These Statements Need To Be In Royalty Free Licenses.

111 views and no replies. That's gotta be some kind of record.

Looks like a Legal terms issue/interpretation. Hope practical advice will appear here.......instead of incomplete conjecture. Silence is golden.....nobody wants to get sued, of course.

James, even if I have model and property releases on file, I currently add a paragraph in my description for RM images asking that the buyer please contact the person or property owner, depending upon intended use. The reason is this: It is my understanding (not conjecture) that photographers cannot possibly cover all contingencies. Only the buyer knows his intent, and the buyer (not the photographer) is the one who is responsible for covering legalities. How can photographers cover all contingencies, when we cannot possibly know what they are! It's way too complex.

Also, what about releases we obtained prior to signing on for RM licensing? If I photographed someone's farm and told the owner that the images would only hang on someone's wall, that is no longer true if a magazine now wants to print the pictures. So I must go back and get a new release without knowing what bases to cover? I'd prefer to get the terms from the buyer first, then take it to the property owner and get a release that's specific to that particular use--and probably check with an intellectual property attorney along the way, just to be sure I'm covering the bases.

I think the reason you've had no responses is that it's far too complex for artists to address. We should not have to be responsible for legalities on a case-by-case basis, and it's my understanding that we are not. The statements you cited appear to support that.

Connie wrote: "James, even if I have model and property releases on file, I currently add a paragraph in my description for RM images asking that the buyer please contact the person or property owner, depending upon intended use."

As I pointed out in the original post, sections 6-H and 6-I of RM licenses already contain language saying that so there should be no need to add it yourself, except maybe for emphasis.

"It is my understanding (not conjecture) that photographers cannot possibly cover all contingencies. Only the buyer knows his intent, and the buyer (not the photographer) is the one who is responsible for covering legalities."

Precisely, so why are Sections 6-H and 6-I, which make that quite plain, absent from the RF licenses?

Good point, James. Sorry I didn't address that specifically, but I'm only offering RM and was advised not to offer RF too. For that reason, I haven't looked into it and probably shouldn't have commented. I did feel kinda bad that you had 111 views and no replies. Where is everyone?

You should NEVER release the name of your models to a third party. That's standard industry practice. If a model has signed a release form, he/she is bound by its terms and there's no need to refer back. Imagine a model with hundreds of images online that sell dozens daily - do you think the model wants to get phone calls constantly asking for permission that has already been granted? It also violates the models privacy to give out details - it could lead to stalking or undesirable offers.

Good point, Paul, and that's why the sentence, "You shall be solely responsible for determining whether any releases are required in connection with any proposed use of the Licensed Image, and You shall be solely responsible for obtaining all necessary releases." doesn't make sense. How is the user supposed to obtain a release unless they know the name of the model?

"How is the user supposed to obtain a release unless they know the name of the model?"

The most likely scenario is that the publisher asks the photographer for a release. If there is none then the photographer would either get a release or ask the model to contact the publisher to arrange permissions. That way nobody's name is given out without their consent.

Normally, the agency will ask for a copy of the release to be kept on file, so it can assure the customer that a valid release exists, or the agency requires that the photographer confirms that he or she has a release - in either case, the image can be sold as "model released" or "property released", but the terms of the agency licence should not be broader than the terms of the release.