View Poll Results: Do you need a model release to sell an image for commercial use?
- 10. You may not vote on this poll
01-14-2013, 03:56 PM #1
01-14-2013, 07:54 PM #2
That would be cool, however, normally the shoots are held somewhere exocitic and shot by their contract photographers such as Walter Iooss Jr., Matt Jones, James Macari Derek Kettela because they want consistency by one photographer throughout the swimsuit issue.
However, Looss gets most of the calendar shoots and that would be one sweet gig.
01-14-2013, 08:14 PM #3
01-14-2013, 08:52 PM #4
Why yes you do. SI always have the models sign releases.
01-14-2013, 10:16 PM #5
What about street photography?Paige
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
01-14-2013, 11:55 PM #6
01-15-2013, 12:07 AM #7
The photographer does not need a release to sell the image to ANYONE. However, without a release the image is of little value in the commercial market. Since SI is producing the calendar THEY need the release...that's why the wording of any release needs to have wording of some sort that allows the "transfer" of those rights to another entity. This is usually accomplished by wording like "sub-licensable," or "any media."
The only way you, as the photographer, could get into trouble is if you sold the image with the indication that you did have a release when you didn't. If the entity produced the product using your image and without verifying/receiving the release THEY would be in violation of the model's rights, not you. But the company *could* attempt to come back on you for misrepresenting the image... In the case of SI the courts would laugh because they certainly know better... In any legal case (with equal lawyers) it is the individual/entity doing the action that is responsible for knowing/abiding by the laws applying to their actions.
But lawyers are never "equal." Fat wallet always wins.
Last edited by sk66; 01-15-2013 at 12:09 AM.