model release for provider shoots

Here is the problem. We all operate anonymously in the hobby. So how do photographers deal with model releases when shooting a provider?

Do we just go with a handshake and hope all parties will play nice?

Or do we insist on real IDs and signed contracts and then trust each other to keep our real world names secret in the hobby?

I am thinking of adding a section to specifically state that only in the case of legal action by one or both parties would legal names be used. Any other disclosure, public or private would be considered a breach of contract and subject to legal action in itself. For all other purposes the contract would be between two handles.


I am very interested in both photographer's and model's comments.

The same way they do when the person is not a provider, there isn't any difference

I've done both and it depended upon how the pictures would be used. If I took ownership to use them anyway I wished then a formal release would be done after checking a valid ID.

Relative to "hobby" photos I do not release or share pictures without an email from the provider. I maintain a folder that not only includes their pictures but also their profiles on sites they've advertised on. It's a CYA thing in case there's a dispute later on.

Whatever anyone thinks, once something gets out on the web it's fair game to snag. So forget about watermarks, right-click disabled, etc.

Playboy had a very good model release form for their "Girlfriend", "Girl Next Door" submissions.

I will ad another thing along with this post. I've seen where several ladies have the Photographer's website on their pics. That can be dangerous if the Photogrpaher is using shots of them for publicity. Although her Provider name was different, the Photographer, on his website, listed her real name.

Perhaps when the lady was an aspirering model she wasn't thinking about being a provider. We all have to cover our tracks.

This is a great thread, I wondered the same thing. Wouldn't signing their alias or aka name be like signing their real name since they go by that name as well on the website they are advertising on?

<3 LL

I researched this and while really famous persons might be bound by a stage name, the very limited use of handles here, with no clear tie to the real person limits the legal claim. I can find no court precedents. I think real names are the only way to have a binding contract.

That is why I am adding a confidentiality section to my release.

I see thanks for the research on that, will have to add that into mine as well. Would you be able to PM what legal language you are using for that? Thanks so much for sharing!

<3 LL

It depends on the situation. For the most part, my clients pay for their shoot, so no model release is necessary since the pics taken are for their use only. They are no different than a client that comes to me for portraits or family photos. I do not require a modeling agreement because the shots are not for me.. they are NOT models, they are clients. If I do want to use one of a clients photos for promo, I ALWAYS ask for permission and get the answer in writing.

Discretion is the NUMBER ONE concern for me.. I could not remain in business for long if I show the photos OR revealed the identity of my clients. My client list is not just providers.. they cover a wide range of people. I have done photos for for many high profile people from teachers to female police officers.. even a local TV newscaster. So I have to be discrete. I DO require a photo ID for proof of age, but I do know the real name of most of the ladies I shoot anyway.

Many photographers approach it differently.. but bottom line.. if someone is "modeling" for me for photos that are for me.. I require a release.. if I am shooting a client, no release is necessary. I don't use the photos....EVER. (without written permission.

photofantasies has it right. model releases should generally be a non-issue in this world because most girls don't want you using their images for your own purposes.

I do some photography so I've done some research on legal issues in photography but keep in mind I'm not a lawyer.

I'm pretty sure a contract using only handles and signed using same handles is not enforceable. I can imagine the judge in a contract dispute asking you, "Allright, which one of you is Aether and which one is I Like Big Butts?"

A photographer generally owns the copyright to any photos they take and they generally have the right to post them on their photography website without needing a model release or any further permission from the model.

If they sell a photo without a model release, then they may have a legal problem on their hands.

I found this tonight on the US Copyright Office website that might help you.

I hired a photographer to take some photos. Do I get the copyright?

“If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is, someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and (2) there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.”

— U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 9