As you should all know by now, an executed model release is required in almost all circumstances when the image is to be used in commerce or trade, which of course excludes editorial use. When the model is a minor, the signature of a parent or guardian is also required, because the minor would, under most circumstances, have the right to disavow any agreement the minor entered into, including a model release.

When an adult accompanies the minor (which includes teenagers as well as younger children), you would certainly obtain the signature of the adult as well. However, care must be taken to insure that the adult who is present is in fact the appropriate person able to seal the deal.

A recent case brought in the Supreme Court in New York, Alvidrez v. Roberto Coin, Inc. and Getty Images, is a vivid example of the pitfalls that can be encountered when all the "T's" are not crossed.

The facts as set forth in the opinion describe a not uncommon scenario. In 1996, a Spanish modeling agency arranged for the plaintiff, who was sixteen years old at the time, to participate in a photo shoot for Telegraph Colour Library, Ltd., a UK based stock photo agency owned by Visual Communications Group, Ltd. She executed a release as did the other models. The art director for the shoot witnessed this signing. The model's mother also signed the release as the model's "representante legal," or so it seemed.

In 2000, Getty Images bought VCG and thereby acquired the rights to license the images from this shoot. In 2003, Getty licensed the image of the model to Roberto Coin, Inc. for use as part of Coin's holiday ad campaign for its diamond jewelry.

<<< Back to Page <<<