Would you sign this model release when getting family pictures taken?

[justlearning]

We've only had our family pictures taken by friends before, so I'm not familiar with a model release. I recently purchased a groupon special for an established photographer who's going to take our family pictures outdoors. But we first are required to sign a model release, which is making me uneasy. Recently we knew a family who had their pictures taken by a different photographer and then a couple of months later their picture was plastered on a billboard in our town advertising a product (that they don't use).

But the photographer is telling me this release is standard practice and she won't take our pics unless we sign this. Would you sign it?

Model Release I hereby give to <photographer's name>, her heirs, legal representatives and assigns, those for whom <photographer's name> is acting, and those acting with her authority and permission:

a) My permission to license the images and to use the images in any media for any purpose except pornographic or defamatory which may include among others, advertising, promotion, marketing, and packaging for any product or service.
Client shall permit the Photographer to use images of Client from any portion of the Work for display, Photographer’s
web site, publication, or other promotional uses without payment of additional compensation to Client or Client’s agents
I agree that the images may be combined with other images, text and graphics and cropped altered or modified.
b) I also permit the use of any printed material in connection therewith.
c) I hereby relinquish any right that I may have to examine or approve the completed product or products or the advertising copy or printed matter that may be used in conjunction therewith or the use to which it may be applied.

[rin]

No way, I would not sign that release. I'd demand my money back under the argument that that information should have been prominently displayed as part of the groupon offer.

[Melaine]

I have never seen anything like that. I don't think I would be willing to sign that....

[infomama]

That is in no way shape or form standard practice. I would find someone else.

[BabyMine]

Most photographers use them.

It means those images taken are the property of the photographer and he/she can use them or sell them. Many use them in their portfolios.

You can sometimes pay to release those rights so that they are your property but again it depends. If your not comfortable then talk to the photographer about your concerns and see if you can put clauses in the contract. Or cancel the Groupon.

[justlearning]

That is in no way shape or form a standard form. I would find someone else.

So what is standard?

[KHF]

No way, no day would I sign that. Also, unless it was disclosed in the fine print when you purchased the sitting, I would demand a refund. My photographers have always asked up front if they could use them in their portfolios or not. It's the #1 item that bothers me most...that they could license the image, not to use as advertising for their own photography business, but ANYTHING non-pornographic.

[artvandalay]

Run, do not walk away from this photographer.

[Kymberley]

Oh my word. NO WAY would I sign that.

[justlearning]

If your not comfortable then talk to the photographer about your concerns and see if you can put clauses in the contract. Or cancel the Groupon.

She said she won't budge on the issue. I either sign it as is or we don't get our pics taken. Yes, I think I could get my money back on this because the model release requirement wasn't mentioned in the offer. But, I was looking forward to getting these pics taken and it's a good deal. So if all photographers will expect us to sign something like this, then we won't gain anything by paying more for someone else.

[justlearning]

So for those of you who are saying don't sign it, have you had your pictures taken by a photographer? If so, did you have to sign any release regarding copyright, etc. and, if so, what did you have to agree to in that release?

[rin]

I'd make a few phone calls to other photographers in your area and see whether that is in fact standard practice. I bet you can find out within 20 minutes or so if it is. I suspect there's a regional component, because in my part of the country I have *never* heard of someone having to sign something like that.

[infomama]

So what is standard?
Honestly we never had to sign any forms when we had professional pictures taken. We purchased the rights to certain photos (our wedding and a family shoot from 2 summers ago) but we were only able to get that after we bought a package (understandable). I think they are trying to get you to sign so they can sell your pictures if they want to (like the billboard situation). http://www.weddingphotographydirectory.com/wedding-photo/for-wedding-photographers/professional-articles/model-release.aspx

[WolfpackMom]

Weve had two photographers, weve signed releases for them to use our pictures for their OWN porfolios, advertising, whatever. I wouldn't sign the release you are talking about because it sounds like the pics could be sold for others commercial interests - like she could sell your picture to a brand or company to use in their print work.

[crl]

I have not ever signed a release like that. And we have used four different professional photographers in three different states in the last ten years. We have even refused to allow our images to be used on the photographers' websites for their own advertising and had no problems with it.

