Why Bother With a Model Release?

[wxwax]

Because it could cost you $15.6 million! Admittedly an extreme example... but this case does illustrate the hazards of selling someone's likeness without their permission.


Model gets $15.6 million award from Nestle
By LISA LEFF
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

SAN FRANCISCO -- When it comes to coffee, Russell Christoff is more of a fresh-brewed than a freeze-dried kind of guy. So he never scrutinized the Taster's Choice label.
When he finally did, he was staring back at himself.
"I looked at it and said, 'Expletive, that's me!'" Christoff, 58, recalled Tuesday, five days after a jury awarded him $15.6 million for Nestle USA's unauthorized use of his mug.

Source (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Nestle%20Model)

[Andy]

shame on the nestle marketing department, for not checking for a valid release.

excellent post, waxington!

Because it could cost you $15.6 million! Admittedly an extreme example... but this case does illustrate the hazards of selling someone's likeness without their permission.


Model gets $15.6 million award from Nestle
By LISA LEFF
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

SAN FRANCISCO -- When it comes to coffee, Russell Christoff is more of a fresh-brewed than a freeze-dried kind of guy. So he never scrutinized the Taster's Choice label.
When he finally did, he was staring back at himself.
"I looked at it and said, 'Expletive, that's me!'" Christoff, 58, recalled Tuesday, five days after a jury awarded him $15.6 million for Nestle USA's unauthorized use of his mug.

Source (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Nestle%20Model)

[mercphoto]

I only saw a short article on it. It wasn't clear to me, if the guy did a photo session in the first place, why there wasn't already a release form in place. I just read that the model himself "thought the session was a bust", but I'm not sure what that means legally.

In either case, I thought the award was excessive.

[fish]

The key is "for commercial purposes." If I'm not selling the image or using the image to sell something, I'm not going to run around getting model releases of people I shoot on the street. I suppose if I were a pro shooting stock or freelance to agencies, then my focus would be different.

I love this quote found in a version of the news story:


The former model says there’s a good reason why he didn’t spot his image on the jars of instant coffee sooner.

“I don’t buy Taster’s Choice,” he said. “I do beans.”

[GREAPER]

Hard to believe the photographer didn't get a release. He paid the guy to model. I have to say If I pay a model to do an add layout, they are going to sign a release before they get paid. Probably before the shoot.

[wxwax]

Fish, you don't need a release if you're not selling the photo. Or using it in a product that you sells. Or giving it to someone who'll use it commercially.

WRT Nestle not having a release, it sounds like the release he first signed was for Canada only. They ended up using his mug in the US and a number of other countries.

Which raises an important issue: unsophisticated folks might be talked into signing a release that gives you unlimited rights to use their image. However, it's more common to have releases which specify which rights they're granting you. e.g Print, but no internet. Or USA only. You get the idea. The point being, the concept of one release covering all contingencies isn't terribly realistic.

[mercphoto]

Wow. This all of a sudden became important to me. In mid January I photographed a kart race. The track has a pro shop run by MRP Motorsports, which is wanting to purchase photos (digital files) for use in advertising and marketing.

Drivers have on suits, helmets, visors, you get the idea. Most of the time you cannot identify a person. The easy exception is when their name is on their kart or uniform.

I'm thinking of getting model releases anyway, and offering a free 8x10 print.

[marlinspike]

You could just fuzz out the names.
Richard

[wxwax]

Wow. This all of a sudden became important to me. In mid January I photographed a kart race. The track has a pro shop run by MRP Motorsports, which is wanting to purchase photos (digital files) for use in advertising and marketing.

Drivers have on suits, helmets, visors, you get the idea. Most of the time you cannot identify a person. The easy exception is when their name is on their kart or uniform.

I'm thinking of getting model releases anyway, and offering a free 8x10 print.
If they cannot be identified, you're OK. But I suspect their uniforms, helmets etc. may be somewhat unique, in which case they could argue you were profiting from their likeness. I reckon your solution is a good one. :nod Make sure your release specifies what rights they're granting you.

[Aaron Wilson]

DANG!! i'll settle for a nice mark 2 1ds... lol