Tfcd

[waileong]

Model release is nec if the photog wishes to use the pictures for commercial purposes. It is to protect the photog more than the photog, since the model release basically says what the photog is allowed to do with the photos and that the model has been paid for the photos and thus has no further claims on the photos.

If the photog wants to use the images strictly for his own portfolio (eg to display to clients who come to his studio), a model release is prob not necc. However, if the photog is to be put on the web or to be published in mags, etc., then a model release is needed.

Age is irrelevant to the purpose of the model release in the sense that regardless of the age of the model, you need a model release if you want to use the photos commercially. However, as it is basically a legal agreement between parties, a model release can only be properly granted by someone above 21.

TFCD does not necc mean that you need a model release per se. TFCD is an exchange of time for pix, so if the photog is satisfied with just using the photogs for private use (eg in personal portfolio) then it may not be necc. However, model release is common since the photog usually expect more than just portfolio shots out of TFCD (although I think that if the model is really new, the photos won't be very saleable).

 

[waileong]

Oh yes, what cause of action would that be?

If the model sues you for using pictures without a model release, it's a civil case and there is no police involvement.

What's this obssession with model release?

Shooting pics without a model release is not a crime. Police would be involved only if there is a criminal investigation, unless there is clear evidence (eg alleged pornography) of an alleged crime, why should they be involved? If the model cannot produce such evidence, the model can go to jail for making a false police report.

Think about that.

On the other hand, shooting pix with a model release doesn't prevent the model from making a police report against you, if you molested her for instance. A model release is not a shield against police action, if you have done something illegal.

The police's job is not to "get" you, it is to investigate and prosecute if necessary. If you haven't done anything illegal, there is nothing to get.

I repeat: shooting pix without a model release is not illegal. Using pix commercially without a model release could open you to civil claims, but that has nothing to do with model release.

Would love to see you go ahead and get a model shoot without a release and see her get an injunction against you or better yet... make a police report to get you, your assets....(That means your cameras,your pictures, your pc all seized in the name of an investigation) and if you're lucky a frontpage article on our favorite local daily.

 

[waileong]

Sorry, last sentence should read

"Using pix commercially without a model release could open you to civil claims, but that has nothing to do with the police."

 

[lycan]

Hi Vince,

The concept of a model release is also prevalent in the Euro countries, it's just that the american's use it more.

There is a cause for action as show by the philip Di Lorca(Hope I got the name right) case which happened in the US in June last year.

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001665.html

Well it pretty much a cause if you choose to either exhibit to submit you photos for a competition.

Actually, model releases is also concepted under the American legal system and not in Singapore.



Not sure what the cause of action is....suing just for the fact that a model release is not obtained? Is there a cause for action in Singapore for this?

 

[lycan]

I would have to agree with Waileong on this, the issue is still clearly stated. Cheers!

Model release is nec if the photog wishes to use the pictures for commercial purposes. It is to protect the photog more than the photog, since the model release basically says what the photog is allowed to do with the photos and that the model has been paid for the photos and thus has no further claims on the photos.

If the photog wants to use the images strictly for his own portfolio (eg to display to clients who come to his studio), a model release is prob not necc. However, if the photog is to be put on the web or to be published in mags, etc., then a model release is needed.

Age is irrelevant to the purpose of the model release in the sense that regardless of the age of the model, you need a model release if you want to use the photos commercially. However, as it is basically a legal agreement between parties, a model release can only be properly granted by someone above 21.

TFCD does not necc mean that you need a model release per se. TFCD is an exchange of time for pix, so if the photog is satisfied with just using the photogs for private use (eg in personal portfolio) then it may not be necc. However, model release is common since the photog usually expect more than just portfolio shots out of TFCD (although I think that if the model is really new, the photos won't be very saleable).

 

[vince123123]

Can you show me any Euro examples? The example you quoted is still in the US.

Hi Vince,

The concept of a model release is also prevalent in the Euro countries, it's just that the american's use it more.

There is a cause for action as show by the philip Di Lorca(Hope I got the name right) case which happened in the US in June last year.

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001665.html

Well it pretty much a cause if you choose to either exhibit to submit you photos for a competition.