I really think groupon will refund your money.

Catherine

[BabyMine]

She said she won't budge on the issue. I either sign it as is or we don't get our pics taken. Yes, I think I could get my money back on this because the model release requirement wasn't mentioned in the offer. But, I was looking forward to getting these pics taken and it's a good deal. So if all photographers will expect us to sign something like this, then we won't gain anything by paying more for someone else.

Groupon is really good at refunds. The last photographer we used let us buy all 70+ photos for $150. We have all the rights and own them. She released her rights so she could never use them. I have seen some charge thousands to release the ownership. If she won't budge I would cancel.

[mmommy]

Weve had two photographers, weve signed releases for them to use our pictures for their OWN porfolios, advertising, whatever. I wouldn't sign the release you are talking about because it sounds like the pics could be sold for others commercial interests - like she could sell your picture to a brand or company to use in their print work.

:yeahthat: Releases are standard practice but I'd ask if you can alter the wording to allow for the photographer to use the images only in promotion of her own work, but not for other purposes. The wording in this release is just too open.

[KHF]

That release seems more like a model release than any of the photography releases I've signed (and we've used 4 different pro photographers). I wonder if she's planning on selling the images as stock photos to recoup some of the losses from the Groupon offer. If she's unwilling to change it so that she can use it for promotion of her own business, but not others, then I'd guess that may be exactly what she's planning to do.

No way would I do the session. There are tons of photographers out there that will be more than willing to work with you.

[justlearning]

FWIW, here are excerpts from her email back to me when I expressed concerns about that release--it seems like she's referring to using them for her purposes but then saying that the release itself is non-negotiable:

According to copyright laws, the photographer owns the images completely. When you hire a photographer as with any other artist, you're commissioning their time and talent on your behalf.

Model releases are a standard part of any studio's normal paperwork; this is nothing unusual.

I understand that the knowledge of copyright laws was a bit of a shock, as that's not normally everyday knowledge to those outside the industry. I may or may not decide to use images for business promotion, I certainly don't use every image or even ones from every session I photograph. Whether I use the images or not, the model release is not a negotiation point.

I fully understand if you still choose not to agree; but I will not be able to photograph your portrait session.

[crl]

Well, she's right about copyright belonging to the photographer. But photographers can and do agree to sell the copyright or to limitations on their use of the photos.

I'd get my money back from groupon. But we are really picky about that sort of thing. Not everyone cares.

Catherine

[JustMe]

Wow, I would not sign that and would be trying to get my money back. I have no idea if its standard practice (I did not have to sign that when I used a well-known (locally to me) photographer, but I certainly would not be okay with having my photographs used for whatever media the photographer wants to make money from/support.

[waitingforgrace]

No I wouldn't sign that release. I have used professional photographers before and generally the contract has stated that either they retain copyright or as was the case with our wedding photos that photographer fully released copyright to us and we could do what we wanted with them. Even when they have retained copyright it usually explicitly says they may only be used for promotion or advertising of photogs business and he cannot sell the images to anyone but us.

I'm sure she is using a form contract and that's why it is non negotiable, she doesn't want to mess with any changes. I'd get my money back from group on and find someone else.

[babyfiorina1]

You definitely have the right not to sign it. I'd find a different photographer. That's not the standard practice. Only the photographer who gets a signed release can use the photos, otherwise he/she can't.

[BayGirl2]

I was just reading about this yesterday from the photographers point of view on a photo forum I belong to. The laws around this vary a lot state to state, so what PPs are saying applied to them may not be 100% relevant to your situation. It's very likely her lawyer recommended this as the most appropriate wording for your state, and if she's with a studio (vs independent) then she may have little wiggle room.

I agree with checking with other local photographers for their release wording to see if it is similarly open. At least then you will know your alternatives. You could try to change just the wording in the first bullet but accept the other terms, but it sounds like she can't or won't.

I'm not sure I would be that uncomfortable with it, maybe bc I think the chance of our family being used in real ads is very small. But I also was willing to take my kid to a Gap children of employees modeling call, so maybe I'm more open to pictures than other parents.

