Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Sat 04/05/24 09:25:44 GMT |
Message # 2905.3.1.1.1.1 Subject: Re: Re: Re: don't need model release in UK Date: Wed 26/03/03 04:34:13 GMT Name: MK Email: wamtec@compuserve.com |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
Wow.....very interesting discussion here. I was not aware that the UK laws on signing model releases were so different to the laws we have to abide by in the USA. So...it seems that the UK scene is mostly about not misrepresenting or mischaracterizing or defaming somebody. That makes sense, cos the libel laws in the UK are totally different to the libel laws in the USA (i.e. it is very difficult to sue somebody for libel in the USA...cos the 1st amendment protects the right to free speech...and so the tabloids can say whatever they like about somebody ....e.g. that Tom Cruise is gay...and get away with it....but if you libel or defame somebody in the UK...e.g. the claims that Elton John likes young schoolboys...then you end up in court.
Model releases in the USA go way beyond the UK already...i.e. a mere model release is not all you need...thanks to the famous Tracie Lords case...you must keep a copy of a photo ID that proves their age as well (passport or drivers licence)...and if you are in the x rated sex industry, it is a requirement for adult models to have aids testing every 6 months and video producers who make hardcore films have also got to keep current copies of the model's latest aids certificatoon results on file as well.
But this is all "swings and roundabouts" ....cos while it may seem more bureacratic regarding model releases in the USA, we have one HUGE advantage over UK based producers...i.e. that same 1st amendment that permits freedom of speech without government interference...is the very same thing that allows all u.s. based producers total FREEDOM to produce and release videos UNIMPEDED...i.e. to release them "unrated".
Thats not the case in the UK...no video producer can legally released any video in the UK....unless they submit it to the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) first...and to obtain a BBFC certificate. In essence...all amateur videos made in the USA are not required to be reviewed or licensed by the government...i.e. unrated videos are legal. In the UK...unless a video has a ratings certificate issued by the BBFC..it is defacto an illegal/underground video...so most of the UK amateur video scene operates on an underground or illegal basis. Even custom videos are not exempt. Thats why I left the UK and am based in Florida...cos WAMTEC could never legally operate in the UK (nor could sites like Souther Charms offering custom videos operate in the UK).
The BBFC problem in the UK is a real dilemma...cos most producer would love to be able to get their work certified...but the archaic BBFC laws are really nothing to to about censorship any more...it is merely an exorbitant rip off and a TAX that is levied on all new video productions. Very few producers sell enough tapes...to be able to afford to spend around 1000 pounds or $1500 to apply for a BBFC certificate anyway.
So...I can put up with the more cumbersome u.s. laws on model releases...cos this is the lesser of 2 evils...i.e. I don't have to submit my tapes to the government and pay an outrageous tax before I release them. This is why I left the UK...and probably why folks like Brian are enjoying life so much in Spain and Argentina...where it is easier to run a video production business than back in the UK.
MK |
In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1.1) Re: Re: don't need model release in UK
By Kev - kev.styx@ntlworld.com Wed 26/03/03 02:24:16 GMT No injunction would be maintained if someone had knowingly posed for the pictures, irrespective of how famous they were.
Injunctions will only be maintained if you have possibly stalked the person or the images defame them in some way.
In fact the biggest problem is not the pictures, but how you caption them. If you say, "this is Miss X, a prostitute" then you're in deep shit- if you just say "this is Miss X" then the likelihood of any problems are so remote that they're not worth bothering with.
Otherwise loads of people would be taking out injunctions against the press to prevent them publishing images of themselves. Most legal problems are to do with the words that go with a picture not the actual pictures themselves.
I worked as a press agency photographer for several years- the number of times I obtained a release? Zero! Number of problems? Zero!
Basically you can photograph anybody and publish it- there's absolutely nothing they can do about it unless you defame them. |
In reply to Message (2905.3.1.1) Re: don't need model release in UK
By leonmoomin - leonmoomin@madasafish.com Wed 26/03/03 01:59:15 GMT Yes, technically, the law here is:
The owner of the Camera or Camcorder owns the Photographs or movie rights.
The only legal drawback to not having a model release would be.
The person in the pictures might decide that they don't want them published and could take an injunction preventing you from doing so, to late if you already have and would only usually happen if the model becomes more famous or something. The only way you would be in trouble would be if you tried to publish the pictures after the injunction has been issued. If a photographer does have a model release, there would be no case for an injunction!
Most local press photographers may ask people to sign model releases for ethical reasons!
leonmoomin |
In reply to Message (2905.3.1) don't need model release in UK
By Kev - kev.styx@ntlworld.com Tue 25/03/03 23:32:40 GMT Photographers in the UK don't need the models' permission to publish pictures.
As long as pictures do not miss-represent a person, then a photographer is perfectly free to publish anything he wants. You only need a model release for such things as product endorsements and stuff like that.
The law is different in the US, but this guy is in the UK.
Obviously, if it's your girlfriend, there might be other problems if she doesn't like what you have done, but nothing legally : ) |
In reply to Message (2905.3) Re: Proposition...should I or shouldn't I?
By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Tue 25/03/03 23:25:11 GMT Go for it...
***BUT***
Don't post or otherwise distribute any of the pictures unless you get both of them to sign releases which clearly indicate that they have given you permission to use the pics for whatever purpose you have in mind (free posting, sale, whatever). Such an agreement will fend off any potential lawsuit (assuming you don't exceed any limitations in the agreement they sign). If they don't want to sign, or you don't feel comfortable asking, keep the pics to yourself!
|
In reply to Message (2905) Proposition...should I or shouldn't I?
By Wet_Gorilla - hardy_har_hard@hotmail.com Tue 25/03/03 22:37:47 GMT Ok, let me set the scene...met the woman of my dreams last christmas and told her upfront about my preference for wetlook. To my surprise she not only thought it was cool, but a couple of weeks later told me she gets her sexual kicks out of getting messy fully-clothed. However, she is a bit paranoid about her weight and appearance and won't let me take pictures...until...last week. She really wants me to take photos of her and her best friend, who is really, really hot getting wet and messy in my bathroom. However, only problem is, I can imagine her getting even more paranoid during this shoot as she will think i'm looking at her friend more than her... So... what do you lot think...should I go for it? should i post the pictures? Am i a big wuss?
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.032 seconds to generate ]