How Fair is your Model Release?

[USER876]

I recently have had concerns regarding my release forms. I know some photographers embed the terms into their fine print, but I review it in detail with every customer as a separate form and have gotten a few objections. They don't like the fact that I own the picture (rights) and can do what I want with it...sell it, make money off it, use it for portfolio purposes,etc. If they ask me to limit my use, should I charge them more? If so, how much premium for the entire session?

[John the Geek]

Reply:

"That's all photography, at least I'm being honest with you."

[RDKirk]

I recently have had concerns regarding my release forms. I know some photographers embed the terms into their fine print, but I review it in detail with every customer as a separate form and have gotten a few objections. They don't like the fact that I own the picture (rights) and can do what I want with it...sell it, make money off it, use it for portfolio purposes,etc. If they ask me to limit my use, should I charge them more? If so, how much premium for the entire session?

Frankly, unless I was in the modeling business as a professional, I myself would not sign the usually proposed unlimited model release boilerplate. Those things read like mafia boxing contracts (or worse, record label contracts).

Determine what you really intend to do with the images and merely state that. I do wall portraits. I know I'm not going to do anything with the images other than to promote myself as a photographer and my photography business--I'm not going to use the images to advertise a third party product or service...so I say that in the release. Those uses will include the Internet, so I say that as well.

I have had quite a few high-end clients object to Internet use, but nobody has objected to local display--even public display.

[sfaust]

Put yourself in their shoes, and look at it from a value for value proposition.

As a photographer, if you were approached by a client and they asked you for all rights to your images, you would want to be compensated for it, yes? You don't want your images used in an advertising campaign without some compensation.

From their point of view, you are asking them to use their likeness for whatever you see fit, which could include your making money off their likeness by licensing the images for advertising, commercial, or other uses.

To be fair to them, if you ask them for a wide reaching model release, you chould be prepared to offer them compensation for it. Asking them to pay more for you limiting the release is backwards. Just as it would be for a client to you to turn over more rights and then pay you less in return.

Just try to think of them as a model, and the more rights you ask of them, the more you should be prepared to give up in return. But I think the right to use the images for self promotion (portfolio, website, brochures, etc) should be included at minimum as part of the base agreement.

[Jimconnerphoto]

For me it would depend greatly on the type of work and the amount of compensation.
What type of work do you do?
As an example, with wedding clients I could retain rights to publish images and use for advertising. All I really need. If they object, I write that out.

[freaking102]

I recently have had concerns regarding my release forms. I know some photographers embed the terms into their fine print, but I review it in detail with every customer as a separate form and have gotten a few objections. They don't like the fact that I own the picture (rights) and can do what I want with it...sell it, make money off it, use it for portfolio purposes,etc. If they ask me to limit my use, should I charge them more? If so, how much premium for the entire session?

look at it from the perspective of the model. you should compensate the model if you want rights to use model's image.

[jra]

IMO, it really does depend on who you're shooting and why. If you've hired a model to do a shoot intended for stock sale, you should expect them to sign a release that gives you full rights to do as you wish (of course, they should know that going into the job). On the other hand, if you're doing family portraits, I would present another release that permits you to use the photos to advertise yourself and that's it.....and I wouldn't push the issue if they had any hesitations.

[sfaust]

If you've hired a model to do a shoot intended for stock sale, you should expect them to sign a release that gives you full rights to do as you wish (of course, they should know that going into the job).

Just FYI, keep in mind models also work on usage much like commercial photographers do. Asking a professional model for a full rights release is the same as asking the photographer for his copyright. Expect to pay, and pay very well. Typically, the model release will have to be very specific as to what rights are given, and the fees will vary accordingly.

[Mark1]

For me it depends on what the job is. If it is something that has no other use, I get pretty easy on thoes terms. Example, I shot a banda few weeks ago. As soon as they break up or change even one member they are pretty much dead images. For me, as well as them. Or even a product that will be updated in a year.There is no point in quibbeling over fine points when you know the images will die rather quickley. They have a limited life so I dont care overly. However if it is a shot I can sell again I will keep all rights alive for my use. Or as many as I can get away with.

It also depends on if I even want to be able to use the image for something else. I do not need every image I ever shot to be in my portfolio/gallery. There are jobs that just dont have it. Wether it is ugly clients, boring machine parts, construction documentation...etc..etc. There are enough clients that will let me use what I want that I dont need to worry when some dont want me to.

[asysin2leads]

My model release permits me to use the images for advertising. I don't have anything written in the release about selling an individual image (or set of images). I wouldn't do it without speaking to the client first.

[sspellman]

It is easier to include the model release verbage in the contract signed by the client for the job. Then you will only need to have a seperate model release when the subject is not the client.

For clients who ask, I explain that my regular pricing in my quotes is partially based on my ability to showcase the work done for all of my clients to grow and promote my business in advertising, etc. After all, if none of my clients had ever granted me permission to use the pictures in advertising-then no client would ever hire me.

If they insist, I provide pricing of +20% to restrict use in advertising or +50 to 100% if they want copyright ownership.

-Scott