Model voiding a Model Release?

I have a model friend who I enjoy shooting in the studio regularly. She's just started out and her first shoot with another photographer is turning sour..

She contacted me this morning to tell me that it's been three weeks and she's sent multiple e-mails to the photographer asking for a status. Every time they're read and ignored. He had promised her 1 week to send her a contact sheet and two weeks after that for prints. Deadline is up.

I told her to wait another week and then send off another e-mail.

My question to anyone who may have dealt with this before is: Does she have any option of voiding the model release she signed during the session? The photographer mentioned that he wanted the shots for a book and she would rather make sure they don't get printed since he didn't live up to his end of the bargain. She was given no compensation at time of signing and there was only a verbal contract that the release was signed in good faith that prints would be delivered.

I have already recommended talking to a lawyer but at the time she doesn't see the need to take it that far - she just wants prints or a reply that the photographer has been busy, out of town, something better than ignored status requests.

And yes, I understand that Rule #1 of the internet is to never get legal advice from complete strangers - but you guys are my crazy Canon buddies!

Thanks!
-John

model releases contain clauses like "for accepted compensation" or something basically implying they had something in return. In fact, i seem to remember you have to get something in return for them to be valid... so if she hasn't got anything, it's not valid. She should check the wording of her copy.

Thanks Dream, I thought the same thing but I heard that TFP or TFCD was not acceptable compensation for a Model Release, it had to be money. I give out a buck when I ask for a Model Release. Also have a stack of $2 bills for when I really want a release!

I was browsing through my copy of Carolyn Wright's Photographer's Legal Guide and the only tidbit that helps is that she states in some states (not all!) is it required to give compensation for a Model Release to be valid (And it had to be compensation of a fair amount to even hold up in court). I'm not having any luck narrowing it down to see if our state requires it (Maryland) but so far some releases I've found on local Photographers' websites include a compensation field.

Aaaaand when I asked her to send me the wording of the contract she signed she didn't walk away with a copy of it for her own. I already told her to make sure that she does for the next time. If anything, it's a learning experience. I'm hoping a sternly worded e-mail a month after the shoot gets the ball rolling and no further action is required.

Thanks!
-John

Hi John,

I think the earlier answer is correct... If there was terminology in the release that promised prints, then it's void until that promise is delivered upon. Images can't legally be used prior to fulfillment of the agreement.

As you have noted, a model release is actually nothing more than a contract. By definition, there must be some give and take for a contract to be valid. There has to be some form of compensation, such as your $2 bills. Value received for value given.

As I understand it, this is true in all US states. What differs is precisely what constitutes "compensation". In some places, I believe that prints and image files, which have a value, are acceptible. In others, I believe there must be some monetary compensation, even if it's only $1. Prints and image files would be in addition to that, but would usually be specified as part of the compensation in a TFP arrangement.

So, I suspect the photographer can't use the images in any way, until he/she completes their side of the bargain.

Let us know what you see when you look at the release/contract.

Rather than a sternly worded E-mail I would suggest a simple demand letter sent by certified mail. This gives her proof of delivery, and will get attention.
(Consider just how seriously you would take a letter delivered by certified mail)

Wayne

milleker wrote in post #8649835
Does she have any option of voiding the model release she signed during the session?

The short answer is no. Unless the release was contingent on the exchange of CDs (and that would have to be in the contract, which, considering it was written by the photographer, it probably wasn't), then the contract is a legal document of an agreement. Unless the agreement itself is somehow illegal or the contract stipulates that she can get out of it at any time, she can't unilaterally back out of it. That's why contracts exist, really.

/I am not a lawyer

A model release is a contract....... If you don't live up to the agreement its void. She needs to send a letter Cert Return Recept Mail to that effect giving him a short time (say 10 days) to live up to his end of the agreement or no release..... If no response, let him use the pics and sue......

Mark H
(PS I was a lawyer for 17 years)

P51Mstg wrote in post #8653059
A model release is a contract....... If you don't live up to the agreement its void. She needs to send a letter Cert Return Recept Mail to that effect giving him a short time (say 10 days) to live up to his end of the agreement or no release..... If no response, let him use the pics and sue......

Mark H
(PS I was a lawyer for 17 years)

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but do I pay one to write my legal documents. A model release is not necessarily a contract, and a good model release will be written to avoid becoming a contract--specifically, to avoid any mention of "compensation." My model releases are separate documents from whatever compensation the transaction otherwise required.

