Model won't sign release document?

When a model that you have hired won't sign the release document, after you have paid them.  What course of action would suggest?   

Need some help on this one.  I hired a model on Saturday, who showed up.  Requested payment for 2 hours prior to meeting (which was paid via Pay Pal).  

Then wouldn't sign release?  

And because they drove out to meet at location for shoot, they won't give refund.  I told her that when we met that I would have release document for her to sign.  She said OK.  So, kind of at a lost here.  We didn't shoot because we spent nearly 45 min talking about why I needed the release document.  Then not having a release, figured best course of action would be to not photograph her.

Thoughts?  

I don't know specifically about the US laws but, when hiring at
a fee a professional, you don't need a release BECAUSE of the
pro status. On the other hand, if the model brakes the agreement,
then a refund is going without a doubt.

Maybe next time, ink releases, contracts etc PRIOR to doing the job(s)?
You may be stuck.

I agree, not sure you can do anything now except learn from this what not to do next time. Get on asmp.org or try PPA and look up how to do contracts, releases, etc. ASMP has sample release forms and an app.

Depends on usage in the US - usually a release is needed for retail use (photo on T shirts, merchandise, etc.), and for commercial use (for a business, advertisting, etc.). A release is not usually needed for editorial use (newspapers, media outlets) but may be requested; one is usually not necessary for fine art prints.

I don't think there would have been much usage of photos of her without a release signed. Obviously, next time send a release and get it signed before payment is made.

US Law.

You have stumbled into a learning opportunity. Where did you find this winner?

And it sounds like the model doesn't have any real experience, nor understanding of what she would be doing. Since you don't provide any details on what the dispute was over, it's hard to address specifics. What were the objections?

That said, you don't need a release to use any photos for self-promotion (despite what some here may say) because it's not commercial use. Selling images of her is commercial use, but you can show your work and call it art if you like. And that makes it okay. And then there's the issue of selling prints, which you could probably justify (given some court cases of note). But you didn't take any photos, so....


That said: don't pay before the shoot, or half up front, half after. Contract and release signed before any money changes hands at all. A signed release does you no good until you've actually taken photos, so there's no risk there (on the part of the model), and you don't risk money until you have your release.

And that said, I'm not sure what others do, in regards to paying up front. But I'd ask around about what SOP is for this. This sounds like it may have been a scam. Also suggest finding a pro meetup and talking to others.

My take on this is,there is a verbal contract between parties as soon as she said OK to the model
release then showed up and then got hissy about the release. She is clearly in breach
of contract.

That said, it would be impossible toprove in court. For me this is one of those "write it off to
experience" cases. I did have the experience of a client trying to rip me
off for a corporate brand/logo. I sued (needed to fire my lawyer) and settled
out of court unrepresented, for a figure ten times more than they could have
paid me without the hassle.
Lessons learned, itpays to know your rights as a creative professional regarding one’s intellectual
and moral copyrights, then unleash Hells hounds on the cretins who dare to
steal from us.

I don't know Gary, it seems like this does fall into the category of commercial work if a photo would be used for marketing a photographer's work as a money making venture. Commercial work can be other than advertising.

I don't know if ASMP still has their 'paperwork share' on their site, but pros would share real jobs they had. I'm pretty sure any sort of paid work for a business is considered commercial even if it's your own photography business. If using the photo is for the purpose of helping you make money and attract future business then I think that is commercial use.

I think to use a photo for example on a blog would be considered fair use, not commercial, because the purpose would be for discussion, education, etc. and you wouldn't be making money from it.

icepics wrote: I don't know Gary, it seems like this does fall into the category of commercial work if a photo would be used for marketing a photographer's work as a money making venture. Commercial work can be other than advertising.

The problem is that there is no clear, definitive relationship between showing off what one can do (in a portfolio), and getting a job because of it. A does not always lead to B. Therefore, not necessarily commercial. And not the same as doing work on behalf of someone else (which is how I define commercial).

I don't know if ASMP still has their 'paperwork share' on their site, but pros would share real jobs they had. I'm pretty sure any sort of paid work for a business is considered commercial even if it's your own photography business. If using the photo is for the purpose of helping you make money and attract future business then I think that is commercial use.

If I get paid to shoot photos of someone, or for someone, that's commercial. Again, nothing in there has anything to do with my portfolio. Zip. Nada. No clear correlation. No cause and effect. We like to conflate, and that's what I'm trying to point out as a problem.

I think to use a photo for example on a blog would be considered fair use, not commercial, because the purpose would be for discussion, education, etc. and you wouldn't be making money from it.

Fair use includes discussing the work itself, so, yeah, talking about a photo is fair game. But using the photo to illustrate some other point is not. Mostly, it's the later use that occurs, right?

Put it this way: can someone take a photo of someone in public, and post it to FB/IG/whatever? Their Flickr account? Without concern for permission? You bet they can. Can they sell it for commercial purposes? Not without a release.

And a model, willingly posing, is entering into an agreement, written or not. Pretty sure a judge would see it that way. Otherwise, why was she there? She might raise a ruckus, but what's the going to do?

Getting a release from a victim that covers everything is wise, simply to avoid any problems. But it's not clear to me that it's required for every use.

Anyone who seeks to protect their intellectual and moral rights to an intellectual property should read the copyright act. A link to the Berne Treaty is included here  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention .

The Copyright Act is one of the most concise and easy to comprehend legal documents to read. it was because of the defense lawyers arrogance, lack of knowledge as to the Copyright Act and his underestimating my knowledge, (as a self-represented know nothing) that lost him this case and cost the Defendants megabucks to settle.

I urge one and all to follow the link provided.

Might not be worth your time.  You could bring to small claims court, however the time that might take might likely exceed your times worth.   

Aeros wrote: Anyone who seeks to protect their intellectual and moral rights to an intellectual property should read the copyright act. A link to the Berne Treaty is included here  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention .

The Copyright Act is one of the most concise and easy to comprehend legal documents to read. it was because of the defense lawyers arrogance, lack of knowledge as to the Copyright Act and his underestimating my knowledge, (as a self-represented know nothing) that lost him this case and cost the Defendants megabucks to settle.

I urge one and all to follow the link provided.

We love the Berne Convention. But i don't understand your point, nor the relevance to this conversation. What are saying here?

And what lawsuit?

I don't understand your lack of comprehension sir. Just read both my posts in this thread, then maybe you will understand. Failing that, I'm giving up. I offer you a caveat though, try to tone down your vitreolic reponses.

OK, I see tones are getting heated up here.  This is already a headache for me, I don't want any of you getting in a heated ordeal from my mistake.  You are right, I should have gotten the release first prior to payment.  

Lesson learned here.   Thank you all for the contribution in this thread.  

Aeros wrote: I don't understand your lack of comprehension sir. Just read both my posts in this thread, then maybe you will understand. Failing that, I'm giving up. I offer you a caveat though, try to tone down your vitreolic reponses.

Apologies; I managed to miss your first post above, which contained the recap of your legal case. Yes, it all makes sense. And good for you with the win.

Vitriolic? My (admittedly mistaken) request for clarification of your post? Which you provided? And whereupon I acknowledged my mistake/oversight? Really? Or am I missing something else? Feel free to PM me.

Thank you Gary for your response, I regret firing off my knee jerk reaction. Let's move forward with our new found understanding.