Model release number

[alejandro]

Hi, very new member here and want to upload my first images with people but I need a quick bit of advice about the model release form. On the release form, what is the 'model release number'? Also, is it a requirement to attach a photo of the model to the form or is this just an optional extra?

Thank you in anticipation,

[Martin Carlsson]

To be honest I don't know about the release number, but guessing it is for your own numbering/naming of the MR/PR for your own records. Mine are always named/referenced; 

 

date of shoot + MR or PR + name of model/property i.e. "20160113 MR Martin Carlsson". I also name the actual file the same way for ease and quick to find, both in Lightroom and Alamy's database.

 

Photo is optional as far as I'm concerned.

[losdemas]

^^what he said.  The numbering is like invoicing: it's entirely up to you to decide upon or develop your own system and - no- the photo is not a requirement, but it is useful and good to have there for all parties.

[alejandro]

That's great. Thanks for the quick replies.

[Guest]

Sorry but a release should have a photo of the model or property. It's pretty standard practice for commercial work. I still like paper copies and will use an image from the shoot (will also add a portait if needed).

 

I use a numbering system for the files that relates to the date of shoot - makes it easier to fill out metadata and has model name or some obvious identifier. I then will use that with _MR suffix for the release. Keeps it consistent and easy for dealing with upload meta.

[losdemas]

Sorry but a release should have a photo of the model or property. It's pretty standard practice for commercial work. I still like paper copies and will use an image from the shoot (will also add a portait if needed).

 

I use a numbering system for the files that relates to the date of shoot - makes it easier to fill out metadata and has model name or some obvious identifier. I then will use that with _MR suffix for the release. Keeps it consistent and easy for dealing with upload meta.

 

Should is different to must. OP asked if "is it a requirement...".  It's not.

[Guest]

 

Sorry but a release should have a photo of the model or property. It's pretty standard practice for commercial work. I still like paper copies and will use an image from the shoot (will also add a portait if needed).

 

I use a numbering system for the files that relates to the date of shoot - makes it easier to fill out metadata and has model name or some obvious identifier. I then will use that with _MR suffix for the release. Keeps it consistent and easy for dealing with upload meta.

 

Should is different to must. OP asked if "is it a requirement...".  It's not.

 

 

I suggest looking at the Getty primer on releases and 'should' is used as term for the date....... Corbis CM states ...please attach a screen grab/portrait.... The OP actually asked if it's an optional extra...well in the world of commercial stock...it's not.

[losdemas]

 

 

Sorry but a release should have a photo of the model or property. It's pretty standard practice for commercial work. I still like paper copies and will use an image from the shoot (will also add a portait if needed).

 

I use a numbering system for the files that relates to the date of shoot - makes it easier to fill out metadata and has model name or some obvious identifier. I then will use that with _MR suffix for the release. Keeps it consistent and easy for dealing with upload meta.

 

Should is different to must. OP asked if "is it a requirement...".  It's not.

 

 

I suggest looking at the Getty primer on releases and 'should' is used as term for the date....... Corbis CM states ...please attach a screen grab/portrait.... The OP actually asked if it's an optional extra...well in the world of commercial stock...it's not.

 

 

Semantics.  I read the OP as referring specifically to Alamy, ("I need a quick bit of advice about the model release form") and in any case I replied "[it's]...good to have there for all parties".  I always add a photo to the model release.

 

We both agree with each other on the pertinent point (viz: I would add a photo; you would add a photo).

[cbimages]

One time you should always have a photo is if the person is unable to read or write, or understand english,  such as a villager in a remote area of the world. It's then a good idea to get the model to hold the completed model release beside their face and get a photo of face and release together.

[Martin Carlsson]

 

 

Sorry but a release should have a photo of the model or property. It's pretty standard practice for commercial work. I still like paper copies and will use an image from the shoot (will also add a portait if needed).

 

I use a numbering system for the files that relates to the date of shoot - makes it easier to fill out metadata and has model name or some obvious identifier. I then will use that with _MR suffix for the release. Keeps it consistent and easy for dealing with upload meta.

 

Should is different to must. OP asked if "is it a requirement...".  It's not.

 

 

I suggest looking at the Getty primer on releases and 'should' is used as term for the date....... Corbis CM states ...please attach a screen grab/portrait.... The OP actually asked if it's an optional extra...well in the world of commercial stock...it's not.

 

 

Whilst working with Getty I stopped attaching pictures on the uploaded releases - never a word about it, from any agency for that matter. 

