Issuing a license - Does the document need the client's signature?

I'm in the process of writing up a document for licensing an image and have been referring to the documents from the Association of Photographers for help.
I'm happy with what I've got but I'm not entirely sure who needs to have signed it. The AoP license only has the photographer but I want to check this is right.

I get the impression that as it is a document 'from' me 'to' the client only I need to sign it and that by going on to use the licensed image the client is accepting the terms and conditions which are on the reverse of the license.
Is this correct or do I need to have a client signature specifically to show they have accepted the terms?

Also, the AoP document has a number of fields in the same column as the photographer's name and the date which I'm unsure of:
"Agent/Rep" - I assume I have none, as I'm an individual, and that I don't need this field.
"Photographer's Ref No." - I gather this or the below is a unique number for linking documents relating to the same 'job', but then what is the other one for?
"Art Order No." - I gather this or the above is a unique number for linking documents relating to the same 'job', but then what is the other one for?
"Product" - I'm drawing a blank on this. I have a section outlining the 'Photographs' covered by the license and what 'Photographs' refers to is covered in the terms so why the extra field? On the other hand this one is on the same line as 'The Advertiser' so is it relating to 'The Advertiser' rather than the 'Photographer'?

I'm in the UK

Any help greatly appreciated!

I can't speak for the UK, but maybe the US situation adds light.

In the US, there are two things going on:

1. Copyright license. That is a federal-level issue in the US, and it does not require the signature of the person receiving the license. The license in the US is not a contract in itself but can be part of a contractual agreement--yet it can also be granted outside of a contractual agreement. I suspect it works the same way in the UK because the UK also observes such things as Creative Commons licensing--which gives license to an indefinite number of unknown users.


2. As part of a contractual agreement, the license can be made an enforceable performance on the part of the photographer in return for an enforceable performance (actions and payment) on the part of the client. In the US, that contractual agreement would be contested at the state level as a "breach of contract."

In the US, copyright is firmly ruled by the federal courts as "property." From that point, the state courts are free to handle copyright as any other property. If the state court rules a breach of contract case in favor of the photographer, then the photographer is free to retrieve his property (the license) from the client.