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 ...


10

A model release is a contract, a normal everyday contract, between two parties (usually the model and the photographer) - the fact someone (who is not you) signed a contract with someone else (who is also not you) does not grant you any rights what so ever. It looks absurd if you try to apply the "but he signed a release with someone else" logic to other ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


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

The laws regarding this are very different in different states/countries and if you are concerned you really need to ask a lawyer but... You don't need a model release to sell a photo - do you think newspapers have model releases for all the photo they print? (especially the paparazzi ones). Using a picture in ads of material connected to a company ...


4

IANAL* - but technically a release is probably required from the subjects, and technically permission is probably required from the copyright holders BUT fortunately, in most cases, the madnesses of modern society do not usually fully reach into such special areas. ie worst case she may be able to be sued by both the subjects and the photographers, but ...


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 ...


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

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.


3

The release the model uses with the photographer is an agreement of the extent that the photographer may use the image(s). If you find this image on a stock site, that means that the model gave the photographer rights to post on the stock site. There are limitations beyond this. If the image is for editorial use, that usually means the model does not ...


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 ...


3

Rather than your scenarios, think of these factors (and this is US-specific, guidelines may vary elsewhere): Are you going to be selling for editorial (magazine, newspaper, blogs, etc.) you can publish anything "newsworthy"? Do you plan to market for commercial usage where a product or service is being advertised? If you are going with editorial, then a ...


3

A model release is required when you sell photos for commercial use because buyers won't buy the photos without it - that's it, as far as I know there is no law in any country that require a signed "model release" document. Some times you need permission from the model, parent (in case of kids) or owner (in case of property) but that permission doesn't have ...


3

When it comes to these matters I often refer to the microstock websites that sell photos. Even if you do not intend to sell your pictures they do have some good information about model releases and general dos and don'ts. On the Shutterstock website http://submit.shutterstock.com/legal.mhtml you can find a form for adults and minors as well as other ...


3

This is a legal question which you should ask a lawyer to be certain. Given that SmugMug is in the middle, you may want to check with their terms of service, too. The particular legalities will depend on where you live and where the photos are hosted. As a general rule, if you have to ask then you should get one. On the other hand, the likelihood that you ...


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

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). ...


2

Google is your friend here. IANAL and legal information from forums is worth what you pay for it. As others have said, get local legal advice. In the US, If you take a photo of someone in a public place, they have no right to privacy, its your photos. So you can post use them for non-commercial use. But no advertising buyer/photo editor is going to talk to ...


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


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