By Joel Hecker, Esq.

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), it is certainly appropriate to 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.

  In November 2003, the model discovered her image in the ads, appearing in Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, Vanity Fair and numerous other magazines.

  In response to the model's demands to cease and desist use, Getty produced the signed release.  The model then disaffirmed the release because she was a minor at the time and sued for invasion of her privacy.

  The court issued a preliminary injunction in February 2004, and both parties moved for summary judgment.  Getty's defense was that the model could not disaffirm the release because it was ratified by the mother.  Getty produced a copy of the release (but not the original) and several samples of the mother's handwriting produced in discovery, arguing that the handwriting on the release signed by the mother was the same.

  The model countered with an affidavit from the mother stating she did not sign the release and was not at the shoot, and, in fact, she said she was not even in Spain at the time!

  The court found that these facts, when coupled with the absence of any affidavit by either party from a handwriting expert, and the absence of an affidavit from the art director who was a witness, created triable issues of material fact precluding summary judgment to either side.

  The moral – it's necessary to not only get the release signed, but that the party signing is inded the proper party.  I also suggest it would be helpful to photocopy some proof of who the person is, such as a driver's license.  The more proof the better, since you never can tell when you will need it!