Model releases: Is it safe to assume the photo-seller has done a good job with model releases-- and that if they have not, it's their problem, not yours?

If you buy a picture from a photo agency, and the agency tells you they "have releases", does that mean you're off the hook?

Put another way, if you buy a picture and there's a problem with the release-- it's their problem, not yours, right?

Well, not exactly.

If a fly-by-night (or ignorant) photo agency accepts pictures from photographers who erroneously claim they are "released"-- and then sells them to you (and you're assuming the agency has done its job)-- the buck is gonna stop on your desk.

Unfair? We think so. And that's why we're taking the time to explain all this to you. If visitors to our site read nothing else, we hope they read this…

Yes, in law there is something called an "implied warranty of merchantability"-- meaning that if you buy something, you have the right to assume that it will in fact do the thing that it's supposed to do: in this case, you're buying a photo that is supposed to be able to be used as you intend it, and if there's a model release problem-- well, it won't do the thing you bought it to do.

And if you get sued, you can make that argument in court. At great expense to do so. And you might win. But you might not.

Can you assume the agency has done a good job with releases?

At your peril.

Can you assume that even if they haven't, it's their problem, not yours?

Nope. You'd be surprised how fast it becomes your problem if you use the picture and the model sees it.

Is this one huge pain in the neck?

It doesn't have to be. See How To Protect Yourself.

All contents� 1998 Comstock, Inc. All rights reserved.