Model Releases
Photographers who only shoot images for personal use that will never be published really don’t need a model release, but professionals or indeed any amateur who is publishing material for commercial usage should generally obtain a signed release from the model, where the subject consents to the usage of their image in various media as specified in the release.
There are many misconceptions in this area regarding model releases and my comments should not be interpreted as any kind of binding legal advice because every country is different. In general terms images used for editorial purposes don’t require a model release, however you might still sleep easier if you did some nude images of a subject and published them in a magazine or online without their permission.
I don’t know a single photographer who has had any real problems like this, but defending a legal action, even if it has little merit can still be expensive, stressful and time consuming. Problems are most likely to occur if you photograph an amateur model who then decides 6 months later that she wasn’t happy to be photographed naked and suddenly decides to kick up a fuss. This is one of the reasons why I invariably work with professional models from established agencies because there are fewer problems.
Most editorial assignments involving a model for magazines never have a written release as such. This is quite deliberate, so that no commercial usage rights are given. Instead the magazine simply pays the model a relatively low day rate for the editorial usage and is then able to use the images for their spread.
Most model agencies are mainly interested in this editorial work because it helps to get their girls seen and provides them with published images for their portfolio. There really isn’t much to gain from a financial point of view and that generally applies to photographers as well.
When shooting commercial assignments with a model for advertising purposes it’s normal practice for the client to stipulate a specific usage with the model agency and come to an agreement on price for that usage. There are no fixed rates here, so it’s all a case of horse trading by each party to get the best deal they can. Again though there is generally no model release as such and the rights usage is simply specified in the invoice supplied by the agency.
N.B It is common practice for many clients to deliberately organise shoots where the model’s face cannot be clearly seen and this is done so that there is just a one time basic fee, since model agencies cannot generally charge usage when a model is unrecognisable.
Clearly there are many clients who would love to obtain a full model release to do whatever they like, but it’s really not in the interests of the model agencies to give up all rights and it sets a bad precedent, which is why most stock photographers are frustrated when they approached a serious model agency demanding that the model sign a full release for a low fee, especially if it was for nudes.
It’s true that there are some strange model agencies out there with all kinds of weird practices but I tend to just ignore them because they don’t even have the kind of models that I would want to photograph. One agency online I saw recently wanted to charge a fixed rate for a half day shoot, but said that the photographer could only use one image from a shoot. Obviously they don’t have too many clients shooting catalogues or brochures…
The use of a model release really comes into play when a photographer needs the flexibility to sell images for commercial purposes such as a shop window display for example without needing to go back and negotiate with the model or her agency after the shoot.
For commercial assignments, you do your job and after receiving a payment for your services the deal generally ends there. You may choose to use the images in your portfolio, which is perfectly legitimate, but that is about it. A clever photographer though can also do well by finding suitable models for self assigned glamour or nude projects and creating images that can then be sold for various purposes to eventually reap a very good profit. The key point though in this case is to obtain a signed full model release and then you are free to use the images in practically any way that you choose.
Just to be clear I am not advocating the practice of placing your images with a stock library here, because I honestly feel they are no longer working in the best interests of photographers and should be kept at a long distance. Some photographers seem obsessed with the idea of working with stock agencies, but it’s not a fair partnership when a photographer creates images at their own expense that are then given away for peanuts and the agency keeps the lion share of the sales amount.
The answer is to produce genuinely professional looking imagery of worthwhile models with a fully signed release and then promote yourself in the right places. I have found this to be far more profitable in practice than submitting images to stock libraries because I am able to target my marketing in areas that the agencies completely ignore.
Most photo libraries these days simply market themselves as a brand by virtue of their vast archives and cheap prices, while relying on their usual customers in their traditional areas. For most, their only strategy seems to be cheaper prices, more images and higher volumes, which may be fine for amateurs who are happy to earn $100 a month but for a professional who has invested serious time, skill and cash this is a disaster.
The other huge advantage of not giving your images to a photo library is that you maintain control over how your images are used. In other words you are in command and that is exactly the way it should be. Remember to think outside the box and take control of your own business. As they like to say in Texas ”If you don’t know where you’re going, you ain’t going to get there”. These subjects and a lot more is covered in my book.
