How pedantic do we get with RF RM images

[Paul Thompson]

Hi Guys,

About to do some model release photos in studio and got thinking how pedantic we are supposed to get with the model and property releases? 

What really got me thinking was I have no problem getting the model release but what about the clothes she may be wearing?

Do I need a release from River Island, M&S, Next?

Also what about jewellery?

Make-up?

Surely these all come up as property?

Tell me to get back to key wording and stop thinking so much and creating problems that are not there

Happy Easter

Regards

Paul Thompson

 

 

Edit

 

No it is not an excuse to ask her to remove all of the above, lol

[spacecadet]

You can annotate as model release-yes, property release-no.

They are her property but she cannot release the designs.

[Armstrong]

With High Street labels you should be fine so long as there is no identifying logo on. If it's womanswear it's less likely to have one. Mens is more common, it might be a small logo on a polo or shirt.

 

If it's higher end product sometimes the pattern etc is legally protected (Burberry etc).

 

High Street Jewellery is unlikely to have issues if it's fairly generic. If it's distinctive or designer than you may well need a property release. Certain brands like Links of London design is their trademark even without a logo so would need one too.

 

Having a chat with the model about where the items are from might help speed things up.

 

(The usual caveat that I'm not legally trained applies!).

[Guest]

It's quite simple, you use generic clothing when shooting for 'commercial'. No photo print, as stated no logos/TMs - be careful with sportswear as striping etc can be trademarks. Keep jewellery to a minimum. No big obvious items. It's less to do with property (although designer items are out) and more to do with making the images as useable across a range of clients.

 

No worries over makeup, it shouldn't be all that noticeable anyway...a good day makeup is what works the best...so it will look natural.

 

Most models will bring some clothes that are unsuitable - I generally find H and M are a good source of cheap, generic clothes.....

 

And yes, you are slightly overthinking the property.... just make sure you use a good MR (G or similar) and make sure the model is very competent with makeup, otherwise use a decent MUA. Bad makeup can be a real killer for lifestyle sales.

 

As for annotation, it should be MR yes and no PR needed

 

And remember, the world is not populated by caucasian, female 18-25 years olds..........

[Bill Brooks]

Model releases and property releases only make the property owner/model think twice, when they are deciding if they should sue the publisher or yourself.  I had a stranger on a beach, who introduced himself as a lawyer, explain this to me as he signed my release with gusto. Usual disclaimer, I am not a lawyer but he was. If you do a lot of this, get business insurance.

[wiskerke]

I seem to remember Silhouette spectacles are a no-no. Those are the ones with no rims. Fake designer stuff is also verboten. This may include some H&M and Zara.

 

wim

[AlessandraRC]

I would be conservative as far as indicating the need for a release, but when it comes to licensing, I believe Alamy will license an image as they find it appropriate. The best for models is to wear no logos or jewelry, unless it is mass-produced jewelry. If in doubt, indicate the need for property release, but Alamy will decide this case by case when the image gets licensed.

We are no experts, we can only do so much.