Free model release form

How to fill it in

A model release is short, but a few fields decide how much protection it actually gives. Fill it in before or right after the shoot, while everyone is present.

• Parties and images: the model's and photographer's names and addresses, and the date and location of the shoot so the images are identifiable.
• Consideration: state what the model gets in exchange, whether that is a payment, the images, exposure, or something else. Do not leave it blank.
• Permitted uses: check the uses that apply, and make sure commercial or advertising use is included if that is the plan.
• Scope: set the media, territory, and term. Most releases are worldwide and perpetual, but you can limit any of them.
• Excluded uses: list anything the model will not agree to, such as adult or political use, or write None.
• Minors: if the model is under 18, the parent or guardian completes and signs the minor authorization block, not the child.
• Governing law: name the state whose law applies, usually where the model lives or the shoot happens.
• Sign: the model signs to grant the rights, the photographer signs to accept the terms, and each keeps a copy.

When you need a model release (and when you don't)

The line that decides whether you need a release is how the image is used, not what is in it. Commercial use, meaning the image appears in an advertisement or while a product or service is being sold or promoted, generally requires a signed release from every recognizable person in the frame. Editorial use, meaning news, journalism, documentary, and genuine artistic work, generally does not, because that use is protected expression. The same photo can fall on either side of the line: a portrait that runs in a magazine article about a chef is editorial and needs no release, but the moment a restaurant's ad agency uses that same portrait in a campaign, it is commercial and does need one. Two practical caveats. First, if a person is not recognizable, turned away, obscured, or out of focus, a release is usually not needed at all. Second, editorial use can still create liability if the image is presented to imply an endorsement. In a well-known case the singer Cher recovered against a magazine whose ad copy implied she endorsed it, even though the underlying interview was editorial. If your use is anywhere near advertising or endorsement, get the release.

The legal right a release protects: state by state

There is no single federal model-release law. The right you are getting permission around is created by state law, and it goes by two overlapping names. The right of publicity treats the commercial value of your identity as something close to property, so using it to sell something without consent is the harm. The privacy tort of appropriation of name or likeness treats the same conduct as an invasion of privacy. Most states protect one or both, by statute or through court decisions, and the specifics differ enough that the governing-law clause matters.

• California: Civil Code section 3344 gives a person a claim when their name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness is knowingly used on products or in advertising without consent, with news and public-affairs use carved out. Section 3344.1 extends a version of the right to deceased personalities.
• New York: Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51 bar the use of a living person's name, portrait, or picture for advertising or trade without consent, and section 51 gives the civil remedy. New York is stricter on form than most: it requires written consent, so a signed release is not just advisable there, it is the statutory expectation. Section 50-f covers deceased performers and personalities.
• Other states: many protect the right of publicity by common law or statute even without a headline number like California's or New York's. Because the rules and the length of any post-death right vary, name the state whose law applies in the governing-law clause.

Consideration: why the release needs something of value

A model release is a contract, so like any contract it needs consideration, meaning each side gives or gets something of value. That is why releases recite that the model signs "for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged." Be aware that the recital phrase by itself is mostly ceremonial. Writing the words does not create consideration that is not really there, and real consideration does not need the magic words. What matters is that the model actually receives something: a fee, the photos, professional exposure, or the photographer's time and skill can all count. A nominal amount such as one dollar is a common way to make the exchange concrete. The reason practitioners bother is that a release backed by no consideration can be treated as a revocable permission the model can withdraw, rather than a binding contract. State the real consideration in the form, even if it is small, so the release holds.

Model release vs. property release

A model release covers a recognizable person. A property release covers recognizable private property, and the two are often needed together. A property release is permission from the owner to commercially use images of things they own: a private building or its interior, a distinctive work of art or sculpture, and even a pet, a car, or another identifiable possession. The trigger is the same as for a model release: commercial use. Genuine editorial use of either a person or a property generally needs no release. If your commercial shoot features a person on private property that is itself identifiable, expect to need both a model release from the person and a property release from the owner. Stock agencies apply the same split, asking for a model release for people and a property release for property before they will license an image commercially.

Stock agencies and commercial clients require one

For most photographers the practical reason to get a release is not a lawsuit, it is that no one will license the image without it. Getty Images, Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, and Alamy all refuse to accept an image of a recognizable person for commercial licensing unless a signed model release is on file, and they ask for a property release when identifiable private property is the subject. Their exact requirements differ in the details. Getty includes a witness section and may contact the model to confirm consent, while Shutterstock will accept a single handwritten signature from the model or the guardian. A release is generally interchangeable across agencies, so one properly completed form usually satisfies whichever platform you submit to. Advertising clients and their agencies apply the same rule for the same reason: they are the ones exposed if consent is missing, so they will not run a campaign featuring a real person without the paperwork.

Signing it

A model release does not need to be notarized. The model signs to grant the rights, the photographer signs to accept the terms, and each keeps a copy. An electronic signature is valid on a release under the federal ESIGN Act and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, the same laws that make other e-signed contracts binding, so signing online is a clean way to capture consent on the day of the shoot and store it with the images. Two things to get right. If the model is under 18, the parent or legal guardian, not the child, completes and signs the minor authorization block, and it is good practice to get both parents where you can. And keep the signed release stored with the image files, because the agency or client who licenses the image months later will ask you to produce it.

Common mistakes to avoid

Most release problems trace back to a handful of gaps.

• Leaving the consideration blank, which can turn a binding release into a revocable permission.
• Not identifying the images, so it is unclear which shoot the release covers.
• Assuming an editorial photo is safe for an ad. Repurposing it into advertising, or anything that implies endorsement, needs a release.
• Having a minor sign their own release instead of a parent or legal guardian.
• Ignoring scope, so no one knows whether the grant is worldwide and perpetual or limited.
• Forgetting the assignment clause, which is what lets the photographer license the image to a stock agency or client.
• Naming no governing-law state, when the right of publicity and its rules are set state by state.