Hunter  GWPB wrote:

You are correct.  A model being portrayed as having an STD was also a big one. 

However, I did not bring up the case (linked above) to show liability can be increased.  The intent was to show the OP that the did everything right and the images were stolen and used against the terms of the model and the stock company.  The fact that the model blamed the photographer was pathetic.  Notice who all is a defendant in the case- Amazon? As well as the photographer and stock company.   Definitely looking for deep pockets.  The other interesting thing about that case, which hasn't been mentioned specifically, though the situation was alluded to by Ken Marcus, is the images in this suit were lingerie shots, not nudes.  Which makes sense.  The clothing was sensual, as were the poses, but a nude on the cover of the box could preclude public display of the item on the store shelves.  In a fashion, risqué, but not nude, could be more of a problem than nude.

Hunter's post addresses what is exactly and entirely my concern. I'm fine with the release that Dan Howell linked, I have no problem with a well vetted and proper legal document. In this case, would that have helped? Yes, the defendent "won" the case but what an unpleasant and expensive experience that must have been!

Studio NSFW wrote:
I meant "Here" as in my studio.

I read right past that word.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Definitely, she was looking for deep pockets.

Or the scum suck... er, attorney was.

Todd Meredith wrote:

I agree with what you're saying about ownership in a general sense but there are times, such as ad campaigns, in which copyright is purchased and/or shared because it is a contractual agreement between the photographer and whomever is paying for the job.  Photographers being hired by agencies or companies for a specific job have it written in the contract that the photographer, upon being paid, surrenders copyright..

Copyright  (for ad campaigns) is not shared. But you're right the company who the ad is for most likely is buying copyrights to the photos (if not a very liberal usage license). And they (should be) paying handsomely for it.
But, that still has nothing to do with a model release nor a usage license.

Shanti wrote:
Hi Ivy,

I also struggle with the same issue since I decided to post my artnudies also on social media and portfolio websites. Don't know how to protect my pictures in my modelrelease for ending up where I didn't agree about with the photographer. Curious how you've worked this out after all the comments.

Would you be open to show me the modelrelease you work with? Maybe you would like to email it to me [email protected].

un abrazo grande,
Shanti
https://instagram.com/shanti_lo_model

Ivy is no longer on this site. She *is* on Pinterest and maybe elsewhere.

Shanti wrote:
Hi Ivy,

I also struggle with the same issue since I decided to post my artnudies also on social media and portfolio websites. Don't know how to protect my pictures in my modelrelease for ending up where I didn't agree about with the photographer. Curious how you've worked this out after all the comments.

Would you be open to show me the modelrelease you work with? Maybe you would like to email it to me [email protected].

un abrazo grande,
Shanti
https://instagram.com/shanti_lo_model

I am not going to go back and re-read this entire over 1 year old thread you resurrected but I will say that it is impossible for a model release to fully protect you from having images uploaded to a porn site. They can protect you (mostly) from a direct usage or sale by the photographer, but the fact is that photos are stolen off the Internet all the time. Any image posted including those you have posted) can be stolen and used somewhere, and when those sites are in foreign countries there is often little you can do about it. It is simply not something the photographer or you can control. The only foolproof protection is to not shoot and have images on the Internet at all.

Ivy Wild wrote:
Hello,

I pose nude quite a lot, though I don't produce erotic or fetish photography. I want to ask photographers to include a clause in the release that specifies that our work will not be uploaded to pornhub/any venue that is specifically for porn/marketed as porn.

I feel that this is hard to write and even harder to enforce because porn is challenging to define. For instance, I wouldn't care if my photos were on Tumblr (RIP tumblr), even though tumblr had a lot of porn on it. I would care if they were uploaded to pornhub.

Has anyone done anything like this, and, if so, can you recommend the verbiage?

Note: I don't have anything against porn or erotica, I just don't want to be associated with it because I don't want to bear the stigma.

Well i'll advise you shoot with photogs you're comfortable with. Photogs who understand your concern.

Shanti wrote:
Don't know how to protect my pictures in *my* modelrelease for ending up where I didn't agree about with the photographer.

Simple: If you don't agree with the photographer, don't shoot with him/her.

You are certainly entitled to see the model release before the shoot, even before you schedule the shoot.

Edit: Is it *your* release? If so, you should show it to the photographer before scheduling the shoot.