I agree 100% with rdkirk above. I carelessly typed "a model release". When I meant "THIS model release". (I spent last 3 days at Reno Air Races taking pictures)

Incidently. This particular photog is a dirtbag for not giving the model a few pictures. Amazing

This particular release is a contract since it appears to exchange the release for pictures. I think in a way it's better than a straight release since to me a contract is more binding than a simple release which can be attacked on several fronts. (such as you altered the pictures, I didn't know you were going to use them to sell porn or cigarettes, or dome other reason)

I can say it nice to see someone using a lawyer here. I get tired of hearing all the "darkroom lawyers". Telling people very wrong things and telling then yo find contracts or agreements on the web ( and if they are on the web they must be good) and avoid legal advice. Of course after the fact they always want a lawyer to dig them out of the trouble they are in

Favorites of mine are the "I just gave the copyright away what do I do now?" as well as the "I rented the picture and they are doing something else with it that I didn't think of putting in the agreement now I want more money". It gets expensive doing that. Experience is a difficult teacher

back to the races

Mark H

As I understand it And Mark H is free to correct me any written agreement can be taken as a contract. The good thing is that they mean precisely what they say and nothing more, which is also the bad thing about them. Any agreement is subject to statute, whether it is verbal or written, and this can complicate things somewhat, but that is generally not a problem with a simple agreement like a model release. And NO she is probably stuck with what she agree to, had the photographer would probably be stuck to his side of the agreement should push come to shove.

Wayne

P51Mstg wrote in post #8653059
A model release is a contract....... If you don't live up to the agreement its void. She needs to send a letter Cert Return Recept Mail to that effect giving him a short time (say 10 days) to live up to his end of the agreement or no release..... If no response, let him use the pics and sue......

Mark H
(PS I was a lawyer for 17 years)

You are assuming that the contract had language that related to the photographer giving her CDs. Since the contract was drawn up by the photographer, it probably didn't. Reading the OP, she doesn't have a copy of the contract, and so has no idea really what it actually says. Unless the photographer was a little bit braindead, there is probably no language in the MR whatsoever that promises the model she will receive prints or a CD.

RDKirk wrote in post #8654284
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but do I pay one to write my legal documents. A model release is not necessarily a contract, and a good model release will be written to avoid becoming a contract--specifically, to avoid any mention of "compensation." My model releases are separate documents from whatever compensation the transaction otherwise required.

I would not say that a "good" model release is written to avoid any mention of compensation. Getty Images have some of the best IP attorneys in the world working for them, and the first two words of their U.S. MR is: "For Consideration" (*edit: I keep a stack of $1 bills with me when I go shooting for this very reason)

http://contributors.ge​ttyimages.com …_-_English_-_Dec_2008.pdf

I think it has to have an exchange to be valid, ie. if it doesn't have anything in the "for consideration" section then it's simply not enforceable...

It's a real pain she doesn't have a copy of the release to hand.

dreamcatcher23 wrote in post #8657789
I think it has to have an exchange to be valid, ie. if it doesn't have anything in the "for consideration" section then it's simply not enforceable...

It's a real pain she doesn't have a copy of the release to hand.

That's not necessarily true. A release does not have to be a contract. We're talking about privacy laws here, and most in most US states, courts and legislatures have said, as in New York and Florida:

"Right of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

"Written consent" is not a contract and there does not have to be a consideration paid or any other implication of performance on the part of the photographer. People give legal "written consent" for things all the time. For instance, a power of attorney is such "written consent" which is not a contract and no money changes hands in exchange for the written consent.

Another example is written consent to allow a school to take your child to a museum. You can't get treatment at a hospital without giving written consent about their use your information. None of these uses is a contract, none of them involves consideration in exchange for your written consent.

Lots of standard releases contain "consideration" as boilerplate--but check with a lawyer in your own state whether you need that. It's not necessarily harmless. If your state only requires "written permission," you do not want to make your model release look like a contract.

One of the problems with "consideration" is that it opens the question of whether the consideration was truly valuable. The guy who carries dollar bills to stand as "valuable consideration" might get a rude surprise in court when a judge decides that less money than it costs to buy a Coke is not "valuable consideration" at all.

Here are some examples of corporate and university model releases, all vetted by their legal departments, none of them mentioning "consideration."

http://www.sierraclub.​org …es/tools/modelr​elease.pdf
http://www.nsta.org/pu​blications/release.asp​x
http://www.nationalgeo​graphic.com …df/Model_Releas​e_Form.pdf
http://www.uaf.edu …omm/pnp/Model_R​elease.pdf
http://www.wiu.edu …ns/pdfs/model_r​elease.pdf
http://www.rootsandsho​ots.org …ecenter/Model_R​elease.pdf
http://www.victoriana.​com …ne/model_releas​e_form.pdf
http://www.mtu.edu …ography/model_r​elease.pdf
http://www.thorntonstu​dio.com …on-model-release-form.pdf