Hey Lawyers

[Leonard Zelig]

Me & some people are filming some videos of bands performing for use on a website. It will not be done without anybody's permission, but everybody just wants to cover their butts. Does this release look ok for such a thing? I found it on a free legal form site. Does something actually have to be exchanged to be considered good and valuable consideration? There will be no payments made. Any better suggestions?

 

 

RELEASE

 

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I hereby consent to the photographing of myself and the recording of my voice and the use of these photographs and/or recordings singularly or in conjunction with other photographs and/or recordings for advertising, publicity, commercial or other business purposes. I understand that the term "photograph" as used herein encompasses both still photographs and motion picture footage.

 

I further consent to the reproduction and/or authorization by ___________________ to reproduce and use said photographs and recordings of my voice, for use in all domestic and foreign markets. Further, I understand that others, with or without the consent of ________________ may use and/or reproduce such photographs and recordings.

 

I hereby release _____________________, and any of its associated or affiliated companies, their directors, officers, agents, employees and customers, and appointed advertising agencies, their directors, officers, agents and employees from all claims of every kind on account of such use.

 

________________________ [signature]

[iamshack]

Me & some people are filming some videos of bands performing for use on a website. It will not be done without anybody's permission, but everybody just wants to cover their butts. Does this release look ok for such a thing? I found it on a free legal form site. Does something actually have to be exchanged to be considered good and valuable consideration? There will be no payments made. Any better suggestions?

 

 

RELEASE

 

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I hereby consent to the photographing of myself and the recording of my voice and the use of these photographs and/or recordings singularly or in conjunction with other photographs and/or recordings for advertising, publicity, commercial or other business purposes. I understand that the term "photograph" as used herein encompasses both still photographs and motion picture footage.

 

I further consent to the reproduction and/or authorization by ___________________ to reproduce and use said photographs and recordings of my voice, for use in all domestic and foreign markets. Further, I understand that others, with or without the consent of ________________ may use and/or reproduce such photographs and recordings.

 

I hereby release _____________________, and any of its associated or affiliated companies, their directors, officers, agents, employees and customers, and appointed advertising agencies, their directors, officers, agents and employees from all claims of every kind on account of such use.

 

________________________ [signature]

 

It looks fine.

 

Good and valuable consideration would be the publicity you're giving the bands or any monies you are paying the for the right to post their performances. No exchange of any tangible goods is necessary.

 

[Leonard Zelig]

It looks fine.

 

Good and valuable consideration would be the publicity you're giving the bands or any monies you are paying the for the right to post their performances. No exchange of any tangible goods is necessary.

 

Thanks Shack!

[Soxbadger]

Shack should have had a disclaimer on his post that he is not giving legal advice, that he is not been retained for the purpose of legal counsel and as such his post is nothing more than opinion, and should not be relied upon.

 

 

That being said, in general consideration can include the fact that they are being given publicity (as publicity has value) thus the consideration part is fine.

 

The real issues would be liability side (1) that they are releasing you from any potential liability of any kind for producing this and (2) that they will indemnify you and hold you harmless from any lawsuits due to their copyright infringement etc.)

 

Not sure what the exact facts are, but potentially you could have copyright concerns if they are playing material that is owned by another source. If its supposed to be original music, release should absolutely contain wording that states they warrant they have full title and ownership over music and have given you a perpetual license to use, blah blah.

 

I could go on and on, but as I said before, I may or may not be an attorney, but this post does not constitute legal advice, it is just opinion and should not be relied upon as legal opinion.

 

Disclaimers are fun!

[Leonard Zelig]

Shack should have had a disclaimer on his post that he is not giving legal advice, that he is not been retained for the purpose of legal counsel and as such his post is nothing more than opinion, and should not be relied upon.

 

 

That being said, in general consideration can include the fact that they are being given publicity (as publicity has value) thus the consideration part is fine.

 

The real issues would be liability side (1) that they are releasing you from any potential liability of any kind for producing this and (2) that they will indemnify you and hold you harmless from any lawsuits due to their copyright infringement etc.)

