Releases

My 9 month old granddaughter was selected to do a photo shoot for
Denny's children's clothing store chain from pictures I took. I told
the kids that the photographers were going to ask them to sign a
release for the baby but I also told them to limit it to this
particular engagement from this particular chain of stores. Otherwise,
the pictures can be sold to stock photo houses and since they weren't
getting anything for this, except for the pictures, why make those
pictures available to anyone.

Of course the kids don't listen and they signed it anyway but I wonder
if the photographers would have gone ahead with the shoot with a
distribution restriction.

Alan

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:10:41 -0400, John A. wrote:
: On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:01:07 +0100, Bruce
: wrote:
:
: Alan Calan wrote:
: My 9 month old granddaughter was selected to do a photo shoot for
: Denny's children's clothing store chain from pictures I took. I told
: the kids that the photographers were going to ask them to sign a
: release for the baby but I also told them to limit it to this
: particular engagement from this particular chain of stores. Otherwise,
: the pictures can be sold to stock photo houses and since they weren't
: getting anything for this, except for the pictures, why make those
: pictures available to anyone.
:
: Of course the kids don't listen and they signed it anyway but I wonder
: if the photographers would have gone ahead with the shoot with a
: distribution restriction.
:
:
: I am surprised that a release signed by a child could be considered
: legally valid. Here in the UK, a release for a child's picture must
: be signed by an adult (18+) who is also the child's parent or legal
: guardian, or is acting with their express permission, otherwise it
: isn't worth the paper it is written on.
:
: He said the photos were of his granddaughter, but that his kid and/or
: kid-in-law signed the release.
:
: Even if the granddaughter was conceived immediately upon her parents'
: sexual maturity, nine years have passed since and they are most
: definitely now adults.

Er... You weren't paying attention either. The granddaughter is nine *months*
old, not nine years!

Bob

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:50:41 -0400, John A.
wrote:

This is hysterical. Listen, the kids (son and daughter-inlaw) who are
the parents of the 9 month old, are 31 and 30 years old.

My question to you all who are either professional photographers or
close, if the photographer got the engagment from the clothing store,
"Denny's" for it's catalogue or advertisements, should the parents of
the 9 month old tried to have limited the pictures for that purpose
only. Clearly, if they did, the photographer could have said forget
it, because he'd want those pictures for whatever purpose he desires
but if the baby has the look, would he risk ****ing off the client and
letting a good one get away for something nothing to do with that
client?

Alan

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:01:10 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:10:41 -0400, John A. wrote:
: On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:01:07 +0100, Bruce
: wrote:
:
: Alan Calan wrote:
: My 9 month old granddaughter was selected to do a photo shoot for
: Denny's children's clothing store chain from pictures I took. I told
: the kids that the photographers were going to ask them to sign a
: release for the baby but I also told them to limit it to this
: particular engagement from this particular chain of stores. Otherwise,
: the pictures can be sold to stock photo houses and since they weren't
: getting anything for this, except for the pictures, why make those
: pictures available to anyone.
:
: Of course the kids don't listen and they signed it anyway but I wonder
: if the photographers would have gone ahead with the shoot with a
: distribution restriction.
:
:
: I am surprised that a release signed by a child could be considered
: legally valid. Here in the UK, a release for a child's picture must
: be signed by an adult (18+) who is also the child's parent or legal
: guardian, or is acting with their express permission, otherwise it
: isn't worth the paper it is written on.
:
: He said the photos were of his granddaughter, but that his kid and/or
: kid-in-law signed the release.
:
: Even if the granddaughter was conceived immediately upon her parents'
: sexual maturity, nine years have passed since and they are most
: definitely now adults.

Er... You weren't paying attention either. The granddaughter is nine *months*
old, not nine years!

Oops!

Well, in that case I guess Alan's kid *could* still be a minor.

I still doubt they are, though.

"Alan Calan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:50:41 -0400, John A.
wrote:

This is hysterical. Listen, the kids (son and daughter-inlaw) who are
the parents of the 9 month old, are 31 and 30 years old.

My question to you all who are either professional photographers or
close, if the photographer got the engagment from the clothing store,
"Denny's" for it's catalogue or advertisements, should the parents of
the 9 month old tried to have limited the pictures for that purpose
only. Clearly, if they did, the photographer could have said forget
it, because he'd want those pictures for whatever purpose he desires
but if the baby has the look, would he risk ****ing off the client and
letting a good one get away for something nothing to do with that
client?



Few say yes, if you don't ask.

--
Peter