2
\$\begingroup\$

  1. In a shoot that is an assigned-type project, I am being paid to create pictures for the client's website. The models are his own/his friend's animals.

  2. To my understanding, in the case of a human model, if he/she is not associated with the photographer or the client, we would require their model release.

  3. Does the breeder need to grant me a model release if they are his own animals? (he would like exclusive digital/web usage. However he is fine with my making prints.)

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Model release? probably not. See James Snell's answer. Since the animal in question are the source of income for the breeder they may have concerns about unauthorized usage of the photos of their animals. this should be in the contract with them. See my answer to your other question about licensing. \$\endgroup\$
    – Alaska Man
    Commented Mar 10, 2018 at 21:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ Please put your answers in the answers section, even if they're short \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Mar 11, 2018 at 3:46

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
1
\$\begingroup\$

Not really an answer, but you forgot to mention which jurisdiction is involved, rules differ between countries.

But in any case, if a release is needed, it is needed by the publisher of the images, not the photographer. (of course, they can be the same person fulfiling both "roles"). If the breeder is the one publishing the images of his own animals, he has no need to sign (or get) any release (of course, he'll need a license from the photographer for the copyright, but that's a separate issue).

But to be really sure, you'll have to consult a lawyer in your region who is familiar with those issues (not all are).

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

A model release is a (partial) protection against libel and animals cannot be libelled so in that respect one is not required.

That said; in some regions a property release is necessary/useful for commercial publication, so some kind of "animal model release" may be a good idea. It will give the animal owners a warm feeling and ensures that everyone involved has a clear position - this is especially useful in competitive breeding circles as relatively minor grievances can blow up into major issues.

Whilst it is the client's dime, I would argue to ensure in your terms/licence that you can use the images in your online portfolio - but that's purely down to how much money they want to give you.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

Based on your related question about licensing, I'd say a separate model/property release would be unnecessary. Such details can easily be included in the contract between you as the photographer and the owner of the animals as your client.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

It depends strongly where you located at. In germany pets/animals are primary "things" for the law. (Ok, things with special rights, to not be hurt or something, but things). But this is just for germany.

(oh and don't ask peta, or they shoot down your business ;) )

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.