 Benita R. Cloward |
Model release - my child Hi, I was wondering...I am looking into stock agencies, and do I need a model release form for my own child? I've tried to look throuhg some of the forums, but couldn't find any informaiton regarding this issue. I use my children for very many of my portraits...mhhh. I would really appreciate feedback. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Yep. A stock company isn't going to get into deciphering which photo was sent in by a parent and which one wasn't. So a blanket need for releases for all recognisable would lessen the headaches and confusion.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
Hi Benita. Gregory is correct. However, one more piece of information...you should always sign a release for each shoot. Say you shoot one of your children today...then again a week from now. You should have a release dated on the day that you took the shots.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Benita R. Cloward |
Thanks so much for your fast response guys. (I knew I could rely on BP!! lol) This is good to know. Now how about for publishing on websites or display in the studio? Would I really need one for photos of my owm kids? Or is it just better to have one anyways for whatever reason and just for precausion? Thanks again! ;o)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
Always a good habit to have one. Someone could walk into the studio or see a shot on your website and claim it is their child. One never knows! Nonetheless, having that release may help you down the road.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Benita R. Cloward |
Woops, must have caught you online, or so Margie...lol (very fast response) Well, that's what I figured, so I'll just get used to having those things around...lol Thank you again for your help!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Let me get this straight: You photograph your own kid and submit the photos to stock agencies. You're asking if that needs a release from you? If that's the scenario, the answer is no, you don't need a release for a few reasons. First, the release protects the agency from liability in the event someone, like the parents sue the agency and the photographer for using an image of a minor without the express consent. What are you going to do, sue the agency for using a photo of your own kid that you made and provided to them? That seems pretty ludicrous. In addition, agencies don't usually request a signed copy of the release to be provided with the photograph, only that the photographer warrants/represents that the image is properly released, and in the case of a minor child, released by the kid's parent(s) or guardian. So, as the kid's parent AND the photographer, you're representing that the image(s) is/are released. I don't really understand Margie's scenario at all. How on earth someone could walk into your studio and claim a photo hanging on the wall is their kid and not yours is beyond me. I suppose if they did, you could always just say something like "Excuse me, let me get my daughter" and introduce them. Then ask your daughter who her mom is. As W.C. Fields once said: "It's a wise son who knows his own father." Someone sees a photo on a web site and claims it's their kid? Then send them a family group photo and tell them to get lost or tell them to pay for DNA testing. LOL !!! I gotta tell ya Margie, that's really reaching. !!! Helping you down the road? With what? Lastly, understand that a release protects the photographer from liability for misappropriation of likeness or use of someones image for profit and protection from invasion of privacy. You don't need to protect yourself from yourself for these issues and insofar as your daughter is concerned, she has no cause of action against you for using her images for commercial purposes while she's less than 18 years old UNLESS you're in California. And in California, she would have to appoint a Guardian ad litem to sue on her behalf and in 99.9 percent of the cases, that's always a living parent. Also, as an aside to all this, in California, child models/actresses can (usually on reaching 18 years of age) sue parents to recover monies earned in acting/modeling careers while they were models and the parents should have been putting the money away separately in a trust account to be available to the kid for things like education and living expenses upon reaching majority age. That's the scoop.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
BTW, the actor/model trust fund law in California is referred to as "Coogan's Law" after the childhood actor Jackie Coogan who's parents ripped off all his money from appearing in films as a kid and left him with nothing. Mark.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Benita R. Cloward |
Well, Mark, I thought too that it's rather strange that myself being the legal parent and photographer...that I needed this for anything. I guess the point Margie wanted to make is...better safe than sorry? And about the Cali thing, I've heard a lot about that case, and my husband and I already opened a savings account for our daughter. May that be used for whatever or her own earnings.... So we're prepared in that case...lol And I'm sure nobody would dare to try and say that a picture of my own daugher would be theirs...that's just too out there. Maybe rather claiming that they took the picture? But that's what copyrights are for...lol Love the joke about the DNA test though...lol Thank you for your input Mark.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Since it's her child she wouldn't need anything legally, but a stock company would want them for ease of operations.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Well Benita, if you find that you and your husband are borrowing money from your daughter or asking her for loans, I'd consult an entertainment lawyer. And, you're right of course, it's better to be safe than sorry, but I try and avoid redundant or unnecessary paperwork. Sheesh, got enough of that already eh?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Certainly an agency like iStockphoto (and probably others as well) requires a model release for any image of a child, even if it's the child of the photographer. A single model release is OK for any and all images of that child. (One per shoot is a recommendation rather than a specific requirement.) It must be witnessed by an independent third party. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Like I said earlier: The large agencies, including Getty, Magnum, NYT, AP, etc. will have the photographer sign a document stating specifically that [s]he warrants and/or represents that the accompanying photographs are properly released for any and all purposes that may arise directly or incidentally to the contract between the Agency and the Photographer. Your agreement also provides that the photographer shall indemnify the agency for any losses arising from lack of the release. That means you submit the work, you're promising that photo is released. If it ain't you're on the hook for any liability. The agency doesn't NEED the actual paperwork. It's up the photographer to maintain their own records and provide a true and correct copy of the appropriate release should it be necessary. ;>) Maybe these new microstock agencies do things differently. Never having worked with any of them, (or microbreweries for that matter) I honestly can't say what their policies are. But, the industry standard is that the photographer holds the release and simply represents that they've got it according to the terms of his stock rep. agreement.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
iStockphoto specifically requires its own form of model release. I'm not sure whether there are any "generic" releases which would be acceptable to more than one microstock agency. (I submit to a few sites, but don't have people images, so I've never actually gone through the process). Robyn
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Benita, Most microstock agencies will require a model release (MR) along with the photo, even of your own child. Many have streamlined the process whereby you upload (just shoot a photo of the release) the jpeg of the model release. You are better off having the MR from the start. MR are to protect the photographer as well as the subject. A well known stock photographer once told me that producing a MR for a model's HANDS once saved him from a lawsuit when someone ELSE tried to claim the photographed hands were theirs. So rather than try to figure out why you shouldn't have to get one, just get it and be more at peace. In the case of minors, it is actually wiser to get the permission of BOTH parents, if possible (recall I am saying WISER, not you must). Then you are further protected from possible grief in the case of divorce/separation of the minor's parents. This has happened (not to me), which is why I bring it up. $6,144.84 earned from the microstock agencies and counting... http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||