StaciF wrote:
I know a model who when paid (an agreed upon fee) for a test shoot -left without signing a release - When contacted by the photographer she said she would sign it for $100 - I personally think that is wrong but I want other models opinions.........

What was the deal to begin with?  That really is the only question.  A "test" is usually just that, a test.  I have seen something called a "Paid Test" which mostly happens on the Internt, but it is still a test.

In the union world of film and video, a screen test is paid but there is no release.

So what this really boils down to was whether this was intended to be a test or a paid photoshoot.  If it was a test and the photographer didn't request a release in advance, so be it.  That really is his problem.

If this was a combination of a TFP/Paid Shoot under the guise of a test, the photographer might have expected to get a release, but then again, it comes down to what he told the model.  In a TFP situation, the photographer will normally get at least the same usage rights he provides to the model.  But then again, if it wasn't agreed upon, and the shoot was termed a "test" she may have not expected to sign a release.

What you need to be careful of hereis to determine if this was actually some hybrid TFP or if the photographer was trying to get a discount photoshoot, with full release by terming it a "test."  Bear in mind though, the photographer may well not have been trying to be sneaky, he just may not have known how to communicate clearly or not realized there might be an issue.

Bottom line, if there was no agreement in advance and the model didn't expect to sign a release, she was within her rights to ask for money when the topic came up later.  If, on the other hand, a release was agreed upon in advance and it was not provided, then obviously she shouldn't have changed the deal after the fact.

In the end, you haven't given us enough information to really advise you.

area291 wrote:
I wouldn't look at it as wrong.  The test images worked and there becomes value to an outside party, thus a release is required.  Liken the "test" to an audition and then upon receiving the role the actor expects to be paid.  Nothing wrong with those expectations, is there?

You lost me on that example.

I notice StaciF asking for views from other models so... Answering this from a model perspective, if I was getting paid I would have expected to sign something. If for what ever reason it all came to a quick finish and I was contacted after to sign that release, I'd see no issue in just signing the release. As long as none of the previous verbal agreement was really changed of course.

C R Photography wrote:
I wouldn’t pay a model to sign a release since it is in their best interest to sign one.

Where would the justification of lets say $100.00 be for a photographer to pay a model to sign one and is this inclusive in their regular fee?

Would you pay a photographer to sign a release?

This sounds like we're getting into "over-semantics"

No, it is not in the model's best interest to sign a release.  A release is a document the model signs to give up some of his or rights.  I wouldn't be worried about a photographer signing a model release anyway.

Champion wrote:
You lost me on that example.

I notice StaciF asking for views from other models so... Answering this from a model perspective, if I was getting paid I would have expected to sign something.

That is not always the case. 

For example, the photographer could have called in a model to use her as a test for a client presentation on using a model with a specific product. It is a test, for the next sixty seconds and beyond no release is required. 

He calls her in, he pays her a "taking time to help" fee and submits the sample to the client.  The clients says, "Yes, I like that, let's not re-shoot, I'll just use this image."  Now the photographer needs a release and model compensation takes on a different form. 

Models are paid for both their time and extending their image as they ultimately are an endorsement for the products and services of those they associate themselves with.  Yes, time is a primary consideration but not the only consideration taken in to account as a future client might ask if they have modeled (x) product or service and previous association could effect the hiring agreement.

Had the model signed a release prior, no additional compensation or limitation on her use would be provided.

John Allan wrote:
So, it sounds like there were some at least partial misinterpretations of the rules.

With all due respect, what rules?  Isn't that the problem?

In the mainstream, these things just don't happen.  There are really no rules, it is what the parties agree to.  The problem is that these things are often handled in a "loosey-goosey" fashion and then there are misunderstandings.

I listen to all of these "firm stands" like saying they would tear up the photos, or use them anyhow or whatever.  Those are all viceral reactions.  That is about one person getting pissed off at the other for not meeting their expectations.