 

[lycan]

Unseen, I see no sense in arguing either with you on this, "constructively" or otherwise.

You do things your way and I'll do mine. Sarcasm or defamation and inflammatory remarks are not the reason that we do this.

If you do want to take pictures just for your own portfolio and not for competitions and publishing, by all means do so. Just remember that you started this because of your previous derogatory comments as below.

"If I were you llrene, I'd steer clear of those requesting a model release form. It'll just mean that if there are photos that you don't want anyone else to see, it's too late. The photographer can do whatever he wants."

I'm one of those who require a model release and a female assistant to sign either a statement or an affidavit for anyone under the age of consent.

This would protect me from any frivolous claims or suits that may occur in the near future should if the model decides she wants more money should I choose to publish or use the photos. My previous links also highlight the issues that may occur if the model cries foul when he/she doesn’t get their way.

Please read http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001665.html

Remember that the Photog can be likened to a artist, would you like to be sued for your painting? Most artists do require a model release so as to pre-empt any claims.

Anyone who chooses to hang himself or herself can kindly do so given enough rope.

Here's a little food for thought, read waileong's article and see what he has to say about this.

Do also approach the PSS on their POV on this.

Suits or claims in Singapore are fairly uncommon but we do have our fair share, most of them do not come to light as most photogs choose settle for the sake of their reputations. Be it an amateur or a professional bread and butter photog.

So I end this with this little quote by Einstein:
"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing."



Enuf said..:bigeyes:

As for your article, it is lacking crucial details. like WHAT WAS CAPTURED. Last I recall, someone mentioned that in Singapore you're allowed to take photographs as long as you do not do it in a manner demeaning to the subject, or something to that effect. Otherwise all the street shooters would be in jail by now.

Ok, so the age of consent is 21. case close.


Hmmm you don't know what a model release form is do you? Your whole reply just indicates so. Please go refer to Bleuwhale's link. don't show off your ignorance here. It's unbecoming.

A model release form simply allows the photographer to use the the images in whatever way he wants, and the model does not have a say in the final form. Some even include the entire rights to the photos taken during the session. ROFL.. it will not cover you even if the parents signed it and decide that you've done something bad and sue.. Do you even have a model release form? Have you even read the model release form?

In case anyone hasn't realised, if they have signed away their rights, a CD for them is useless. They won't be able to use the photographs in their portfolios and just about anywhere else. Unless of course, the photographer doesn't plan to sue the model for using his photos to which he has absolute rights.

Paid models, yes, don't see why they need to keep their rights to those photos I pay for.
TFCD, it's time of the models for you to shoot, and for them to get the images.

 

[vince123123]

I still think the position that lycan has stated may not be applicable to Singapore. So far all examples quoted are US examples.

 

[lycan]

http://www.ifj-europe.org/default.asp?index=1423&Language=EN


Here's a funny one that you should take a look at
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DBHt&tag=

here's one that should be quite interesting, comments from a pro
http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=36

Can you show me any Euro examples? The example you quoted is still in the US.

 

[Phildate]

A model release is not necessary unless pictures are to be used for a commercial purpose. However, getting an under-age model to sign one with a parental consent does force the 'parental consent' issue, as well as ensuring that they are aware that pictures belong to the photographer, not the other way around.

I am sure many of the top models were discovered and photographed whilst still at school. It would be foolish to say that one should never photograph people under the age of 18 or 21.

However, as a photographer, I would not put myself in a situation where I was photographing a model under the age of 18 unless parents knew about it and a model release form had been signed, regardless of whether or not the pictures were for commercial use or not. Even if you just use for your portfolio, who's not to say that someone will view your portfolio and say, "wow, that is a great photo, I'd like to use it in my company's advert". If you don't have a model release form, you won't be able to sell it without finding the model and begging...haha and when he/she finds out why, they might say no or want a large commission!

 

[lycan]

Heheh...you're fast...just sent the link. First one.

I still think the position that lycan has stated may not be applicable to Singapore. So far all examples quoted are US examples.

 

[unseen]

If you do want to take pictures just for your own portfolio and not for competitions and publishing, by all means do so. Just remember that you started this because of your previous derogatory comments as below.

