|
Forums >
General Industry >
Turned down fabulous model...model release issue
A wonderful model came by. Pretty, smart, great figure. Little bit of a background in "fine art" portraiture. We went over everything including payment (these would be paid shoots). Then she read the release and said, "I want to have pre-approval over anything that gets published. I don't like the idea of stuff being published without me checking the shot and the cropping and the retouching (Photoshopping)." I told her it wasn't possible, because it would lead to bad feelings, confusion, etc. I explained that such a clause made the model release worthless because every shot would have to be negotiated anew. And what if I couldn't even reach her anyhow, or there were a deadline? I explained that no professional in the country would agree to such a clause. I was polite, we left as friends. But haven't heard back, and suspect I never will. I talked to my lawyer at a lunch get-together and he said, "If you'd signed such a clause, giving the model that kind of censorship authority, it would cost you your pilot's license." I asked why. He said, "If you signed such a thing it would be absolute proof that you're out of your f...ing mind, totally certifiably insane. And they don't let crazy people fly airplanes." He's right. Jul 17 09 03:51 pm Link He's right. Jul 17 09 03:55 pm Link LimaDigitalArt Project wrote: +1 Jul 17 09 03:56 pm Link Sounds like something my attorney would say  Jul 17 09 03:58 pm Link Hmmmmm.... Jul 17 09 03:59 pm Link Wow... I always read releases of course, but I've never had an issue with that. Most times people run them by me anyway, but I can't imagine demanding it, especially if I was being paid. Sorry she lost out. Jul 17 09 03:59 pm Link glamour pics wrote: I've seen model's have this disclaimer on their profile page and I've heard model's ask this of other photographers. I usually avoid them. So I've never had it happen to me, but I do discuss this ahead of time so if this is what they want they usually don't work with me. Jul 17 09 04:00 pm Link Hanigoshi wrote: To what you said before you edited it, you should do some reading... Jul 17 09 04:01 pm Link Hanigoshi wrote: What happened to the remainder of your post? Jul 17 09 04:01 pm Link glamour pics wrote: I somehow don't think she is referring to you as a 'friend." None the less, I am not in favor of pre-approval clauses. If a release requires pre-approval, it is no release at all. Jul 17 09 04:02 pm Link Someone needs to explain to her that a model is being an art supply. Last I checked, paint brushes don't inspect paintings. If she is going to be a model, she needs to understand that allowing others to use her likeness, and accepting that, is a HUGE part of modeling. Don't sweat it. Find someone who actually understands what they're doing. Jul 17 09 04:02 pm Link Tell her you'll sign that release in lieu of her payment. Jul 17 09 04:03 pm Link glamour pics wrote: He's wrong. They DO let crazy people fly airplanes. Jul 17 09 04:04 pm Link joeyk wrote: I'll add a +2 - yup, he's right!~ Jul 17 09 04:07 pm Link glamour pics wrote: you went a great deal further to simply give a , 'no, thank you, that won't be possible but i appreciate your interest in my work'; would've opted for a simple, yet direct, succinct closure to the affair. Jul 17 09 04:08 pm Link LOL Jul 17 09 04:11 pm Link Smart lawyer. And it doesn't matter how great the model was. The way I see it, I don't need pictures of naked ladies. I need signed model releases. Pics of naked ladies I can get off the Internet. Jul 17 09 05:12 pm Link glamour pics wrote: You did the right thing. The only time I think this is do-able is the model is a big time celebrity. He/she has leverage. You want it, then you have to do it their terms. But I am talking about big time. Even the top fashion models are not considered big time celebrities. Jul 17 09 06:24 pm Link He's right  Jul 17 09 06:34 pm Link yes. what's that about?! I had a newbie model asking me today: "do I get to pre-approval the images or do you do as you like?" making it sound like something bad.. wow... where do people get theis ideas anyway?  