2257 regs published in full

[Barron]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

You get both the rights to the images and a statement from the model that they are over 18.
Alex

"Rights to the images." is a very true statement.

Photographers would be crazy to hand out the models release blindly. That would "imply" a transfer of ownership.


_

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Barron

"Rights to the images." is a very true statement.

Photographers would be crazy to hand out the models release blindly. That would "imply" a transfer of ownership.


_

Nope, you cannot imply transfer. The document clearly states agreement between "this photographer" and "this model"... all transfers beyond that are done contractually (content license or complete content sale) specified in a different document.

The model release is the place you have the model's signature, proof that the model was aware of the photoshoot, and usually proof that the model was paid (an important part of assigning rights is the recompense for doing so).

2 pieces of ID without other supporting documents would not be enough to do the job.

Alex

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Barron

"Rights to the images." is a very true statement.

Photographers would be crazy to hand out the models release blindly. That would "imply" a transfer of ownership.


_

I've read 100s if not 1,000s of model release documents and each one states clearly the parties involved. Just because I have a copy of it for 2257 does not mean that the agreement is noe with me.

On the other hand, the new regs require a date stamp. There's no mention that the stamp needs to be a model release. I think soon we'll start seeing a new document being used as a data stamp so the primary producers can keep the release.

[Barron]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

I've read 100s if not 1,000s of model release documents and each one states clearly the parties involved. Just because I have a copy of it for 2257 does not mean that the agreement is noe with me.

On the other hand, the new regs require a date stamp. There's no mention that the stamp needs to be a model release. I think soon we'll start seeing a new document being used as a data stamp so the primary producers can keep the release.

I agree with everything you said. But there is going to be that one dick head out there "presumes" a transfer of ownership and resell the imagery. Without a document explicitly transferring ownership of the models release, there is no transfer. But, if that person is in a different country than the content provider, getting that enforced in the courts will be expensive and very time consuming. Better for the content provider to hedge his bets.

As for the date stamp, I think your right. I'm not sure of the how or where they will do it, but content providers will need to include the date of production on the documention some where. Probably on the license, I would think.


_