 

Anyway with the physical releases I never attach the picture anymore, but sometimes using an electronic version ("Easy Release") and then I do (as in taking a quick picture with the phone that gets included) when working with more to me "unknown" people (just in case).

[Guest]

Well since you don't believe me...how about this from the head of content at Alamy

 

"PDN: What are the most common mistakes you see photographers making in regard to model releases?

 

Capel: Not actually getting a signed document, doing things on [a] handshake. People move on and relationships break down. We’ve seen former partners wanting images removed because they claim they didn’t give consent, etc. And not putting an image of the person on the release as a clear reference."

 

(my emphasis).

 

from http://www.pdnonline.com/features/What-Photographers-N-10515.shtml

 

Simples......

[Martin Carlsson]

From the OP "Also, is it a requirement to attach a photo of the model to the form or is this just an optional extra?"

 

AFAIK, it is optional, but some recommend it for various reasons.

 

Also, perhaps I wasn't clear earlier. I don't use the Alamy release form and find it surprising it doesn't offer space for a 3rd party witness to the signatures.

 

If I were to use the Alamy MR I would be inclined to use a photo WITH the model holding the actual signed release (as there is no 3rd party witness signing it), when I deal with people outside of family I use a release that offer both 3rd party witness and photo. With family I think it suffice with their signatures and a 3rd party witness signing it (and to be honest I think that suffice in all cases). Getty never declined any release of mine for a lack of photo, but did on occasion spot a mistake (date format and to expand on shoot description) and requested a new release - so they do scrutinize them.

 

I would think a 3rd party witness signing a legal document is "stronger" than a snap for reference, and about equal in strength to a snap of someone holding up the signed release.

 

@Geoff Kidd How do you do it? 3rd party witness yes/no, snap of the person for reference pasted on to the release afterwards yes/no, snap of them holding up signed release pasted on yes/no. 

 

If I'm wrong I'm wrong.

 

PS in the pictured MR in the article you referenced to (ASMP's) there is space for witness signature, but not a photo.

 

PPS in the releases I find the photo is always referred to as "for reference" which I interpret as help - for myself primarily. A photocopy, a driver's licenses, polaroid - i.e. a photo to be pasted onto the release for visual reference - I don't interpret this as having any legal baring, but more of help, "for reference".

 

PPPS Usually any legal documents needs signature of the two parties entering into it. For extra protection, witness(es) of the parties signing it as well.

[Guest]

Martin,

 

I also would never use the Alamy release, strictly Getty's and Blend's (basically the same). I get the model to sign two releases for each shoot - they are being paid....so it's on my dollar they are filling out the forms.

 

Third party if third party is around at time, usually a MUA or studio owner. I used to snap a polaroid off and get model to sign it and attach but now it's more of a referencing picture.

 

I work on the more is more basis..in the unlikely, but possible, situation of me being taken to court...I would rather have gone the extra mile than try to defend a lack of x,y or z. I also deal with agencies who are very strict and am happy to follow their requirements. It is something that periodically comes up at meetings.

 

Everything is paper based..... I would rather scan paper and have backups than than use a phone/ipad release...... IME phones are the worst bits of new tech around...... paper's been good for a few thousand years.

[Martin Carlsson]

Sounds like after all we are doing it pretty much the same. Using the Getty release as well.

 

I 99% use paper copies, but evaluating the Easy Release app for those times you get caught out with an unplanned opportunity and don't have any paper copies left in the bag. Have used those with libraries where allowed (but later obtained paper releases retrospectively as backup). To this day always all MRs/PRs witnessed by 3rd party and then scan them. The only thing I don't do all the time is including the reference picture (i.e. the pasting of a portrait or pic from the shoot) - as that would be purely for me as reference I feel and I don't really feel I need it. I see on top of every release (handwritten) date, MR/PR and the person's name - and my memory is still pretty ok.

 

With "outsiders" I also take a picture with them holding the signed release (purely as backup for myself just in case).

 

Working this way I have never had any problems during the last 12-13 years regarding releases with any library, models or property owners, neither has clients for which I've done assignment work AFAIK.

[Guest]

I assume the photo is also for the agency and, if needed, for client as well. Third party witness only appeared with Getty in 2008, I assume because of some legal concerns but from mandatory was then made optional in practice (less so for some aggregators).

 

One reason I only use paid models is to make life easy with the whole notion of releases...... too many horror stories on the web portfolio sites.