"If I were you llrene, I'd steer clear of those requesting a model release form. It'll just mean that if there are photos that you don't want anyone else to see, it's too late. The photographer can do whatever he wants."

there's nothing derogatory => it's a clear warning to llrene that if she intends to use the photos for some other use other than self appreciation, it's not wise to sign a model release form. We've heard so often about "photos taken in private" being exposed to the rest of the world. If a model release form was signed, there's no way they can do anything unless they want to pay lots of $$$ buy back their right.

And in case you haven't noticed, that was directed at llrene, not you. I have nothing against you selling the photos that you take. I'm just pointing out that llrene does NOT need to sign any model release form. Chances are she doesn't know what a model release form is. I assume you do.

Anyway you were the one who drew a line between the Crown law and the American Law. Hope you will stop bringing up irrevelant examples. Do bring up some UNDER the crown law. I'm getting confused by your jumping to whatever safe ground you see. I'd also appreciate if you would NOT mix criminal law and civil law up.

To llrene imagine one day if you were to walk into a magazine shop and see your TFCD photo being ridiculed in FHM. Well, how much fun would it be if you can't do anything about it? Model release forms are ultimately beneficial only to the photographers, for them to keep their photos for commercial purposes. Think about it before you get your name down on the line.

 

[lycan]

My sentiment exactly...

A model release is not necessary unless pictures are to be used for a commercial purpose. However, getting an under-age model to sign one with a parental consent does force the 'parental consent' issue, as well as ensuring that they are aware that pictures belong to the photographer, not the other way around.

I am sure many of the top models were discovered and photographed whilst still at school. It would be foolish to say that one should never photograph people under the age of 18 or 21.

However, as a photographer, I would not put myself in a situation where I was photographing a model under the age of 18 unless parents knew about it and a model release form had been signed, regardless of whether or not the pictures were for commercial use or not. Even if you just use for your portfolio, who's not to say that someone will view your portfolio and say, "wow, that is a great photo, I'd like to use it in my company's advert". If you don't have a model release form, you won't be able to sell it without finding the model and begging...haha and when he/she finds out why, they might say no or want a large commission!

 

[lycan]

Hi unseen,

you left out" I'm one of those who require a model release and a female assistant to sign either a statement or an affidavit for anyone under the age of consent."

So that does apply to me as the preceding article to yours is mine. if that is not derogatory, I wonder what is.

But lets not quibble over little points, I have included a link to the european model release and additional links to european articles. American or otherwise the laws are similar but don't you think your pornography implication puts all photogs in a bad light?

If you do have any other queries, on my "irrelevant" articles. Please do check on it yourself or call the SLS for this.

Btw, my articles are intended for Waileong,in answer to his questions. You are welcome to read it but no one is forcing you to do so.

Criminal law would only come into play if the accusation is that she was coerced into the shoot and does not know better. Or she may claim that she was molested. Hence the affidavit/witness by a 3rd party.

Civil law would come into play if the model want to file suit or make claims. Hence the model release.

Enuf said... any other queries will be ignored. Write what you will, I don't really care, as it's your neck and not mine.

Have a nice day! :bigeyes:

Remember that your argument is flawed to begin with.

there's nothing derogatory => it's a clear warning to llrene that if she intends to use the photos for some other use other than self appreciation, it's not wise to sign a model release form. We've heard so often about "photos taken in private" being exposed to the rest of the world. If a model release form was signed, there's no way they can do anything unless they want to pay lots of $$$ buy back their right.

And in case you haven't noticed, that was directed at llrene, not you. I have nothing against you selling the photos that you take. I'm just pointing out that llrene does NOT need to sign any model release form. Chances are she doesn't know what a model release form is. I assume you do.

Anyway you were the one who drew a line between the Crown law and the American Law. Hope you will stop bringing up irrevelant examples. Do bring up some UNDER the crown law. I'm getting confused by your jumping to whatever safe ground you see. I'd also appreciate if you would NOT mix criminal law and civil law up.

To llrene imagine one day if you were to walk into a magazine shop and see your TFCD photo being ridiculed in FHM. Well, how much fun would it be if you can't do anything about it? Model release forms are ultimately beneficial only to the photographers, for them to keep their photos for commercial purposes. Think about it before you get your name down on the line.

