses do and include in their T&Cs that to place a print order the customer must hold the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder.

Asking a photographer to sign a release for their own photographs is just a bureaucratic impediment to business and a pointless one at that

The situation that Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Cosco, and other public printing locations face is that the Professional Photographers of America is extremely vigilant and aggressive in policing copyright violatioins by those sorts of major corporations. The PPA has "Recon" teams that actually run sting operations--occasionally going in as a customer and having copies made of copyrighted material. Those companies have been successfully sued several times, so they're now trying to protect themselves.

All they have to do is show that they made a "due dilgence" effort to ascertain if the customer had the right to make a copy. Showing a signed document from the customer attesting to that right is sufficient. Merely asking is not sufficient--remember that the counter clerk is at the bottom of the store food chain (and their turnover is fairly high)--he can't be authorized to merely "take someone's word."

[exile]

The PPA has "Recon" teams that actually run sting operations--occasionally going in as a customer and having copies made of copyrighted material.

Do the PPA also try sting operations with online printers?

[RDKirk]

Do the PPA also try sting operations with online printers?

I don't know of any specific cases.

[stargazer77517]

Interesting information guys,
Thanks!

[joedlh]

Thank you. I was trying to get the same point across, but somehow failed.

[exile]

The fact remains that businesses who do not require releases are not de facto breaking copyright law and do not deserve that allegation made against them.

[RDKirk]

The fact remains that businesses who do not require releases are not de facto breaking copyright law and do not deserve that allegation made against them.

That's like saying a person who buys a brand new L lens at an absurdly low price from a guy on the street is not de facto breaking laws against buying stolen property...which won't hold in court either.

[exile]

Oh dear, we've descended into the realm of poor analogies.

Printers have no legal obligation to obtain signed releases in order to print images. They can and do make it a term of their business contract with their customers that the customers have all the necessary rights to the images in order to place an order. They can also make it a term of their business contract with their customer that the customer will indemnify them against breach of copyright by the customer.

Examples:

http://www.photobox.co.uk/content/legal/terms-of-use
http://www.mpix.com/info/TermsUse.aspx
http://www.kodakgallery.com/gallery/footerLinksContent.jsp?pageID=600010

Each of these sets of T&Cs explicit state that it is the customers responsibility to have the rights to have the images printed and to indemnify the printer.

In 1999 the PPA filed a suit against Kmart, alleging that they were copying what was obviously copyright protected material. They were seeking $600000 in damages and an injunction against Kmart printing any more images until they had put procedures in place to rectify the problem. The print finishers trade body responded by working with the PPA to develop voluntary guidelines that would protect their members.

Budget printing outfits like Wal-Mart still try to adopt these recommendations - presumably because they have more of a problem with people trying to get studio generated material duplicated. However, there is no legal obligation for them or any other printing company to obtain signed hard-copy releases . Where Kmart fell down was that they were printing stuff which the customer obviously did not hold the rights to.

What happens in one area of the market in response to a particular problem does not mean that the rest of the industry is negligent or liable if they do not follow suit.

Once again, I am saying that it is wholly unfair to allege that companies, such as those listed above, are "will[ing to] violate copyright laws" because they operate using a perfectly legal and morally justifiable set of terms and conditions.

The OP is going to go back to getting his work printed at Mpix, a perfectly legal and above board printing operation, with perfectly normal T&Cs that uphold and adhere to copyright law and he will do so without the need to send Mpix a "photographers release".

[Lonnie]

I don't understand why a photographer, amateur or professional, would have a problem with a photo printer showing any kind of vigilance whatsoever in protecting another photographer's copyright. How many times have you seen someone scan a pro photo in that still has the gold foil watermark? If it's your photo - just sign the release and be done with it.

[exile]

I don't understand why a photographer, amateur or professional, would have a problem with a photo printer showing any kind of vigilance...

I don't have a problem with a printer showing proper vigilance, however, if they wish to turn the OPs custom away then he has every right to go elsewhere without being accused of using a lab that violates copyright law when it doesn't.

[RDKirk]

I don't have a problem with a printer showing proper vigilance, however, if they wish to turn the OPs custom away then he has every right to go elsewhere without being accused of using a lab that violates copyright law when it doesn't.

So what is the proper level of vigilance that protects them from lawsuits in American courts?

[joedlh]

I don't have a problem with a printer showing proper vigilance, however, if they wish to turn the OPs custom away then he has every right to go elsewhere without being accused of using a lab that violates copyright law when it doesn't.

Maybe they have different laws in the UK. But in the US, the simple act of copying (printing, if you will) a copyrighted image without permission is a violation of the law. So yes, if a photo processor does so without permission from the copyright holder, then he/she/it is/are violating US law. Also in the US, the lawyers sue everybody, not just the perp. If they could get away with it, they would sue the printer manufacturer, ink maker, the guy who drove the truck that supplied the printer, and the guy who owned the truck (but probably not the poor sap who gassed up the truck). They especially like going after those with deep pockets. This would be the very folks whom you accuse of overreacting by demanding a photographer's release for any images that look like they could have monetary value, i.e., professional-looking photos.

