Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My model release story: I used to do a lot of assignment work for and stock sales to a large text book publisher. Model releases were required for everything. One day while visiting the editorial offices I happened to enquire what the company did with the model releases it collected. One of the editors dragged out a cardboard box from under a desk, filled almost to overflowing with what was described to me as all the model releases the company had collected for the last several years. During all the time the publisher ran its photo research and acquisition operations from this location, it never had cause to open these "files" even once. Theory was that the act of signing the release would protect the company from litigation as well as anything. I still carry a pad of model release forms in my Domke bag. The last time I used it was 1993 (but you never know!). Allen Zak In a message dated 05/22/2001 2:20:42 PM, you wrote: <<lea wrote: > > Sam, > > I agree, shooting without a release in public in the US is fine depending on > the final use, ie: fine art prints, but not advertising. I wouldn't think books > or mags would publish without a release if the model (subject) is identifiable. > Someone else can advise better, I'm sure. ><Snip> In the US when you tabulate all the court cases. The ones with the model releases did as well as the ones without. A model release didn't give the photographer any added security. Mark Rabiner >>