lea <lea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Many model releases I've seen say something to the effect "in exchange > for consideration received I hereby give permission..." > > What I'm wondering is if I HAVE to give something in exchange for using > their image? > > Situations I'm considering are a child's portrait shoot, a pet shoot or > a wedding. Is it necessary to give something away to get a model > release? > > Thanks for any light you may be able to shed on this. This is not legal advice. I'm not a lawyer. However, I've paid a fair amount of attention to legal issues especially surrounding photography for the last 20 years or so, so I don't think I'm wasting your time by posting. In general, a contract, to be valid, has to be of benefit to both sides. This is most often shown by some sort of financial "consideration" being given to one side by the other side. I think that statement is in many stock model releases to show that the model did receive something in compensation for the permission. If the model argued they never received anything, then they might claim that the contract (the release) wasn't valid. But I know nothing about the case law -- whether releases without it have still been upheld, or if they've been overturned; and whether releases *with* it have been overturned. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
