Let me clarify something RE : 2257 - GoFuckYourself.com

amacontent · 07-22-2004, 07:54 AM

" MODEL RELEASES " are not 2257 compliant. There should be a seperate page with all 2257 info on it. We are not required to give out releases. Just ID and 2257 page. If we give out releases, then purchasers can turn around and resell the content.
As is the problem I had with SOBE.

Hence I am setting up folders on my serever for each individual scenes where folder contains IDs and 2257 info page. All people who purchased contebt from us and needs the info , hit me up

goBigtime · 07-22-2004, 08:01 AM

I think the model releases are more to prove to your client that you (and your client) have the right to use the content - according to the model in question, for whatever purposes are laid out on the release.

You could make a version with a ammended header that clearly specifies that it is not the original release, and is only to be used as proof that it exists and is not being transferred to the client as ownership of the content etc.. no?

Cassie · 07-22-2004, 08:13 AM

this is something we always demanded.....model releases, ids, and photo id of the model with her id.

with content providers flooding the market, if a purchaser demands this info (and rightfully so), there is no way a provider will risk losing a sale over pieces of paper they only have to copy and send to the purchaser.

the model release contract should have the company's name and address listed at both the beginning and end of the contract and the company owners (photographer's) signature should be on the contract as well.

someone on this board said a while ago they were changing all their info to fake info (i think because they were getting harrassed) and that is just wrong; not to mention illegal.

if a provider can not provide all info required, then a purchase should be made with someone who will provide this imo.

07-22-2004, 07:54 AM	#1
amacontent STANLEY CUP CHAMPION ! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 12,875	Let me clarify something RE : 2257 " MODEL RELEASES " are not 2257 compliant. There should be a seperate page with all 2257 info on it. We are not required to give out releases. Just ID and 2257 page. If we give out releases, then purchasers can turn around and resell the content. As is the problem I had with SOBE. Hence I am setting up folders on my serever for each individual scenes where folder contains IDs and 2257 info page. All people who purchased contebt from us and needs the info , hit me up __________________ Joe Loughlin [email protected] TEAM- joeloughlin. Telegram - AMA_JOE https://www.amaproduction.com

07-22-2004, 08:13 AM	#3
Cassie Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 3,139	this is something we always demanded.....model releases, ids, and photo id of the model with her id. with content providers flooding the market, if a purchaser demands this info (and rightfully so), there is no way a provider will risk losing a sale over pieces of paper they only have to copy and send to the purchaser. the model release contract should have the company's name and address listed at both the beginning and end of the contract and the company owners (photographer's) signature should be on the contract as well. someone on this board said a while ago they were changing all their info to fake info (i think because they were getting harrassed) and that is just wrong; not to mention illegal. if a provider can not provide all info required, then a purchase should be made with someone who will provide this imo. __________________ ICQ: 309756847 ]

07-22-2004, 08:01 AM	#2
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	I think the model releases are more to prove to your client that you (and your client) have the right to use the content - according to the model in question, for whatever purposes are laid out on the release. You could make a version with a ammended header that clearly specifies that it is not the original release, and is only to be used as proof that it exists and is not being transferred to the client as ownership of the content etc.. no?