Quick Question about Model Wavier

Hi folks

Let hypothetically say you shot for someone and they don't want to sign the model waiver or want to sign with certain reservations about certain parts, what do you generally do? They are still buying prints and all that jazz, but they don't want you to have all the reprinting control, reselling to others, etc.

Thanks!

Get the waiver signed before the shoot?

Do you know specifically what parts they are having reservations about?
Are you actually planning on reselling the prints to others? If not see if that's what's really bothering them. Or just explain to them this is the norm when it comes to photographers and model releases, hopefully they ease up a little bit about.

I prolly won't be reselling, it is just a senior portrait session, the most I will use it for is just advertising for my business. I will ask her exactly what portions she is having an issue with. I'll keep you all updated, thanks for the help.

Explain to them that your standard pricing is a discount off your real value. If you can't recover value by advertising or selling the pictures to a third party, then you will have to charge them more upfront.

-Scott

themadman wrote in post #11967613
I prolly won't be reselling, it is just a senior portrait session, the most I will use it for is just advertising for my business. I will ask her exactly what portions she is having an issue with. I'll keep you all updated, thanks for the help.

I personally would not sign the typical model release you find on the Internet that gives the photographer God-like use of the images for any purpose whatsoever, throughout the universe, for all eternity.

Write your model release so that it includes only as much license as you need. My model release allows me to use the images in any format, including the internet, but only for promotion of myself as a photographer and/or my photography business. It explicitly prohibits my use for any third-party commercial uses.

The reason I specify "including the Internet" is because a good many people don't mind me using their images for hardcopy displays and such, but don't want their images on the Internet because it's impossible even for me to control them. So I can easily strike out "including the Internet" and they can sign in good faith.

People will be much more favorable to signing a release that it tightly limited to that which is all you wanted to do anyway.

Remember, though, that you would not need a model release for editorial purposes, so this limited release would not prevent you from licensing the image to the media if she should become famous or notorious in the future.

And also remember: You didn't need their photo in your portfolio to get their business, so you don't need their picture to get more business.

Remember, these photos weren't taken using a traditional model or model/photographer relationship. Senior portraits generally are for the student and their family and friends. It's not something that most families are expecting to see in commercial advertising for example, which is something a standard model release would allow you to do. Perhaps you could come up with a release that would allow you to use the images solely to promote your work in your portfolio use, etc and that's it. Most parents aren't going to give you carte blanche to use their non-model kid's image for whatever you want. And it's a senior portrait, so remember, if she's a minor, whatever you come up with has to be signed by a parent or legal guardian too.

The person that needs to sign it is her parent or guardian. Under 18, me thinks there was a lengthy thread on this not long ago.

Shooting for portfolio advertisement is one thing. Shooting for commercial resale is another, the releases are different, the monatary value to the model is different.

If you can't sell the prints, you can't technically sell them prints either.

I explain that while it does in fact allow me to resell their picture to someone else, it also has for goal to allow me to sell THEM copies of their own pictures.

I used to be reserved about model releases, and for some -event- work, i don't require them, but for everything else its standard.

You sit and pose, i work my butt off, owning my work as a freelancer is just basic. What if i lose my eyesight ? my arm? what if i can't shoot new pictures? I'll have to make do with old, and if you don't own the copyright to those, well then. Gg. What if in 30years you want to do a biography about your work? Gg. Etc.

Csae wrote in post #11971256
If you can't sell the prints, you can't technically sell them prints either.

This is not true. A model release is not necessary to sell someone prints of himself. A model release is not even necessary to sell those prints to someone else.

A model release is necessary to use the images for a commercial purpose, and US courts as well as several state legislatures have determined that "commercial use" does not include sale of the photographs themselves.

For portraits, weddings, and other personal commissions, there is very little reason to need a release to use them commercially. If you're going to use them commercially, then the models (not "clients" in this case, but "models") should be paid as such.

In fact, model releases have been broken in court when photographers have used images commercially and failed to pay the models commensurately.

RDKirk wrote in post #11971850
In fact, model releases have been broken in court when photographers have used images commercially and failed to pay the models commensurately.

Thanks for adding the extra explanations, i have heard of such cases, and personally (whether or not its required) i think its good practice to pay them a cut if their work ends up commercially used, up to a point. I also always ask the model beforehand. This is mostly about TFCD/P works, where normal commercial work where i retain the copyright, they have either already received a discount or have been paid. Further payment from me at that point would be silly business.

What im curious about now, is how selling a print isn't commercial. I suppose one could say hes only providing the "printing" and not actually selling the (rights) to a print... but it seems icky and gray to me.

I'd be curious to read more about such cases if you can find any.

TopHatMoments wrote in post #11968707
The person that needs to sign it is her parent or guardian. Under 18, me thinks there was a lengthy thread on this not long ago.

Sorry if I was not clear, it is her parents that are signing and have the issues with the model release, not her.

Thanks for the discussion everyone.

themadman wrote in post #11976710
Sorry if I was not clear, it is her parents that are signing and have the issues with the model release, not her.

Thanks for the discussion everyone.

as a parent, I wouldn't sign a release for senior photos that allows you to do anything more than use the images in your portfolio. A blanket release would allow you to sell the images for stock or in advertising for all sorts of things a parent wouldn't want their child to be promoting. As a photographer, if I hired you to shoot me, I wouldn't sign a blanket release either. A broad release for a senior portrait is overkill.