Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,218   Posts: 1,532,202   Online: 939
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: People Pictures

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12
    "does this apply to ALL contracts"

    Ed- If the three conditions mentioned above are not met, there is no legal contract. A contract is a free exchange between parties- Party #1 gives consideration (usually money) and expects Party #2 to do something in exchange for that consideration . Party #2 receives consideration (usually money) and is expected to do something for receiving that consideration.

    John
    John Luke
    member-ASMP

  2. #12
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Luke @ Jan 29 2003, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"does this apply to ALL contracts"

    Ed- If the three conditions mentioned above are not met, there is no legal contract. A contract is a free exchange between parties- Party #1 gives consideration (usually money) and expects Party #2 to do something in exchange for that consideration . Party #2 receives consideration (usually money) and is expected to do something for receiving that consideration.
    </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I uderstood that about contracts. My question was about the &#036;20 as a minimum amount to validate the contract. As I understand it, the requirement is that there is a finite BENEFIT (could be prints or the value of services renedered or items of value) to BOTH parties - but I was not aware of any &#39;set&#39; limit.

    The idea of "good faith" is present here, as it is in all contracts.

    There is the classic case of a model who posed for what she understood to be a mattress advertisement... She was clad in sleepware (nothing salacious) and lying on a bed, complete with bedding... etc. She signed a Model Release - allowing the use of her image for "All legal Purposes", complete with binding payment - and six months later found that she was on the cover of an XXX rated video at the local Adult Video store.

    She sued, alledging Breach of Contract - via a Breach of Good Faith - and won a sizeable judgement. The use of her image for the XXX video was FAR outside any use that she could have been reasonably expected to anticipate.

    As a matter of course, I "dedicate" part of the fee to the model as payment for the Model Release. If I happen to realize a substantial amount of money from the sale of a Fine Art print, or sell one of her images to a large advertising campaign, I&#39;ll dedicate a portion of the unexpected revenue to the model as a "good faith" bonus.

    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12
    Professional models from talent agencies have invoices known in gthe industry as a model voucher. Along with their payment info, it has the legalese that acts as the release. A pro typically grants use for a very specific use, such as the person with the mattress ad, and it usualy has a 1 year time limit. Any other use beyond what the release states, and after that year is up requires additional considerstion (in the case of modeling agencies, it&#39;s always money), and they spell it out very specifically as part of their rates. If the client or photographer wants to use the image for an unending time or for other purposes without having to go back to the modeling agency each time and pay, they do what is known as a "buyout". They pay up front for unlimited usage for an unending amount of time. This can be anywhere from double to triple to whatever the model thinks they are worth. They have to weigh any potential future residuals for immediate cash up front. Lots of big corpporations insist on buyouts so they can have unfettered use of photos, so do the royalty free stock photo CDs. I agree on the example of the xxx as being something that is not typically foreseeable.

    If you do get a model or any Joe off the street to sign a release giving you rights for any legitmate purpose with no time limit, there is no good faith implied to pay them anthing additional if you sell the image for a big fee later. Once you pay &#39;em, your done. That&#39;s nice of you to consider giving them more later if it sells, but the financial risk was all on you in producing the shot, marketing the shot, and you have been bearing all the expenses for ones that never sell.

    John Luke
    APA/ASMP
    John Luke
    member-ASMP

  4. #14
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Luke @ Jan 30 2003, 04:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    If you do get a model or any Joe off the street to sign a release giving you rights for any legitmate purpose with no time limit, there is no good faith implied to pay them anthing additional if you sell the image for a big fee later. Once you pay &#39;em, your done. That&#39;s nice of you to consider giving them more later if it sells, but the financial risk was all on you in producing the shot, marketing the shot, and you have been bearing all the expenses for ones that never sell.
    </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Even if there is no legal obligation, this is my choice. Chalk it up to a "Celebration of Good Fortune".

    I guess it is also an extension of a management philosophy from a different life ... Models, Assistants, Interns.... do not work FOR me... They work WITH me.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    12
    Getting back to the topic of what is adequate consideration. The most bombproof releases usually begin with the line " For good and valuable consideraton received.......".
    Courts ruled that the once customary buck was not valuable consideration so the &#036;20 is an arbitrary figure, until someone challenges it in court. I add a line that states "For good and valuable consideraton received, or the promise of a print to be received.......

    No matter how boilerplate your release is, somebody can challenge it. People sue all the time. At a local college I do work for, students sign a photo release as part of their admissions documents giving the college permission to photograph them at events for college publications. The consideration in essense is wrapped into participaring in a college education. Nothing wrong here, it&#39;s done all the time. Students who may want to not have their photo taken for religious reasons or whatever, usually have an "opt out" button to check. A black person sued them because the college ran a photo of him at graduation sitting next to his mother. ( Not my photo) His father was cropped out, for whatever reason, didn&#39;t fit the layout or maybe the father had his eyes closed, it doesn&#39;t really matter. The dad was cropped out. The suit claimed that running a photo of a black student with only one parent signified he was from a one parent household and the photo may have reinforced the stereotype that many black children are born from unmarried women and have no known fathers. The family was awarded &#036;100 Grand in an out of court settlement. I know this because when ever I shoot for this college, a representative from the college has to be present to issue releases on the spot and to discuss any potential ramifications in the future. The students then have the opportunity to not participate in the photo.

    The bottom line, get a release and keep your fingers crossed.

    John Luke
    APA/ASMP

    John Luke
    member-ASMP

  6. #16
    djkloss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Erie, Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    641
    Images
    55
    Most of what I've seen about releases is for magazine articles, books & advertising. I recently took a trip (my first) to New York, and had a blast. I was using my Nikon F100 set on auto, with a 14mm lens. I was taking pictures of crowds on the street. I'd like to use them in gallery submissions/exhibits - hopefully for sale. They're candid shots and there's no way to get a release for something like that. My question is - do you need one for framed photos for sale in a gallery?

    thanks,
    Dorothy

  7. #17
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    Obviously, opinions vary all over the map, Dorothy, and people sue for the craziest of things. But, my feeling is that if the images were made in public places where the individuals had no expectation of privacy, and aren't demeaning to the individuals, you're probably OK with gallery displays and print sales.

    Note, too, that laws relating to this issue vary considerably between countries, and may vary between states in the U.S., as well.
    [COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin