Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Greywolf, my opinion (I ain't a lawyer) is this:
Your model release (and proof of payment / valuable consideration) is a contract between you and the model. Signed on the date of production, which would match the date of production on the images or video (if digital) or close to the date of processing (if using negatives or positives/slides). Your model has signed, you have signed, and more than likely a third party signed witness to the agreement.
You can also (if you plan for it) take a few candid pictures of the model in the set, showing the actual set, the equipment, and similar. You could even have the model hold up that day's USA Today while standing in the set with your model release in the other hand, example if you are so paranoid. It is also good for your craft to have that sort of footage or images so that if you need to or are inclined to reproduce a set or a setup, you have images to work from.
Basically, your images are produced under contract, the model knows what day he or she worked, you know what day you worked, the contract is dated the day you worked, the images are dated the day you worked, and that in and of itself should be enough.
Remember, the other side will be able to produce NONE of this. At best, the will produce a false model release, and false documentation that you and the model can both contest. Most people won't produce faked documents because that could potentially lead to fraud charges or worse. Even if you have limited documentation and a flakey model, you will still have about 100% more than the other side, unless they are truly morons.
|
Thanks for your feedback RA
Better explain some background... The images are not of models and a conventional shoot. They vary a lot and comprise 'lifestyle images" - eg.. horseback riding along beaches in sunsets blah, wildlife shots - eg parrots, monkeys, reptiles etc., "elegant living" content - eg .. glass of wine on foreground balcony and sunset in the background type of stuff blah.
OK... there are even in the wildlife shots, frames with my hand (and watch on wrist) where I was enticing critters with food to get closeups. In the lifestyle content, some of the perps are eg... on the horses on beaches etc.
Currently, tho better not ID them here, there are at least eight websites using considerable numbers of these images and all known websites have been recorded over a period of time and showing the copyright content - just letting the rope hang out on them for the moment tho most now know there are "issues" and a couple of these sites have pulled all imaging a few days ago (tho got it all recorded).
The website operators are not part of the main case and have their own possible problems arising re transacting biz without licences to operate in that biz - but that is more re financial regulatory stuff, specifically in Canada. The only connection to the main case is "association" with my perps and they may well be innocent parties, despite the image copyright violation stuff. The real perps are basically involved in deception/fraud/corp law violation type areas and involving considerable amounts of money (millions).
Kinda smell this can be a messy case to prove and it may interfere with the more relevant case. But, it may be possible to pull out all of the more solid images where it is hard to contest these and forget the rest.