[Reina]

We use a photographer for the company I work for. The photographer takes photos of architectural designs that we have created. However in our case, 1) there are no people in the photos. It's just architectural images; 2) our legal dept made the photographer sign a release that disables him from selling those photos or using them without full reference to our corporation and other legally binding clauses. So this guy can post a couple of our design photos on his website and portfolio for reference but cannot sell them, alter them or reuse them or even print them.

Since you don't have a counter-contract to bind this photographer, she can sell your photos to an advertising agency or a photo repository like Getty images which can release it anywhere for any type of use.

Here is a similar situation: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/03/28/firefighter-plans-lawsuit-over-misleading-911-ad-says-he-wasnt-there/

[mackmama]

:yeahthat: Releases are standard practice but I'd ask if you can alter the wording to allow for the photographer to use the images only in promotion of her own work, but not for other purposes. The wording in this release is just too open.

:yeahthat: I would only sign a release to allow the photog to use the images in her own portfolio.

[crl]

I was just reading about this yesterday from the photographers point of view on a photo forum I belong to. The laws around this vary a lot state to state, so what PPs are saying applied to them may not be 100% relevant to your situation. It's very likely her lawyer recommended this as the most appropriate wording for your state, and if she's with a studio (vs independent) then she may have little wiggle room.

I agree with checking with other local photographers for their release wording to see if it is similarly open. At least then you will know your alternatives. You could try to change just the wording in the first bullet but accept the other terms, but it sounds like she can't or won't.

I'm not sure I would be that uncomfortable with it, maybe bc I think the chance of our family being used in real ads is very small. But I also was willing to take my kid to a Gap children of employees modeling call, so maybe I'm more open to pictures than other parents.

I am sure state laws do vary. But I am also sure that it is possible for a photographer to agree to sell the copyright to any image in any state. So this may be the wording her lawyer recommends--it is the most favorable to the photographer I can imagine. But that doesn't mean people can't agree to something else. It is possible that all local photographers have similar releases though.

Catherine

[Multimama]

I haven't read all the replies, but NO I wouldn't sign that. I would contact Groupon and ask for your money back. (I remember getting an e-mail recently that said if you are dissatisfied with your experience for any reason they will give you your money back. Hope that works!)

[Octobermommy]

I have always refused to sign those forms and I have never had a photographer refuse to shOot. I don't see why she wouldn't take your pictures if everyone else just signs.

[Melaine]

I'm not sure I would be that uncomfortable with it, maybe bc I think the chance of our family being used in real ads is very small. But I also was willing to take my kid to a Gap children of employees modeling call, so maybe I'm more open to pictures than other parents.

I'm fine with some modeling and we pursued similar things. But I'm totally uncomfortable with having no knowledge or control over where photos of my family might be used in the future. I'm fine with a photographer using our photos for their portfolios, but the possibility of them being used in advertising or even as stock photos without my consent is horrifying. You are paying to be photographed, and to have the photographer able to later sell those photos to someone else is wrong, IMO.

[AnnieW625]

I signed one that had clause A, and B, but not clause C and I was fine with that. My photographer doesn't do any work for advertisers, but is starting her own business and wanted to make sure that we would be agreeable to seeing our children on her website and or her business Facebook page. Now if she did and she put something like clause C in there then I might think twice about it as that would be something I would expect for the advertising company to issue, but at this point she doesn't.

With the rise of digital photos and people being able to print their photographers photos at Costco or other local photo stores because photographers offer that option to their client I am fine with signing a waiver.

[justlearning]

Thanks for your responses. It was good to hear confirmation that others also feel that this release is giving up too much to the photographer, especially because it gives up the rights for the photos to be used for purposes other than her portfolio and professional advertising.

So I went ahead and requested a refund and got it. Thanks again for your feedback.

[crl]

Glad you got your refund so quickly!

Catherine

[amldaley]

Glad you got your refund!!!!

I know this has already been resolved but I wanted to share what my BFF who is a professional photographer responded for others reading this thread in the future especially regarding Groupons for photogs.


"I would caution her to look at the number of groupons being offered, the size of the studio (single on location photog or physical studio?), and do some math. Are they offering 1000 deals? How is a typical photographer going to possibly be able to do 1000 sessions in a year before the groupons expire? What kind of photos are they really going to get and how long is it going to take them to get a spot for a session? Have her take a look at the quality of the work too, most groupon photogs are just starting out and looking to generate buzz. Then they typically wind up way over their heads with pissed off clients because they took on too much."

