Model Release or Property Release

[BryanPanting]

I am just starting up a pet photography business, and I have my first shoot this weekend. I have been trying to figure out if I should be using a model release or a property release. I have read conflicting posts on the internet as to what I should be using for dogs and pets. Anyone have any experience with thins kind of thing?

[OsmosisStudios]

An interesting conundrum.

I've only ever used property releases for locations, not items. I'd be opting for a model release, though customizing a standard one to include the fact that the subject is a PET.

[Eastree]

For pets, since it's considered a posession, a property release is what I've more often read would be necessary. But your post leaves me with questions:

You're starting a business, and you're photographing someone's pet(s). Is this a paid job, such as pet portraits or something, or is it something more that you're using to sell prints or something like that?

If an owner is paying you to photograph pets, you just need to contract for the job. Even that's not completely necessary, but it does help cover your in case the owner wants something other than the agreement, or later wants to complain about something already covered within the agreement.

The purpose of the release is permission to publish the photograph(s) for other reasons, such as using the likeness of the pet to advertise a food brand or to advocate pet adoption. I would highly recommend against that, unless the owner has agreed to allow it. Since the pet is considered property, more likely than not the owner will also want some extra compensation or even regular commission for use of their pet's likeness -- especially if the animal is distinctly recognizable.

That's also a part of the importance of the contract: It will spell out your usage of the images after the deal is done, as well as the owner's rights with the same. If you wish to retain the right to use the animal's likeness, it must be in the contract. If the owner does not want you to, it must be in the contract that you will not. More than likely, a simple contract would suffice incredibly well. Depending on the way your business runs, it can contain more or less information about the shoot. But number of images or poses or whatever you do when photographing pets should be included, as well as image usage (for example, you maintain copyright of the photographs and retain the right to use the photographs of the pets to promote your business, but not to sell or use the images outside of your own business for the sake of use in your portfolio and advertisement). The exact wording can be incredibly verbose and specific, or it could possibly be much shorter and potentially very ambiguous.

But to keep it short:
A release is for commercial use.
A contract is work for hire, such as pet portraits.


edit:

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

An interesting conundrum.

I've only ever used property releases for locations, not items. I'd be opting for a model release, though customizing a standard one to include the fact that the subject is a PET.

This is also a viable option. It would be worded much like one for a child, except, of course, for a pet.

[BryanPanting]

This will be for portraits, but I would like to be able to use the images for other things if I wanted to. So I would like to do a release just to cover whatever comes up. Thanks for the tips.

[Photologyst]

You could ask Jim Poor, he's the resident pet photographer.

[Eastree]

Originally Posted by BryanPanting

This will be for portraits, but I would like to be able to use the images for other things if I wanted to. So I would like to do a release just to cover whatever comes up. Thanks for the tips.

The biggest issue is whether it's included in the contract or it's a separate form, that the pet's owner is aware and agrees with your terms for use.

[candleman]

Jim Poor, our resident pet photographer anwered this a while back... i'll see if i can use the search function to find it for you.

i cant remember the answer...
i would get both to be on the safe side, and i do remember that that wasn't the right answer either

here it is..... a few posts down

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by BryanPanting

I am just starting up a pet photography business, and I have my first shoot this weekend. I have been trying to figure out if I should be using a model release or a property release. I have read conflicting posts on the internet as to what I should be using for dogs and pets. Anyone have any experience with thins kind of thing?

Neither is required unless you are dealing with a recognizable celebrity animal or trademark (Think MGM lion, or Lassie, though even Lassie is a stretch given that the role has been played by multiple dogs). I got separate model and property releases for each handler and dog team for Laurie Williams and Andrew from Greatest American Dog, Jili the Poker Playing dog and Eli the Chihuahua. I also got them for a group of Canine Actors who were doing a workshop and got portfolio building sessions from me.

Feel free to ask a lawyer, but I already did.

Now, even though it isn't required I now have both a model release (for the humans) and property release for the pets built in to my standard contract. It helps to set expectations for the clients and will usually shut up the idiots that want to say "you can't use my dog's photo for that . . . "

[BryanPanting]

Jim that's good to know, thanks. I think I will just do a simple release just to play it safe then.

[danbaileyphoto]

It's pretty simple- If you're shooting the pets for the owners then you don't need a release of any kind. If you want to potentially sell photos that you take of other people's pets, you'll need a property release signed by the pet owner.