[jerryjones]

Before our son was born, my wife booked a newborn photo shoot with a local photographer. That’s coming up this Friday but we just received the model release and I’m curious what the professionals here think of it. It seems overly permissive to me.

“In consideration of my engagement as a model, and for other good and valuable consideration herein acknowledged as received, I hereby grant the following rights and permissions to (Photographer), his/her heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, those for whom Photographer is acting, and those acting with his/her authority and permission. They have the irrevocable, perpetual and unrestricted right and permission to take, use, re-use, publish, and republish photographic portraits or pictures of me or in which I may be included, in whole or in part, or composite or distorted in character or form, without restriction as to changes or alterations, in conjunction with my own or a fictitious name, or reproductions thereof in color or otherwise, made through any medium at his/her studios or elsewhere, and in any and all media now or hereafter known, specifically including but not limited to print media and distribution over the internet for illustration, promotion, art, editorial, advertising, trade, or any other purpose whatsoever.

[DanHiltonPhotography]

Ultimately the photographer owns the rights to the images under the law. This spells it out legally and does feel like a lot, but they are covering themselves. Just because the photographer owes the rights doesn't necessarily mean they should use images for promotion purposes without your permission or if they do any you object they should take the photo down without and issues. That's just good consumer relations. You should also be able to say that you don't want the images used without your permission at the time of the shoot and they should honour that.