 

Not sure what the exact facts are, but potentially you could have copyright concerns if they are playing material that is owned by another source. If its supposed to be original music, release should absolutely contain wording that states they warrant they have full title and ownership over music and have given you a perpetual license to use, blah blah.

 

I could go on and on, but as I said before, I may or may not be an attorney, but this post does not constitute legal advice, it is just opinion and should not be relied upon as legal opinion.

 

Disclaimers are fun!

 

Thanks for the advice. All the material will be original. Is there a place where I can get that bolded part written out in legalese?

[SoxFan562004]

just in general it looks OK, i think the idea about ownership of music is good. However, in any situation, if somebody thinks there's money to be made, they'll sue anyway!!!

 

sidenote... these legal sites have actually created some work for attorneys. You wouldn't believe how poorly and generically people fill those things out, I've seen some laughable examples.

[SoxAce]

Shack should have had a disclaimer on his post that he is not giving legal advice, that he is not been retained for the purpose of legal counsel and as such his post is nothing more than opinion, and should not be relied upon.

 

 

That being said, in general consideration can include the fact that they are being given publicity (as publicity has value) thus the consideration part is fine.

 

The real issues would be liability side (1) that they are releasing you from any potential liability of any kind for producing this and (2) that they will indemnify you and hold you harmless from any lawsuits due to their copyright infringement etc.)

 

Not sure what the exact facts are, but potentially you could have copyright concerns if they are playing material that is owned by another source. If its supposed to be original music, release should absolutely contain wording that states they warrant they have full title and ownership over music and have given you a perpetual license to use, blah blah.

 

I could go on and on, but as I said before, I may or may not be an attorney, but this post does not constitute legal advice, it is just opinion and should not be relied upon as legal opinion.

 

Disclaimers are fun!

 

This is why we pay you the big bucks!

 

Oh wait...

[Texsox]

Thanks for the advice. All the material will be original. Is there a place where I can get that bolded part written out in legalese?

 

Just a side note, once I understood that "legalese" was actually "precise and exact" I understood it much better. It isn't as much as having a magic language, but having an exact language that eliminates uncertainty (loop holes, and ways out). It helps your attorney (paid or unpaid) if you can tell him the exact protections you want and what the potential disagreements may be. It's the difference between I am doing X and want protection and I am doing X and I want to make certain Y doesn't do this, or this, or this. It's quite beautiful thing, a well written contact can read a beautifully as a sonnet when it does what you want it to do. Miss something and you'd think Steven King became your attorney. Oh yeah, and when you can help your attorney to be more efficient, when you are paying, it costs much less.

[Middle Buffalo]

Just a side note, once I understood that "legalese" was actually "precise and exact" I understood it much better....

 

I don't feel that I can read any legal document without being completely confused. Each paragraph seems to contradict the one it follows. That said, the original post looks good to me. Of course, like most legal documents, I read the first three sentences and assumed the rest was fine.

[Texsox]

Unfortunately the education to understand those is costly, especially for the non attorney. My favorite contracts were with an American guy living in Italy who made tooling for us. He insisted that every contract have a plain English preamble that explained what we were trying to accomplish before we turned it over to the attorneys. We never had a problem with his company, but I always wondered what a judge would have said about that preamble.

 

And damn, all this contract talk and I just spent 30 minutes reviewing a lease contract and what we can and can't do. LOL this place jinxed me.

[Soxbadger]

I dont believe any one site is more reliable than the other, I basically believe that if you search for performance release and ownership, you should have a good start. You may want to try and find a music licensing agreement as well just so that there is something about you being able to use the music.

 

As Soxfan said a release is nothing more than a deterrent. No matter how well its crafted if something bad enough happens they are going to sue and let a judge make the call (what I always tell people who have pool/trampoline and want guests to sign releases for children, if something bad enough happens, they will sue.)

 

Preamble clauses annoy me, I always tell people to remove them because they will only complicate a lawsuit if it goes to litigation. I believe in Keep it simple stupid, but its a slippery slope when you start taking out clauses.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Soxbadger