[indigo99]

So what is standard?

Actually, this is VERY standard wording for a model release with many professional photographers. It is basically the same thing that all of my clients sign.

However, when anyone asks about it, I don't have a problem making changes so that they feel more comfortable. I don't sell stock photos, but I do use images for my own marketing and need the rights to put them on my website, blog, use in print ads, or enter in print competitions. If the model release is changed at all then I don't want to keep up with which photos have which rights (portfolio versus competition etc) so that whole session just gets put away.

I don't think it is very common for most portrait photographers to sell their clients' images so it isn't very likely that your photos would suddenly show up on a billboard. Much more likely, a client puts some of their photos online, and those are stolen by an advertising firm, company, or another (often fake) photographer. I know that half of my website was once stolen and used by a "photographer" in England who claimed that the images were his own.

ETA: In a reversal, I do sell files and a reproduction release so that my clients can have their own prints made, but I retain copyright of those images. Unfortunately, I have had clients use my images for their own commercial purposes on several occassions. One client (a graphic designer) was using some of the images for a project for one of HIS clients. Another couple made a whole website to advertise their new wedding planning business using my images. There's even a venue that stole images off my website and are using them on their own website without any sort of photo credit or permission. Of course my clients sign contracts stating that they won't do this, but it's very difficult to deal with these situations when you're trying to keep happy customers and don't want anyone out there bad-mouthing your business.

[Melanie]

I wouldn't sign it without a clause that they're not going to sell your images. It's one thing for them to use them in their portfolio, website, but another that they have the right to sell them as they like.

[ha98ed14]

No freaking way. When I hired a professional photographer to take pictures of DD, she gave me the CD with all the images. I imagine she deleted them from her computer, but can't be 100% sure. Still, she is not out there selling them!

[wellyes]

Good for you for getting your money back.

I'm fine with photogs using the images in their own portfolio but can totally understand hesitation about potentially being someone's stock photograph. Not standard in my experience.

[TwinFoxes]

Glad you got your refund!!!!

I know this has already been resolved but I wanted to share what my BFF who is a professional photographer responded for others reading this thread in the future especially regarding Groupons for photogs.


"I would caution her to look at the number of groupons being offered, the size of the studio (single on location photog or physical studio?), and do some math. Are they offering 1000 deals? How is a typical photographer going to possibly be able to do 1000 sessions in a year before the groupons expire? What kind of photos are they really going to get and how long is it going to take them to get a spot for a session? Have her take a look at the quality of the work too, most groupon photogs are just starting out and looking to generate buzz. Then they typically wind up way over their heads with pissed off clients because they took on too much."

I actually didn't buy a groupon for a (well known) photographer last year because I was worried about how they'd do it (the studio is basically a husband wife team). I even posted about it here! But the one good thing about Groupon, they would refund the money pretty much no questions asked if it didn't work out. :thumbsup:

[lizzywednesday]

I don't believe it's standard practice.

Even TARGET studios will ask your permission ... and they won't refuse to take your photos if you don't sign it.

The way I see it is I'd rather not have DD's image selling something I don't use, don't believe in or otherwise feel strongly about.

[JustMe]

Glad you got your money back...and good to know that Groupon was so easy to work with on this.

[dcmom2b3]

Sorry, I've not read any of the responses, so at the risk of duplicating a PP:

A model release is only "standard" when one is modeling -- getting paid to pose and have pictures taken. You sign away rights for $$ you're paid.

If you're paying *her* to take your pictures, it's a whole different ball of wax. Limited release, she can use them in her portfolio, you won't make unauthorized copies, that's the kind of thing I'd expect. That she's trying to sell you a bunch of hooey to the contrary gives me a bad feeling about her.

[LMPC]

Another "haven't read all the other posts" here but I can say that I sign a model release with our photographer every year. But it doesn't read like the one in the OP. It states that she owns the rights (obviously) and that she can use them in her promotion of her business (on her FB page). I'm fine with this and she has never mis-used the release.