No signed Model Release??
 

I had an aquaintance who has an amatuer site take some lingerie pics of me. He requested I sign a model release and I refused and forbid him to use the pics on his site. He has informed me he is going to use them anyhow and that he owns them. Is there anything I can do? I did pay him for taking the pics so I am confused as to how he can own them and use them with no model release. They were digital pics - no negatives or prints exist - just digital images.
I appreciate any help offered.

Call a lawyer

Ditto on what Greeny said... He will find out very quickly that he has no rights to them at all.

DD

1) Nice friend

2) By Far the best thing to do is call a Lawyer as GG already said.

3) But if you did indeed pay him to take those pictures than he was doing work for hire which would mean you have the copyrights.

4) call a Lawyer

5) Goodluck

I'm NO lawyer, but just curious.

You say your aquaintance has an amateur site and took pics of you in lingerie. Was this for business or pleasure? I ask because, is this something did just for fun, or we're you thinking about modeling on the site? Did he pay you as a model in lingerie for his amateur website?

I know the release is very important, but we're you paid?

Greenguy, is a check to a model legal proof the negatives and pics belong to the photographer, and free to do what he/she wishes with the prints, or not good enough? Just for his own viewing pleasures?

no model release...
 

NO he did not pay me.

They were for my own use on my web site for a swinger party I hostess.
This is where the pics were intended for
http://www.bbwswingerparty.com/images/Velvet/

After seeing peoples reaction to the pics - he told me he intended "to ride this gravy train as long as I can."

Bump - I would think this falls into the same area of an guy posting pics of his ex-grielfriend - no papers work means you can't legally use it.

Damn it, I gotta go delete that page. |escape|

|jester|

Makes sense Greenguy about playing it safe and having all paper work signed and approved by all parties

Velvet1234. I would say the photographer is in the wrong

However Greenguy, if both are in the pictures, and the guy wants to post pics, but the female does not. Does he have that right because he is in the pictures also?

As long as we're on the subject of rights to release. Did IEG have tommy and pamelas consent???? Or we're they a victim of some loop hole in the legal system? They say they the tape was stolen and released without their content, but yet it was all over the net.

I'm not a lawyer - LOL

All I knwo is that I'd never put a pic online that I took unless I had the proper documentation.

If she didnt pay for the pictures, would she be in the same boat?

suspicion 1. she links to the "photographer" and even offers to set up other girls with the same photographer. hmmm.

If you paid the photographer for the pictures, the pictures should be yours. But, you dont have any documentation to that point, nor does the photographer have documentation to say that he doesnt own them.

Either case. Get something signed. Have a contract that states the photos are for your use only, that he has no right to them. Right now, all that you have as "proof" is whatever you paid him with (if you paid cash, you got nothing)

No Release?????
 

I learned the answer to this question by first hand exp
We had a girl come out and shoot for us who was caught
stealing out of someone's purse.....So we threw her out actually forgetting to pay her in the process.
She called the police, when they came out they asked to see her model release ( she wanted the video footage back because she had not been paid) The police clearly stated if we had paid her, &
had no release we still would have to give her stuff to her.
Besides 2257 REQUIRES SIGNED MODEL RELEASES to be avail.
so he's fucked either way.
Call a lawyer

he has no signed modeling relase.

he is not the owner of the pics.

he has no legal right to use them.

oh, and he's certainly not a friend of yours |angry|