Quote Originally Posted by yasmina View Post
i modelled for many years and all photographers legally have to get a model to sign the release forms the release form states that the the model is no longer the owner of her image and has no rights to the photos and the photographer can do with pictures as they see fit
if photograpphers dont get a model release form signed and dated the photos still belong to the model as it is her likeness the other reason photographers need a model release form is because you have to show id before you sign to prove you are over 18
so as hal has done none of this the pics do not belong to her and is she shaw that the images are not of a minor someone under 18 and could she prove that if the model sued
well you would if you had a model release form without one you could end up in court paying damages

may advice to all models is only go to photographers if they ask you to sign release forms remember you can put on the release form on the condition my face is not showing all pictures subject to model approval and so on so you do still have some say on what pictures are shown and where
never go near any photographer who knows nothing about model release forms you may well up on cards in phone boxs in london asthis is what happened to me so beware photographer who no nothing about the industry even time for print work requires a model release form

I agree with all of this but...

the SUBJECT was not and is not a "model". The SUBJECT was not employed to pose and was given digital copies to do whatever she wanted with. She did not "model" for me.

By your logic if a father takes a picture of his child he has to get a release form... and that is crazy.

However, the point that we're missing here is the SUBJECT complained to Patricia about her face and ask that it be altered and Patricia did just that. The subject did not ask for it to be removed so obviously the subject was happy to have the altered photo posted on this site.

I am well within my legal rights and I have confirmed this with my solicitor and a barister.

Futhermore, Eastwoman, I am noto a "photographer", I am an artist and I use lots of mediums to express myself.

In the last 6 months I have turned down repeated requests to shoot but as I am not intrested in the subject matter and I am going artisiticially in a different direction; I have turned down these opportunities. Specifically because the person inquiring asked questions like "how much do you charge". I am not a business. I don't operate as such. I did not charge for my work and did not employ models.

Many people apriciate me as an artist. I have taken many photos of the girls who use this site and all of them were very happy with the photos and were given copies. ALL of the subjects said that my photos were the best they had ever seen of themselves.

keeping all this in mind... there is no problem.

The reason that the subject was upset originally was because some other website had posted this photo. The subject, who was not very computer litterate, assumed that I had provided this other website with this photo when I had not. The admin/ site designer of this other site copied it from EI and published it without my permission. (right click, copy or "print screen"). This is out of my control.

In fact, I had no knowledge this photo would be posted on this site. I do not usually publish online... most of my work is shown in magazines or in galleries.

At any rate, no one need "beware" of me as I am no longer taking photographs of escorts, the subject bores me. Frankly, if anyone want ed me to photograph them they missed thier chance.