 

[zhang3feng]

relac la~

tis is not a war ground la...:nono: stop shooting each other...

 

[unseen]

A model release is not necessary unless pictures are to be used for a commercial purpose. However, getting an under-age model to sign one with a parental consent does force the 'parental consent' issue, as well as ensuring that they are aware that pictures belong to the photographer, not the other way around.

I am sure many of the top models were discovered and photographed whilst still at school. It would be foolish to say that one should never photograph people under the age of 18 or 21.

However, as a photographer, I would not put myself in a situation where I was photographing a model under the age of 18 unless parents knew about it and a model release form had been signed, regardless of whether or not the pictures were for commercial use or not. Even if you just use for your portfolio, who's not to say that someone will view your portfolio and say, "wow, that is a great photo, I'd like to use it in my company's advert". If you don't have a model release form, you won't be able to sell it without finding the model and begging...haha and when he/she finds out why, they might say no or want a large commission!

LOL well anyway, *point to my reply to lycan
my original reply was for llrene. I have nothing against photographers out with a model release form for model shoots. TFCD wise I just wanted to point out that the models does NOT have to sign any model release form.

There seems to be a flaw somewhere when involved in a TFCD that you let other people shoot you, and end up you get to see the images but you do own them. Put yourselves in the shoes of anyone whose photo was taken for free and subsequently published in the advertisements etc. Isn't it sad that you take photos, don't get paid, and end up the photographer benefit from it all just because of you?

Anyway in case you realise, model release forms obtained fraudulentlyis not valid? Means, if the model signs the form thinking that you're using it for your portfolio, they can still sue you if you sell the photo to some other company and subsequently published else where for other purposes. This is something under contract law. Explore the thread by the experts as pointed out by lycan.
http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/qnaDetail.asp?threadID=10650

Thus, for a TFCD, if you tell the model that you're going to take the photos for your portfolio without making clear that you want the option to sell the photos, your model release form is invalid!

Cheers.

 

[unseen]

Hi unseen,

you left out" I'm one of those who require a model release and a female assistant to sign either a statement or an affidavit for anyone under the age of consent."

So that does apply to me as the preceding article to yours is mine. if that is not derogatory, I wonder what is.

Like i mentioned, my reply is directed not to you, you're free to read it, but no one is forcing you to. Like I mentioned, I don't care if photogs require model release forms. I'm saying that models do NOT need to sign them. There are photogs who will shoot without model release forms.

Criminal law would only come into play if the accusation is that she was coerced into the shoot and does not know better. Or she may claim that she was molested. Hence the affidavit/witness by a 3rd party.

Civil law would come into play if the model want to file suit or make claims. Hence the model release.

No model release form or indeminity form will save your neck if it's criminal. If you don't believe go ahead and try.
Anyway an affidavit requires a notary, not a 3rd party. I don't know about you, but it'll be hard pressed for most people to find a judicial officer to notarize the affidavit about age.
Remember that your argument is flawed to begin with.

 

[DR THE]

ok ic

 

[vince123123]

So far we have US and German - both have specific legislation for this and which is absent in Singapore.

I don't think Singapore follows either of these jurisdictions - already to get Singapore to follow UK cases is hard enough as it is. But anyway, if one feels its necesary, go ahead and get it.

http://www.ifj-europe.org/default.asp?index=1423&Language=EN


Here's a funny one that you should take a look at
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DBHt&tag=

here's one that should be quite interesting, comments from a pro
http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=36

 

[unseen]

http://www.ifj-europe.org/default.asp?index=1423&Language=EN

-.- I'm not asking about WHY we need model release forms. I know that.

Here's a funny one that you should take a look at
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DBHt&tag=

This is for invasion of privacy, and it's concerning published articles.
And once again, no one is talking about why we need model release forms.

sighz... please people...
i repeat: I know why we need model release forms.

I'm saying that there isn't a need if you don't plan to publish/sell the images. Even if you obtain a model release form without informing the model that you intend to sell and publish the photos, it's STILL invalid. It will most likely hold in court that the model in a TFCD never intended to enter into the contract to sell her images.. :dunno:

Bleah, i'm not trying to spoil your part here. I'd hope you people have a fun TFCD shoot.
cheers.