Something I try to do every time I do a photoshoot, especially for model collaborations (but also for some paid shoots), is to have both of us sign a formal release document. Technically what I use is a combined model/photography release, where the model agrees to me using their likeness and I agree to share the images with them for their own portfolio, but there are situations when one or the other may suffice.

Emory VanekA close-up of a fashion model posing in a leather coat and sunglasses

A photo from a fashion portfolio photoshoot - all photographers received signed releases by the models.

Model: Emory Vanek for Ritual Fashion, HDWorld Media Productions

I recently had a conversation with a local amateur model and it quickly became clear that she had no idea what I was talking about. I asked if she'd ever done releases before and she replied:

"I just worked with people. We collaborated and I was sent the pictures...nothing else."

I would argue that this isn't the best way to conduct "business", even if it is a time-for-photos/trade-for-prints (TFP) shoot where money does not change hands. There are many advantages for both photographer and model to have a properly drafted and executed agreement for the photoshoot.

For the model: the agreement should specify to some degree how many images will be delivered and under what timeframe. I know of several models who have posed for a photographer and never received their images. It should also specify what the photographer can and cannot do with the images - for example photographers are typically allowed to use the images to promote their work, but they cannot sell or otherwise commercialize the model's likeness unless this is explicitly stated in the release. The agreement should ideally be reviewed and signed before the shoot, but in some situations (like group meetups where it's not known ahead of time who is working with whom) they are done afterwards. In any case they should reference a specific date for the photoshoot at the very least, and may go further in terms of specifying location, theme etc.

For the photographer: I use the agreement to basically cover the rights and responsibilities of the model/client with the photos, for example reinforcing the fact that I retain copyright and that editing the photos (i.e. creating derivative work) is a breach of copyright law. I also ask that I be identified as the photographer when shared, and that they in turn cannot commercialize the images. I also make sure that the model is free to sign the document (e.g. they are not a minor, or under the restrictions of an agency contract) and that there are statements to the effect that the model agreed to the photoshoot and agrees to the use of the images. Many publishers will (rightly) refuse to accept images from a photographer without a model release, and so if photographers want to submit their images anywhere meaningful they need to obtain permission from the model(s) to do so.

There are obviously risks therefore to not using a release, which aren't necessarily entirely removed by it, but certainly a signed agreement between the two parties should provide a degree of protection and grounds for recourse if it is breached. It should also be a litmus test for professionalism - a professional model should want to protect their likeness from exploitation, and a professional photographer should want to protect their images from manipulation so that they aren't credited to work that isn't theirs. Even if a photographer doesn't technically need a model release to showcase their own work in a portfolio, I still prefer to do this - and in fact I go one step further and ask them to select both favorites and "do not post" images. I've had models make requests like "do not show my neck", "I don't like the photos with my arm raised" and "I don't like the ones where my hair is framing my face". I think it's only reasonable to check in with people who agree to me using their images before I do so, and I've seen some people get very upset if images are shared that they consider unflattering. Thankfully this didn't happen to me, but a public dressing-down in a photography forum isn't a good thing!

For client shoots I generally don't get a release automatically, but I have heard of photographers who include mention of that in their contracts to cover promotional use. For some photography genres (e.g. boudoir, glamour, swimsuit) paying clients might worry about seeing themselves posted on a photographer's website, and so the discussion on releases is a very important one (do they consent to no images, anonymous images, or all images?). I was recently asked by a potential client if they could get a discount if they allowed me to use their images for promotional use - and the answer was yes! Depending on the type of shoot and my professional needs, I think it's perfectly reasonable to include that component in the project agreement because there is an intrinsic value to being able to use those images for myself. My "Forty over 40" project agreements include both promotional and commercial releases, because one ultimate goal is a book for sale, and I wanted to have those releases locked in up-front rather than having to chase down the contributors and get permission later on.

There are plenty of templates and examples online to use when drafting your own release - and I often customize mine if a specific situation requires it. Drop a comment below if you do or do not use model releases, and what your thoughts are on them.