 
|
| Friday, November 06, 2009 8:12 PM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Merseyside Liverpool | Hiya Could anyone give me some more information about model release forms? I have a general idea what they are, but should I expect to sign them at TFP shoots without it being discussed previously? What about paid shoots? Thanks for the help! x |
|
| Hard working, agency represented and professional model/internet addict. | ||
 |   |
|
| Friday, November 06, 2009 9:06 PM | ||
 Location United Kingdom London | Yes, would be my answer. I won't generally pick up a camera without a signed release, whether I've talked about it before or not. From the model's POV, it makes hardly any difference on a paid, part paid or TF shoot. If you are paying for the shoot, however, that's another matter. |
|
| |
|
| Friday, November 06, 2009 9:30 PM | |
| Adrian_Curtis No longer a member | Copyright [ in the UK ] automatically belongs to the photographer or [ possibly ] their client, and it is up to them how the images are used. A signed model release is just evidence that the model understands this, and makes no difference to their rights or the shoot, whether it is paid, part paid, or tfp/cd.
[ * Moderator edits plus incorrect sentence struck out by Moderator. ]
|
| |
| Friday, November 06, 2009 9:54 PM | ||
 Location Ireland Cork Bristol- Cork |  Quote from Adrian_CurtisCopyright automatically belongs to the photographer or their client, and it is up to them how the images are used. A signed model release is just evidence that the model understands this, and makes no difference to their rights or the shoot, whether it is paid, part paid, or tfp/cd. If the model hires the photographer, the model is the client, and therefore owns the copyright, again whether it is paid, part paid, or tf. Hope this helps to clear things up for you.  Wrong fella, suggest you try again. |
|
| |
|
| Saturday, November 07, 2009 1:29 AM | |
| Phil Rees No longer a member | Or you could tell us what's wrong about it? |
| |
| Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:10 AM | |||
 Location United Kingdom South Yorkshire Barnsley | As has been said before a thousand times. even if a model is paying for the shoot she/he does NOT automatically own copyright. The only way that can happen is if the photographer agrees to assign copyright for the shoot (A very unlikely event) i.e. A wedding photographer (normally) does not assign copyright to the party who pays him for the wedding shoot. A model release in the UK is not a legal requirement at all and is there solely to allow the model to possibly put restrictions on where/how her images are used, without it the photographer can do as he pleases with the images. Model release and copyright are two totally unrelated issues. Both of course can be adjusted by mutual agreement, preferably before a shoot and as a written/signed contract. |
||
| |
||
| Saturday, November 07, 2009 6:43 AM | |
| Adrian_Curtis No longer a member | Copyright belongs to the author of the work. If the work is commissioned, this can be different to the creator (the photographer). Piece of advice to models, if you ask someone to take some shots for your portfolio and pay them to do so, ask them to sign a copyleft agreement (think of it as a reverse model release)to clear things up. Also, copyright law does not exist solely in the UK, as the mods seem to think. It even covers work internationally, under The Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention. The UK version just gives additional protection, such as 70 years duration instead of the standard 25. I did try to keep things simple in my original post. |
| |
| Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:02 AM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Merseyside Liverpool | Great help, thank you very much :) | |
| Hard working, agency represented and professional model/internet addict. | ||
| |
|
| Sunday, November 08, 2009 1:04 PM | |
| JeanFrancois_Jonvelle No longer a member | Quote from Adrian_Curtis Piece of advice to models, if you ask someone to take some shots for your portfolio and pay them to do so, ask them to sign a copyleft agreement (think of it as a reverse model release)to clear things up. The UK version just gives additional protection, such as 70 years duration instead of the standard 25. I did try to keep things simple in my original post. Would have thought a usage agreement would have been preferable to a "copyleft" agreement. Am seeing my brief on Tuesday so will ask her as haven't heard of this one. In the USA, they usually do life of author plus 70 years rather than a "standard 25" years : US Government Body Copyright Office ...France has 70 years as well.... Are you referring to posthumous works when you quote 25 years? Which will confuse many.... |
| |
| Sunday, November 08, 2009 5:11 PM | |
| Adrian_Curtis No longer a member | A usage agreement and copyleft agreement are essentially 2 names for the same thing. It's a play on the word copyright. Under the Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention, works in 1 country are also covered by copyright in another country for at least 25 years, providing both countries are party to the same convention. For example, the US was not included in the Berne Convention, so the Universal Copyright Convention came into being. Some countries stuck to the minimum 25 years from origination of the work, others used their national laws to extend this. In the UK it used to be 25 years, but then it was extended to 70 years in 1988 copyright act. It might be worth checking with your brief how long a photograph taken in the UK would be covered for in, for example, the US. Not sure whether it would be UK or US laws. |
| |
|
|