Al_Vee Photography wrote:
While it's certainly a nice thought, one cannot control certain things ... such as the inevitability of unsavory people sometimes finding, stealing and posting images in places where they should not.

A photographer can promise many things to many people, and with the best of intentions, but they can never guarantee their work won't get stolen and used in any variety of inappropriate ways.

Well said... I always get the model to sign a very comprehensive release that includes 'use for any purpose'. This isn't because I intend to use it for anything untoward. It's because I'm covered if someone sues me because a photo was stolen off the internet and used inappropriately. I don't have enough money to police the entire internet. I barely have enough money to upgrade my camera next year. That said, I still get a model hand-writing 'not for porn, etc on the release at which time I get them to add 'unless outside the control of the photographer'.

Studio NSFW wrote:
Who the hell determines what is "Pornographic"?

A Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart(I believe) once said that he didn't know what the definition of pornography was, but that he knew it when he saw it.

My point is that people have differing opinions as to what pornography is.
Loading still images of a nude body to a porn site does not constitute pornography, imo.

63fotos wrote:

A Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart(I believe) once said that he didn't know what the definition of pornography was, but that he knew it when he saw it.

It's important when quoting someone (especially a Supreme Court Justice) to provide the full quote. In this case Justice Stewart was finding in favor of the defendants film. The actual quote as Stewart wrote it:

   " I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

It's important when quoting someone (especially a Supreme Court Justice) to provide the full quote. In this case Justice Stewart was finding in favor of the defendants film. The actual quote as Stewart wrote it:

   " I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

Absolutely agree. It may seem like semantics, but without the "... in this case is not that," it leaves the viewer to decide based on their own definition what is, I will say obscene, rather than pornography.  The "is not that" is like adding the reasonable doubt, or excluding the circumstantial.   Without the "is not that," a woman's nipple could be considered obscene, but with the "is not that," then one has to wonder what all occurred in the film and yet did not meet the standard of obscenity.

Ivy Wild wrote:
Hello,

I pose nude quite a lot, though I don't produce erotic or fetish photography. I want to ask photographers to include a clause in the release that specifies that our work will not be uploaded to pornhub/any venue that is specifically for porn/marketed as porn.

I feel that this is hard to write and even harder to enforce because porn is challenging to define. For instance, I wouldn't care if my photos were on Tumblr (RIP tumblr), even though tumblr had a lot of porn on it. I would care if they were uploaded to pornhub.

Has anyone done anything like this, and, if so, can you recommend the verbiage?

Note: I don't have anything against porn or erotica, I just don't want to be associated with it because I don't want to bear the stigma.

As a photographer I tell models that I cannot agree to release language that is ambiguous such as “no porn” or “no obscene” some consider National Geographic porn or Picasso’s paintings of nude women. I do tell them I am happy to discuss restrictions so long as they are very specific. “Partial Nudity” is unspecific. I will agree to “no full frontal” or “full frontal is OK but no pink.” I would also ask them to be specific when limiting what forums the images may be shared on. “No eroitica” is too vague and can include many legit art galleries. I would agree to specific restriction regarding magazines and websites geared towards adult sexual entertainment.

Your concerns and requests are legitimate and reasonable. However a release is a legal contract and like all legal contracts benefits from eliminating and vague or ambiguous language and instead creating very specific language.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

It's important when quoting someone (especially a Supreme Court Justice) to provide the full quote. In this case Justice Stewart was finding in favor of the defendants film. The actual quote as Stewart wrote it:

   " I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

I wasn't in the mood to research the exact quote, therefore I was paraphrasing.

Jon Winkleman Photo wrote:
some consider National Geographic porn

You bring up an interesting point. Are two animals mating considered porn?

donalabee wrote:
Well i'll advise you shoot with photogs you're comfortable with. Photogs who understand your concern.

Sounds right, but it s often not that simple in practice.

I had my photos (and many other models same day) posted by a photographer on a swinger website. I worked with him before couple times, all was ok.
I had another photographer, who was totally fine at the shoot, later it turned out he took pictures that we didn’t agree about and is posting then around now, over and over again after being blocked by support on websites...
And other weird situations with people who seemed fine.

So yeah, since some time i ask people to include “no publication on porno, escort, swinger and similar sites”. And “no open legs genre pictures to be published” (Maybe I should choose a better sentence). I don’t make own contract, i ask to include it in photographers contract.
At least I have some protection going to a lawyer next time.