In the end, this comes down to one thing and one thing only.  Better communications.  However, I will repeat what I said before, none of us knows what the original agreement was.  We haven't been told so we have no idea who is to blame.

Carl Ayers wrote:
#1, is a test shoot just an audition, where a model may be paid a one-time fee for their participation.  Also, is signing a release standard practice for a 'test shoot'?

#2, why would a model or photographer NOT want to sign a release?  I thought the release is in place to protect both entities (as well as any other participants in the shoot).

#3, when do you generally sign a release, before or after the photoshoot?  And why?

1. Well, in my world, a test shoot was exactly that - I have a job, Model A seems right for the job but I've never shot her before.  I would call Model A and ask her for a "test shoot" to see if she represents on film as I think she might.  Usually not paid though often expenses were covered.  If she "tested well" she got the job - if not then she didn't.

2. Well, there are a lot people involved today - many of whom think of themselves as artists whom must be in control of all things at all times and don't want to "sell out" or risk losing "intellectual control" over things.  Oddly, nothing shot under those circumstances can ever technically be released by either in any form and are doomed to languish.

Sometimes, they want to shoot first to see what happens and then sign the release. I generally have no problem with this, however, a model always must know and agree that a release is expected (with me anyway) and "I don't want to give up my rights' at the end of a shoot will not be acceptable.

If they have an issue with certain shots, fine, but to say that, in general, is in my mind doing business under false pretense and an act of fraud.  If there was to be money to change hands, at this point that part of the agreement (in fact the agreement in whole) has been voided by the aforementioned action.

3. Either or, just depends on when you get to it and what makes you both happy.  More often at the end than the beginning for me though.

studio36uk wrote:
Just musing here but I have seen models actually quote rates (mainly "glamour" mod...doos for GWCs) of $xx / hr without a release -OR- $yy / hr with a release. Occasionally, but less common, is the model that quotes a rate per hr + a flat rate additional for a release. At least both of you know where you stand going in, in either case.

Would never work with one on that basis but I have seen it offered that way.

Studio36

Dude,

You haven't seen models do this, only Wanna B's If you are a GWC and are going to use the images purely to jerk off it's one price, if you are going to try to sell them it's another. 

A real model knows she is protected with a model release.  A model release is NOT necessary to publish photos in a "NEWS" publication.  There are many "NEWS" publications out there including People, US, In Style, The infamous Enquirerer, etc...  Then again, I've heard of a model try to sue a photog and lose because the judge said you obviously agreed to have your picture taken because you looked into the lens and smiled...

Protect yourselves, sign and get a copy of the model release, and fill it out properly and get witnesses or it will NOT stand up in court!

The other thing is, do you have more money than any publication or high dollar sleeze ball to contest the issue in court anyway?

StaciF wrote:
I know a model who when paid (an agreed upon fee) for a test shoot -left without signing a release - When contacted by the photographer she said she would sign it for $100 - I personally think that is wrong but I want other models opinions.........

i agree

Samuel Cobb wrote:
Here's a funny: Why not sell her images to several porn sites. Then send her $100 and tell her thank you. That'll teach her a lesson. LOL.

Because it would be illegal to do so without a release?

Once again, the release protects the PHOTOGRPAHER not the model.  The model gains nothing by signing a release.  A release provide the model with no protections; it takes them away.

And yes, real models' fees are determined by usage.

Sometimes you people scare me.

theda wrote:
Because it would be illegal to do so without a release?

Once again, the release protects the PHOTOGRPAHER not the model.  The model gains nothing by signing a release.  A release provide the model with no protections; it takes them away.

And yes, real models' fees are determined by usage.

Sometimes you people scare me.

Oncer again a clash of cultures and a clash of law... in the UK it is possible to publish in many forms, not limited to news editorial, without a release. We, as a country, have absolutely NO general "right to privacy" and there is no body of law on "image rights".

It is even possible in some circumstances to use an image, such as something candid shot on a street, without a release in a commercial (advertising) context in the UK.

Never say never.


Studio36

StaciF wrote:
I know a model who when paid (an agreed upon fee) for a test shoot -left without signing a release - When contacted by the photographer she said she would sign it for $100 - I personally think that is wrong but I want other models opinions.........

the photographer was foolish for not having her sign the release before she was compensated...

Chill Factor wrote:
very silly,,, shes selling her signature huh lol, because that is really all it amounts to

She's not selling her signature as much as selling her consent to the photographer to use the images.  It's really not that silly, though.  While I think that a model who is being paid should expect the images to be used in a value context, it's still the photographer's responsability to make sure the paperwork is in order.  Personally, I prefer to have my release signed before the shoot begins, because the last thing I need is to have a model "decide" she's "not comfortable" with the work after the fact. 

To be honest, I think the idea of a model charging to sign a release is really pretty tacky.  I wouldn't expect someone who pulls that sort of stunt to last long in this business.

StaciF wrote:
My thinking was that by agreeing to a paid shoot you are releasing the images to be used for promotion and exposure-Which I thought were good things- All of my paid shoots were for stock photography and I am sure they could end up anywhere but that is what I was paid for. So I never had a problem signing a release but now I am wondering if it is bad business for me to be thinking that way....

Stock photography is quite a bit different and there are a number of agencies that won't accept those assignments for their models.  In a stock scenario the same "test" could be applied, but again payment should be defined per the release.  Stock shooters will pay anywhere between $200-500 per session, MUA, Hair-Wardrobe-Set stylists included.  One certainly wouldn't want to be paid a small test fee for less than going stock rate and a photographer shouldn't sell "testing" as such.

Stock is typically a one-time fee for the model, no residual, no campaign determination (which is why agencies don't view it as a good deal, but will accept the assignments on an individual case basis). 

In the OI the release may include terms specific to the following:

--photographer work is currently accepted at stock agencies (importance: knowing the photographer quality is already accepted);
--named stock agencies images to be submitted (importance: knowing exactly where the images are and type of clientele utilizing them).

My experience talking with models on the 'net is the releases are primarily general with payment made and release to whomever might accept them.

Cassandra Alexis wrote:
I have signed that give both the photographer AND myself copyright rights.

In actuality that isn't very smart.  Co-owners of copyright have a legal status known as "tenants in common."  This is similar to home or property ownership where if two people own a house as "joint tenants," then, when one of them dies, the other person will automatically become owner of the whole house.  The same principles can apply if the copyright sharing documents are not drafted properly, or worse if not drafted at all and only verbalized.  Hardly an expense worthwhile for models and photographers for uncommissioned imaging without high value.

Having that same footing can also, in some cases, require both signatures for authorized use.  That can create a sticky wicket as they say if the relationship dissolves or the other party can't be found. 

It is far better for a model to be granted usage rights (without restriction to apply similar ownership rights) as opposed to copyright.  It essentially is the same thing without taking on the legal wranglings of ownership, plus allows each party to gain equity on their own for the work without concern for the other.

If there is a concern then each party should seek legal advice rather than making assumptions.  Saying so doesn't make it so without the legal documentation to support it.

Avicdar wrote:
So, she effectively took advantage of the situation.

In your case I agree.

area291 wrote:
In actuality that isn't very smart.  Co-owners of copyright have a legal status known as "tenants in common."

Everybody wants to be IN the business... nobody, it seems, wants to LEARN the business of the business.

It's an invitation to grief.

Studio36

Images By Amber wrote:
I have models sign before we start shooting. That way there aren't any issues.

EGGGGGGGSAAAAKKKKLLLYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

Fuck the dumb shit. I don't pull out my camera until the release form is signed. I learned my lesson back in 2001 from shoots i did in 1999 where I was lied to, scammed and tricked my models.

Sure, they may come across all nice and caring, but you MUST protect yourself.