[exile]

Look, this thread was about helping a guy out until you decided to get on your high horse about copyright violation.

The guy asked if he need a "photographer's release" and wasn't sure if it was a "new requirement". He's got the answers to those question.
Does he need a photographer's release to get his own photos printed. NO! Unless of course the company he tries to do business with makes it a terms of business ... they could equally make giving cupcakes to the manager a term of business, but that in no way compels him to contract with that business or forces other businesses to adopt the same business terms.

Meanwhile, US based labs like Mpix and Kodak (whose term and conditions were posted above) will continue to operate within the law while Wal-mart themselves admit that their policy is in excess of what is required by law Spokeswoman Jackie Young said Wal-Mart is "a littler tougher than
the copyright law dictates."

Next time a guy asks for help, maybe just give him the help he asks for or move on to another thread ;)

[Lonnie]

Next time a guy asks for help, maybe just give him the help he asks for or move on to another thread

:rolleyes:

[RDKirk]

Look, this thread was about helping a guy out until you decided to get on your high horse about copyright violation.

The guy asked if he need a "photographer's release" and wasn't sure if it was a "new requirement". He's got the answers to those question.
Does he need a photographer's release to get his own photos printed. NO! Unless of course the company he tries to do business with makes it a terms of business ... they could equally make giving cupcakes to the manager a term of business, but that in no way compels him to contract with that business or forces other businesses to adopt the same business terms.j

Actually, we've all been trying to explain the US legal situation to you, but you seem determined to resist acknowledging the existance of the situation.

[exile]

Actually, we've all been trying to explain the US legal situation to you, but you seem determined to resist acknowledging the existance of the situation.

:roll: Maybe you should explain it to Mpix and Kodak and their corporate lawyers, they obviously don't understand US law either ... maybe you should also explain it to Wal-mart who admit that their procedures exceed what is required by copyright law.

What is your advice to the OP then?

[Lonnie]

Not that it matters much, but the particular store in question is Walgreens. Obviously they are attempting to limit their liability in any copyright litigation. The collateral damage of their diligence - photographer's copyrights are protected.

I upload my images to them, then swing by and pick them up later. So - they already have my name, address, etc. So what do I lose by filling out the release - about 30 seconds. But, and for an amateur, this is nice - the fact they get you to fill out the release means they think you have some kickass pictures.

Another Walgreens story, since they have taken a little undue beating in this thread. I know personally of a child who was being physically abused by his mother. The grandmother wasn't sure what to do - but she decided to take photos of the injuries. When she had the photos printed at Walgreen's, the manager there immediately contacted the cops and the child was taken out of the abusive home and custody given to the grandmother.

Another case of a corporate policy that both limits the liability of the company and benefits the good guys.

[exile]

Lhoney - all very interesting but nothing to do with the allegation made that other printers condone copyright violation because they don't make photographers sign a release.

[Lonnie]

Lhoney - all very interesting but nothing to do with the allegation made that other printers condone copyright violation because they don't make photographers sign a release.

That is perfect since I didn't intend to address that allegation.

[exile]

That is perfect since I didn't intend to address that allegation.

Cool :)

[RDKirk]

Lhoney - all very interesting but nothing to do with the allegation made that other printers condone copyright violation because they don't make photographers sign a release.

Nobody made that allegation.

[exile]

Nobody made that allegation.

Post number 10 - in specific reply to my suggestion the OP just use a different printer.

As in, one that will violate copyright laws?

[FLiPMaRC]

Okay this just happened to me too at Walgreens. I got an 8x10 printed of one of my pictures and was told I needed a release form because someone decided it looked professional. After talking to the manager for about 2 minutes he reluctantly gave them to me. I explained to him it was my picture and I did all the work in Lightroom & Photoshop.

So what you guys are saying is all I need to do next time I decide to get something printed from Walgreens is sign a form that they will provide to me or do I need to bring/make my own release form? For the professionals on here, how do you release your own work?

I usually get my larger prints from Adorama or Shutterfly. I've never been asked for a release form.

[RDKirk]

So what you guys are saying is all I need to do next time I decide to get something printed from Walgreens is sign a form that they will provide to me or do I need to bring/make my own release form? For the professionals on here, how do you release your own work?

I would show them my business card. However, I get my work done from a professional lab that required my business tax ID.

[Lonnie]

Okay this just happened to me too at Walgreens. I got an 8x10 printed of one of my pictures and was told I needed a release form because someone decided it looked professional. After talking to the manager for about 2 minutes he reluctantly gave them to me. I explained to him it was my picture and I did all the work in Lightroom & Photoshop.

So what you guys are saying is all I need to do next time I decide to get something printed from Walgreens is sign a form that they will provide to me or do I need to bring/make my own release form? For the professionals on here, how do you release your own work?

I usually get my larger prints from Adorama or Shutterfly. I've never been asked for a release form.

When it happened to me at Walgreens, they had a form for me to fill out. YMMV

[FLiPMaRC]

When it happened to me at Walgreens, they had a form for me to fill out. YMMV
:cool: Thanks.