Model Release for Barely Recognizable Figures

[Diapositivo]

Further elements for discussion about model release.

I just read this:

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/08/21/...-18000-payday/

Frankly, this is puzzling me.
The photographer certainly has the copyright for the wedding photographs he produces (unless his contract with the client states that all rights shall belong to the client).

But in this case a firm is using this particular "face" to promote their goods. I would bet that the firm should obtain a model release from the bride at the very least. And I would suppose that the cost would be higher than the one paid to the wedding photographer.

[Prof_Pixel]

Frankly, this is puzzling me.

Read through the 73 comments below the article for more information.

[Steve Smith]

And another reason why I would want copyright of my wedding images transferred to me if I ever got married again!


Steve.

[Diapositivo]

Read through the 73 comments below the article for more information.

Read them. Did not find any further information.

[Prof_Pixel]

Read them. Did not find any further information.

See for example:

John Mireles : I've been getting this question a lot on my blog. This sale happened awhile ago so I don't remember all the details. At any rate, I'm sure I advised the photographer to obtain a model release from the bride. My advise in this situation is to go back to the client and pay them specifically for the requested use so that there's no question that both photographer and client have permission to use the image. I would never recommend anyone to do a sale like this without express permission - I don't care what the wedding contract says.
Oh... and one point of clarification. The article identifies me as a consultant, but I'm actually a long time advertising and wedding photographer.

and

Guest: Model release is part of our wedding contract

and

Martin: If you look at any wedding photographer contracts, it states model release for whatever the contract states such as "marketing, advertisements, competition entry, portfolio, online usage, commercial, etc" If the clients read thoroughly and didn't agree, then they would have to arrange another contract of course.
Standard model releases aren't out of the norm to be in wedding agreements/contracts at all, so don't be surprised if you do find MODEL RELEASE statement on all wedding agreements.

Notice that the laws may differ in other countries.

Damian: For the argument on who "owns" the photo... I'm a graphic artist, I fix the photos not take them; however I was involved in a conversation with some photographers a while ago and it was rather interestingly brought up that in the U.S. professional wedding photographers own the photos they take - it's in their contracts. (Having a professional is way different than giving your third cousin twice removed a $100 digital camera.) However in Canada it's the reverse, the couples own the photos unless they sign them over. I heard it's actually the law in some areas of the country. Just an interesting note.

[Steve Smith]

I was involved in a conversation with some photographers a while ago and it was rather interestingly brought up that in the U.S. professional wedding photographers own the photos they take - it's in their contracts. (Having a professional is way different than giving your third cousin twice removed a $100 digital camera.) However in Canada it's the reverse, the couples own the photos unless they sign them over. I heard it's actually the law in some areas of the country. Just an interesting note.

The law in whichever country is the default position if it is not specified in the contract.

It can however be specified contrary to the default by a clause in the contract.

i.e. a contract in Canada can specify that the photographer gets the copyright or a contract in the US can specify that the customer gets copyright.


Steve.

[Diapositivo]

The problem I see is that when the generic "release" the clients sign specifies commercial use, portfolio use etc. it is, in my understanding and presumably in the understanding of the client and the judge, that it is granting right of commercial use relative to the photographer's commercial activity.

To be clearer: we have often seen wedding photographers putting wedding pictures outside of their shop. When a potential client enters the shop, the photographer will show them some specimen albums with wedding of other couples. If the photographer has a website in order to attract commissions, this web site will feature wedding pictures; if the photographer buys a page in the local newspaper, or places an advertisement in the local television, he needs to show his work by showing some weddings.

All those are commercial purposes that do require a model release. This release is normally given without problems and the "standard" release which is referred in the answers in my understanding of how wedding photography works refers IMU only to those commercial purposes.

I don't think that this kind of release, worded simply as in this text:
<<
If you look at any wedding photographer contracts, it states model release for whatever the contract states such as "marketing, advertisements, competition entry, portfolio, online usage, commercial, etc" If the clients read thoroughly and didn't agree, then they would have to arrange another contract of course.
Standard model releases aren't out of the norm to be in wedding agreements/contracts at all, so don't be surprised if you do find MODEL RELEASE statement on all wedding agreements.
>>

would ever work in this case as the couple will find themselves used to promote a different product. I don't think that it is customary to have bride and groom sign releases for "any" commercial product promoting "any" thing. That would be very strange. I have not seen this standard contracts but I imagine that they mean marketing, advertisements, competition entry, portfolio, online usage, commercial, etc of the photographer's business.

[Steve Smith]

I don't think that it is customary to have bride and groom sign releases for "any" commercial product promoting "any" thing. That would be very strange.

I would certainly never sign one. But as I wrote earlier, I would want all the rights assigned to me anyway.


Steve.

[Prof_Pixel]

Diapositivo,

We all know that laws and customs can vary greatly between countries, don't we.

[TheFlyingCamera]

The problem with that wedding scenario is probably a case of poor communication - the couple may in fact have given the photographer legal permission to sell the image on for commercial advertising purposes without realizing it, and the photographer never bothered to clarify their assumption that "commercial" meant more than just self-promotion for the photographer. When the couple read the contract (assuming they actually READ the contract instead of skimming it), when they got to the line about "commercial" they should have asked. And the photographer should have given them a straight answer to include the possibility of him selling the use of the images for advertising other products and/or services. Shame on both, but more on the photographer, as that's just shady. I would think that most of us photographers know that the consuming public has at best a marginal idea of copyright and contract law, and often has zero clue what any of that stuff means. Which is why so many people try to take their wedding proofs to WalMart to have copies made.