12

YOU as the photographer never need a model release. It is the end user who is going to publish the image, and potentially violate the model's rights, who needs the release. You as the photographer cannot violate your own rights as the model. If you were to license the image to a publisher they could/would need a release signed by you as the model. Edit: if ...


8

I don't think your jurisdiction even matters. Let's take a common sense approach. You have an image of yourself. It was taken by some photographer. You think this is a very good image and you want to add it to your portfolio. Here are the possible scenarios when adding the image: You do not need the permission to do this, but the photographer does not ...


7

She took the photos. She owns them. She gave you a copy of them, but they're still her photos. If she were to use them for commercial purposes (your image in advertising) you might have more of a lever to stop her, but basically, she can do this. Whether she should over your objections is an ethical but not a legal question. This is why things like this ...


6

Short answer, sometimes. If you only intend to upload them online, then you generally don't need written permission (some websites do require it though) however it can be a good idea to get permission anyway especially if you are photographing people you don't know well or at all. This will protect you should someone change their mind about having his/her ...


6

Obviously, you need one signed form from each model, but otherwise it depends on the wording of the release; you could have one that covers multiple shoots. Just make sure that this fact is communicated clearly. In theory, a model could claim they just signed something at the first shoot which they were told is "the standard model release" and that they ...


5

Legal Disclaimer The following is for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular situation. If you have a specific concern you should consult with an attorney familiar with the relevant issues in the jurisdiction in question. Assuming you are in the U.S. If she is using them to promote her photography ...


5

Like pretty much any legal question, this depends of course on the jurisdiction. In many European countries, the photographer would be violating your rights by publishing pictures of you without your consent (Droit à l'image, Bildnisrecht). However, in the common law legal tradition of the UK and the USA, these rights are generally not recognized.


5

I believe as I am the copyright holder this would be OK, even if there is no model release, right? Or would I have to make them sign a model release so I could use the photos of them on my site? Regardless of what you can get away with under your local laws and the terms of your contract, why would you use those photos against your client's wishes? As a ...


5

I did a quick Google of "Canada Model Release Law," and found this info: Why does it matter if the model is a minor? If the model is a minor, he or she will need parental permission to approve of the use of his or her image, likeness, or sound. How do you define a “minor”? Within the context of the Model and Entertainment Release, a minor ...


4

This is not a legal advice!!! If you want to license the image (to magazine, stock agency, etc.) yes, you need model release. You as model should sign it to yourself as photographer.


4

In the United States, privacy torts and publicity rights — especially the tort of appropriation — are the basis for the requirement of model releases. Appropriation is usually expressed like: One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy Restatement of the Law, ...


4

You're confusing copyright licencing with model releases, they are separate and not actually related. Licencing and copyright govern who is permitted to have the images and if/where/when they can reproduce a work. A model release indemnifies a licensee should they show the subject(s) endorsing a viewpoint that the subject does not hold or shows them in a ...


3

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am not giving any legal advice, other than to consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction. A basic way to go would be to gather the minors personal informations on the model releases to help identify them, and get both of their parents to sign them (again, along with their personal informations to identify them clearly). ...


3

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am not giving any legal advice, other than to consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction. In most states in the US, minors do not have the capacity to contract. Contracts entered to with a minor are voidable at the discretion of the minor. If you wish the terms of the contract to be enforceable on all sides (i.e., to ...


3

Legal Disclaimer The following is for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular situation. If you have a specific concern you should consult with an attorney familiar with the relevant issues in the jurisdiction in question. Since the questioner indicated they were located in the U.S., this answer assumes ...


3

Ultimately the only truly useful answer will be from a lawyer who specialises in copyright in the relevant jurisdictions (probably wherever it is going to be published, possibly also where the photographs were taken). That said, I think the general concept you're looking for is whether it's Editorial use or Commercial use. The former tends to be things like ...


2

Whoever is going to use the image needs permission from both the model (for their likeness) and the photographer (for their copyright). In some circumstances (mainly journalism, but I believe there is one or two other exceptions) a model release is not required, in which case only the license for copyright is required. Disclaimer: seek photographic advice ...


2

Maybe you can offer the cat owners a small percent of the profit in exchange for property model release permission.


2

I'm not sure. But you probably signed a "model relese" document. In this kind of documents the model renounces some rights to comercialize, demand, ask for aditional remuneration, complain for the use or ask for removal, etc. See if you have a copy of that. If this is regarding only for asking remuneration and not "all use" you can use them as a personal ...


2

You would need permission as the work is their copyright, however you could propose that you credit back to them. The photographer may feel a benefit in getting additional publicity for their work. I wouldn't mind as long as I'm credited, however I am not a professional photographer


2

No. Model releases aren't used much in the UK.and there's no legal requirement for one. However you may want to have a contract drawn out between you and the organisation to protect everyone involved's interests and probably a licensing agreements also (detailing usage and what each party is entitled to do). However usual stack disclaimer. I'm not a ...


2

You are the parent, you are the photographer. Unless you plan to sue yourself for using an image then no. Flippant answer aside i would think that any publication or contest would require a model release form.


2

The following is for entertainment purposes only. Contact a lawyer if you have serious legal concerns. Contact a lawyer to determine whether you actually need model releases and whether an opt-in or opt-out system would be most appropriate. While "bulk model releases" with opt-out might save on paperwork, they would be inappropriate if you have significant ...


2

No, you do not. The company will want to have them, though (for their use of the photos). Generally you need release forms to publish, not to shoot.


1

I'd also suggest that you countersign the model release and pass a copy back to the model for their reference. People often forget they signed something and sometimes try to shift the goal posts. Also useful, if in the future you wish to do something else with the images outside of the original contract, you can then send them the original copy with any ...


1

Maybe you can have a look at iStocks Model Release. That's how a contract is written to allow usage. iStock MR


1

It depends. Dan Heller's model release primer (and other articles) give a lot of background and things to consider. To quote Dan, in short, You never need releases to take pictures. You don't need releases to buy or sell pictures. [...] How a person or thing is "portrayed" is what determines whether a release is required. Whoever publishes ...


1

Often, the question of whether you need a release is more a commercial than a legal question. To put it simply, you need a release if the agency or client you are selling the images to require a release. For example, if they're going to be using the images in advertising, they want to be sure that the model knows their image may be used to promote a ...


1

I imagine it could depend on jurisdiction, but I think you are generally correct that the copyright is the right to reproduce a particular image and that the model/likeness rights have to do with if the image can be used in a particular way due to content. If you had a release from the model for the image though, then I think that would effectively wave the ...


1

There is so much misinformation on this subject... People in or who are visible from a public place have no right to privacy, in any country. That's a myth. The law allows for a reasonable expectation of privacy only, there are legal protections against harassment and there may be restrictions on entry to events. So if you are visibly wearing a silly hat ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible