Kristen Jeanne wrote:
The only thing I don't agree with is the signing of the model release. Everything else seems right on.

What do you disagree with regarding the signing of the release?

Kristen Jeanne wrote:
The only thing I don't agree with is the signing of the model release. Everything else seems right on.

If you don't agree with the definition of the term feel free to make up your own term that would define what you would like to do.

Mark Reese Photography wrote:

What do you disagree with regarding the signing of the release?

Because it said in there that the photographer could use it for any commercial purpose (unless I'm understanding it wrong). *I* typically won't sign one that isn't equal on both sides... although I'm about to do just that with a photographer, lol.

Kristen Jeanne wrote:
The only thing I don't agree with is the signing of the model release. Everything else seems right on.

What is your disagreement?  Are you saying that you disagree with signing a model release on a TFCD?  Are you saying that you disagree with model releases in general?

What are you saying?

Kristen Jeanne wrote:

Because it said in there that the photographer could use it for any commercial purpose (unless I'm understanding it wrong). *I* typically won't sign one that isn't equal on both sides... although I'm about to do just that with a photographer, lol.

...LOL...
Just sign it...in blood mmmmwwaahhhhahahahahahah!.......Its a model release it aint your soul....

Kyle Mellinger wrote:

...LOL...
Just sign it...in blood mmmmwwaahhhhahahahahahah!.......Its a model release it aint your soul....

I know that... I just don't think that the photographer should be able to make money off of images that we created on a trade basis (in general). That is, I may just be misunderstanding all of that... That wouldn't be a surprise, lol.

Kristen Jeanne wrote:

Because it said in there that the photographer could use it for any commercial purpose (unless I'm understanding it wrong). *I* typically won't sign one that isn't equal on both sides... although I'm about to do just that with a photographer, lol.

You are not understanding it wrong.  The typical model release does grant commercial usage, and the usage license does grant the model with self-promotion usage.

Understanding that YOU generally "wouldn't" sign such doesn't change the general nature of TFCD.

And what do you mean "equal on both sides"?  Are you saying that you are to "equally" share in the copyrights?  Are you going to equally share in the cost (i.e. equipment, studio rental, equipment rental, etc.)?  Why do you feel such entitlement?

D'Magi Visual Concepts wrote:

You are not understanding it wrong.  The typical model release does grant commercial usage, and the usage license does grant the model with self-promotion usage.

Understanding that YOU generally "wouldn't" sign such doesn't change the general nature of TFCD.

And what do you mean "equal on both sides"?  Are you saying that you are to "equally" share in the copyrights?  Are you going to equally share in the cost (i.e. equipment, studio rental, equipment rental, etc.)?  Why do you feel such entitlement?

I would never expect to share copyright. My idea of trade is that all sides are using it for promotional uses. If someone wishes to sell an image of me, then they can pay me.

I wasn't arguing the general nature of it, I was stating what I don't agree with a part of it. You asked for our thoughts.

Please don't get into the cost of equipment, etc... That is completelly different topic. And it's been beat to death way too many times on here.

Kristen Jeanne wrote:
I would never expect to share copyright. My idea of trade is that all sides are using it for promotional uses. If someone wishes to sell an image of me, then they can pay me.

I wasn't arguing the general nature of it, I was stating what I don't agree with a part of it. You asked for our thoughts.

Please don't get into the cost of equipment, etc... That is completelly different topic. And it's been beat to death way too many times on here.

And I truly thank you for your thoughts.  I was addressing the them regarding "equal" rights, which has a distinct meaning.

And I agree that you can have you own thoughts and opinions (which I respect) on how you world work and what you would sign.  I, personally, have a pretty standard model release.  I don't deviate from it.  Models may review it before the shoot and, if they disagree with any part of it, they may decline with no hard feelings.

D'Magi Visual Concepts wrote:

And I truly thank you for your thoughts.  I was addressing the them regarding "equal" rights, which has a distinct meaning.

And I agree that you can have you own thoughts and opinions (which I respect) on how you world work and what you would sign.  I, personally, have a pretty standard model release.  I don't deviate from it.  Models may review it before the shoot and, if they disagree with any part of it, they may decline with no hard feelings.

Yep -- me too.

SLE Photography wrote:
I edited it to fix the ModelPlace/ModelCoast URL
If you guys read the discussion page, TxPhotog is mentioned as a source 

Huh?

SLE Photography wrote:
I edited it to fix the ModelPlace/ModelCoast URL
If you guys read the discussion page, TxPhotog is mentioned as a source 

Would you edit it to remind me to stop at WAL-MART for VO5 shampoos, please?
I keep one of every color lined up in the bathroom, and I'm out of a few.

Thanks, honey.

D'Magi Visual Concepts wrote:
There has been many opinions and misunderstanding about the general nature of TFP/CD here on MM and in general.  Some models believe that if they don't get ALL images, they are being cheated.  Others want only retouched images, citing quality over quantity.  Who's responsibility is it to take care of the MUA?  Styist? etc...

I found the article of Wikipedia to be pretty much dead on.  What do you think?  Does anyone disagree?  If so, why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFCD

I wonder what you are saying is "Dead On" in this list. There are so many variables and possibilities listed. Are you not comfortable discussing the shoot with the model before shooting and coming to a workable agreement for THAT particular shoot.

My agreements for TFCD change with each shoot.

Red Sky Photography wrote:
I wonder what you are saying is "Dead On" in this list. There are so many variables and possibilities listed. Are you not comfortable discussing the shoot with the model before shooting and coming to a workable agreement for THAT particular shoot.

My agreements for TFCD change with each shoot.

I'm saying pretty much everything on the list and in the article is dead on. 

It specifically states: "There are no "standard" terms for a TFP/TFCD shoot. Every photographer and model have preferences on how to arrange and execute the shoots. However, the following conventions are common:"

Those "conventions" are what I agree with and how I conduct my TFCD's, albeit, sometimes I pay for the MUA if I'm working on a particular project.  Also, I do allow the model to select images for retouching.

This is all discussed before I take on a TFCD project.

Kristen Jeanne wrote:

I would never expect to share copyright. My idea of trade is that all sides are using it for promotional uses. If someone wishes to sell an image of me, then they can pay me.

I wasn't arguing the general nature of it, I was stating what I don't agree with a part of it. You asked for our thoughts.

Please don't get into the cost of equipment, etc... That is completelly different topic. And it's been beat to death way too many times on here.

Kristen, your opinion of image usage from a trade shoot is quite common among models these days. I've run into models that think the same way you do regarding this.
I simply wouldn't shoot with you if I had no opportunity to gain financially. No matter how beautiful I think you are, and you are.
What would be the point of me shooting you if I couldn't use the images commercially? Just for fun? Just for the chance to see your boobies?

Would you rather work with photographers who shoot just for the thrill of it?...or because they need the practice?

A couple of years ago, there was a local (who has since moved to another state) photographer who was telling girls not to shoot with me because they would have to sign a release and I might make some money "off them". As if I was taking advantage of them somehow. Yet this clown was shooting with them and not getting a release...seems clear to me that he was shooting with them for no reason other then the personal thrill of taking pics of sexy girls.
In my mind it was utterly stupid of him to tell models not to shoot with someone that might try to make some money from the images...isn't that what modeling is?!

No model is going to make any money until someone else is making money first.
Well, unless they are simply shooting with GWC's that will pay them to shoot just so they can get their rocks off.

Further, you state that if someone is going to sell an image of you they should pay you.
That's a fair statement.
But in a trade shoot you have been compensated already...hopefully with quality images that you can actually use to further your career and get signed to an agency.

It's your right to refuse to shoot with someone that may actually make some from your image, and I respect that. But you're career might benefit greatly if you reconsidered that.

Your opinion of how a trade shoot should work is quite common, but I think the logic is flawed.
Would you rather shoot with a photographer that might sell one of your images to an ad agency for use on a billboard or a photographer who has no chance (or opportunity) to sell anything and is only shooting for fun and practice?

SLE Photography wrote:
I edited it to fix the ModelPlace/ModelCoast URL
If you guys read the discussion page, TxPhotog is mentioned as a source 

D'Magi Visual Concepts wrote:
Huh?

If you look at the top of the page where it says "discussion" and click the tab, this's part of the discussion:

Actually, Roger Talley (author of newmodels.com) is a photographer and a former agent, and recently published a book on the subject (http://www.amazon.com/Professionals-Gui … 0615146775). He is knowledgeable about both the brick-and-mortar industry and hobby/art modeling, and is a regular and tireless contributor to several Internet forums on the subject. His status as an expert is well-recognized in the relevant communities.RichardTallent

Roger Talley is TxPhotog, MM #106035.

I also fixed the link they had that went to ModelPlace since the site changed to ModelCoast a few months ago.

Dean Johnson Photo wrote:
Kristen, your opinion of image usage from a trade shoot is quite common among models these days. I've run into models that think the same way you do regarding this.
I simply wouldn't shoot with you if I had no opportunity to gain financially. No matter how beautiful I think you are, and you are.
What would be the point of me shooting you if I couldn't use the images commercially? Just for fun? Just for the chance to see your boobies?

When your plan is to shoot stock, you pay the models. When your plan is to shoot for your book, then a trade is in order. Models can sign a standard release with me if they want, but I don't expect them to. They can sign a testing release which gives us all the right to use them for our portfolios, but I can't change my mind and send everything to a stock agency behind her back.

That is how I interpret Kristen Jeanne's posts, and that's exactly how I do it.

Dean Johnson Photo wrote:

Kristen, your opinion of image usage from a trade shoot is quite common among models these days. I've run into models that think the same way you do regarding this.
I simply wouldn't shoot with you if I had no opportunity to gain financially. No matter how beautiful I think you are, and you are.
What would be the point of me shooting you if I couldn't use the images commercially? Just for fun? Just for the chance to see your boobies?

Would you rather work with photographers who shoot just for the thrill of it?...or because they need the practice?

A couple of years ago, there was a local (who has since moved to another state) photographer who was telling girls not to shoot with me because they would have to sign a release and I might make some money "off them". As if I was taking advantage of them somehow. Yet this clown was shooting with them and not getting a release...seems clear to me that he was shooting with them for no reason other then the personal thrill of taking pics of sexy girls.
In my mind it was utterly stupid of him to tell models not to shoot with someone that might try to make some money from the images...isn't that what modeling is?!

No model is going to make any money until someone else is making money first.
Well, unless they are simply shooting with GWC's that will pay them to shoot just so they can get their rocks off.

Further, you state that if someone is going to sell an image of you they should pay you.
That's a fair statement.
But in a trade shoot you have been compensated already...hopefully with quality images that you can actually use to further your career and get signed to an agency.

It's your right to refuse to shoot with someone that may actually make some from your image, and I respect that. But you're career might benefit greatly if you reconsidered that.

Your opinion of how a trade shoot should work is quite common, but I think the logic is flawed.
Would you rather shoot with a photographer that might sell one of your images to an ad agency for use on a billboard or a photographer who has no chance (or opportunity) to sell anything and is only shooting for fun and practice?

Well stated.

Dean Johnson Photo wrote:
Your opinion of how a trade shoot should work is quite common, but I think the logic is flawed.
Would you rather shoot with a photographer that might sell one of your images to an ad agency for use on a billboard or a photographer who has no chance (or opportunity) to sell anything and is only shooting for fun and practice?

I think that's a common and reasonable position.  However, it's not the only common and reasonable position.  As the Wiki article said, there is no "standard", and despite the attempts of some people to make it so, there is no "right" or "wrong" way either.

Let me reverse the question you asked:

Would you rather shoot with a photographer that has the ability to produce pictures that might sell to an ad agency, or with a photographer who has no chance, no ability, to shoot at a level which would sell anything, and so is only shooting for fun and practice?

The answer is a variable, depending on factors that do not remain constant.

TXPhotog wrote:

I think that's a common and reasonable position.  However, it's not the only common and reasonable position.  As the Wiki article said, there is no "standard", and despite the attempts of some people to make it so, there is no "right" or "wrong" way either.

Let me reverse the question you asked:

Would you rather shoot with a photographer that has the ability to produce pictures that might sell to an ad agency, or with a photographer who has no chance, no ability, to shoot at a level which would sell anything, and so is only shooting for fun and practice?

The answer is a variable, depending on factors that do not remain constant.

As per usual, you are correct.
And I certainly didn't mean to make it sound as if there is only one right way.
In fact, I often negotiate one thing with a particular model that I wouldn't offer to most others.
To me it's about value, I'd pay to shoot Adriana Lima, even if she wouldn't sign a release! I'd do that for my book only. But I wouldn't do any such thing with most girls that are trying to be a model...there's no value in it for me.
And I think that many models should look at things in a similar fashion...negotiate with photographers based on the value of their work.

Mutagenic Studios wrote:
I shoot TFP/CD a lot and I usually get models to sign a standard release. I have added the following to my releases to reflect that both the model and I are creating something together and we should both benefit if there is any kind of money to be made from the photos such as selling prints, posters, DVD covers, etc.


I understand that if there is any commercial interest in the photographic work that I will be involved in discussions of said opportunities and will receive an equal share of the profits.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on Canadian TV, but I'm fairly certain that adding that to a release singed only by the model carries no legal weight, and will do nothing but give the model a false sense of entitlement to rights you never conveyed.

Mark WM wrote:
Ultimately, the TFP/CD is valuable to everyone.  I believe the release document protects both model and photographer.

No, it doesn't.  The release protects the photographer (or photographer and client) ONLY.

Yes, you can put everything from the Magna Carta to Declaration of Independence into your document if you wish . . . but then it's not a release anymore.  It's something else.

Using terminology correctly is important in these discussions.  Otherwise people go around believing (as many seem to) that the model is somehow protected by signing a release.

TXPhotog wrote:
Yes, you can put everything from the Magna Carta to Declaration of Independence into your document if you wish . . . but then it's not a release anymore.  It's something else.

so THAT'S what i've been leaving out!

D'Magi Visual Concepts wrote:
There has been many opinions and misunderstanding about the general nature of TFP/CD here on MM and in general.  Some models believe that if they don't get ALL images, they are being cheated.  Others want only retouched images, citing quality over quantity.  Who's responsibility is it to take care of the MUA?  Styist? etc...

I found the article of Wikipedia to be pretty much dead on.  What do you think?  Does anyone disagree?  If so, why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFCD

This is amazing!