6 replies to this topic

[Alex_Tattersall]

Hi gang

I've just found a couple of images of me on Getty stock which were taken by an Indian journalist in new Delhi for a promotional article about my university. I didn't sign a model release form and am a bit disconcerted to see them as stock. Any advice guys?

http://cache3.asset-...heXVGWhUwRWpA==

[decosnapper]

I'm no lawyer...but...

Making the images available for licensing is not where I think the 'problem' lies...the 'problem' (in quotes because I am not convinced there is one...based on what I know so far...please read on...) will be the context of publication and the responsibility will lie with the publisher, not the photographer.

Two questions spring to mind:-
Are there any terms of restricted use stated on the Getty site? (the images might be restricted to editorial - ie "Alex Tattersall in India to promote university" is editorial use. Its a statement of fact)
Does your likeness/image have any proven value?

The latter point is not tongue-in-cheek. Eddie Irvine secured £25k damages for his likeness being used in an avert without permission:-

http://www.brandrepu...lkSPORT-appeal/

Original damages were £2k...but as Eddie stated that he "Wouldn't get out of bed for less than £25k" higher damages were awarded on appeal.

So the question is thus; Do you have a proven track record, such as paid invoices, showing how much you can license your likeness for advertisements for?

If yes, and its big enough to justify speaking to a lawyer then...find a lawyer.

If not, then I would forget about it.

But this post does highlight the value of obtaining signed model releases...even more so if there is any hint of images being used for commercial purposes other than editorial.

[Alex_Tattersall]

I wouldn't get out of bed for less than a cup of tea.

Thanks Simon

[Alex_Mustard]

Yeah, it would all come down to usage. If they are used in Editorial and you were in a public place - there is little you can do. It is why celebrities don't have to sign a model release for the gossip magazines to print their pictures!

You're best chance for a big payout is to search the images on line with image search software - and hope they get used for something commercial and not editorial!

Alex

[PeteAtkinson]

Getty are very particular about releases; I doubt they would license this for anything other than editorial use, for which a release is not required. They like releases even for blurred and incomplete people, if they intend to license the picture for commercial use. If you need the money, you might try suing the photographer for making you look so old; you looked a lot younger in person, or maybe it was that bar we went to in Phuket that made a difference...

[Alex_Tattersall]

Yes, I never recovered Pete

[SimonSpear]

I sell a lot of footage through Getty and I agree that they are meticulous with their model releases. If your image/likeness is clearly identifiable then the only way a model release is not required is when used for 'editorial' purposes. However that doesn't necessarily mean that they have not been provided with a bogus model release so I'd definitely follow it up!

Cheers, Simon