Jul 17 09 06:35 pm Link send her to this thread Jul 17 09 06:37 pm Link I think the OPs model has never and will never shoot with anyone who can get her anywhere. Jul 17 09 06:41 pm Link Hmmmmm, Glam, did you post this thread expecting ANYONE to disagree with you? You handled yourself appropriately. You did nothing wrong. We all agree with you. /end thread (????) Jul 17 09 06:41 pm Link glamour pics wrote: Nothing beats the plane truth. Jul 17 09 06:42 pm Link Obviously she's NOT fabulous enough. If she's indeed pretty enough, you'd take the risk, pay her, do the shoot, and attempt to convince her to let you use some of the images. Of course, you've probably never met a model worth taking such risk in your life, but that doesn't mean it's not possible for you to give in to such demand. Jul 17 09 06:44 pm Link N E X T M O D E L P L E A S E Studio36 Jul 17 09 09:31 pm Link "NEXT" You were correct... Jul 17 09 09:34 pm Link Pixel Peeper wrote: BS. Jul 17 09 09:38 pm Link I see models here with a dsiclaimer like that on thier profiles but it seems that they are also the one's in the forums asking why they are not getting any paid gigs. Geez! Wonder why? I think I'd have said. "Ah, you're hiring me then. My sitting fee is $500 and hour with a 2 hour minimum and a $250.00 deposit with the balance due on delivery of the proofs. Hang on while I get the paperwork for that..." Jul 17 09 09:55 pm Link Maybe she was backing out and knowing you would never go for it was her "out" Jul 17 09 10:01 pm Link After a paid shoot once, the model was cursing herself for not bringing her "pre-approval" form. I repeat, this is AFTER the shoot. I'd never even heard of such a thing and sat there a little stunned at the thought, wondering what the hell I was paying for? She tried to make it a verbal agreement, which would be just as legally binding if I ever copped to it. I was feeling a little confused and blindsided, but there was no way I'd agree to such lunacy and then hand over a large sum of money. I shrugged before I could formulate my objection and apparently she took that as a "yes" because she signed my release. Next thing I know, she's hounding me for a CD of the full set of originals! LOL! Wow. She wanted the money, the images, and full control over them. All AFTER the fact. Do I look like I have a kick-me-in-the-balls fetish? Now I wish someone would offer to publish one of her images for a significant sum! If she wouldn't have tried to play hardball, the fairness in me would have included her on some sort of additional payment, possibly in the form of another well paid shoot. Instead, I'll probably never talk to her again, unless she decides to go legal on me at some point. So I'm having her release hermetically sealed and hidden in a mayonnaise jar under Funkenwagnel's porch! Jul 17 09 10:13 pm Link Pixel Peeper wrote: Rubbish. It's utter insanity to give in to such an EPIC sense of entitlement when one is paying a model, in particular. It's just feeding the monster and trying to grandfather the agreement is an exercise in futility. Jul 17 09 10:14 pm Link Mike Weston Photography wrote: Exactly. Jul 17 09 10:15 pm Link Despite the silly claim of global warming, economy in the toilet etc ...PLENTY of fish in the sea ! You did the right thing. After the first few tugs of the next big fish on the line, you will not even remember her name :-) FA Jul 17 09 10:19 pm Link studio36uk wrote: Yeah! Like he said! Jul 17 09 10:21 pm Link glamour pics wrote: Oh! You mean like a union contract. Yeah, that makes sense. The union has total control over all the pilots and airlines. The union won't even let the pilot fly, unless they've signed the contract. The pilot has no control over where, how high, how fast, how much he get's paid, so yes, I agree with you. Jul 17 09 10:23 pm Link Pixel Peeper wrote: Maybe you might be that desperate, but very very few would think that way. Jul 17 09 10:30 pm Link I'm not so sure I'd agree with the OP and some of those who have posted above. I'll explain. In certain instances a clause like the model asked for makes perfect sense. That's especially true in the case of celebrities. A few bad images published for all to see, of a celebrity can be very detrimental to their career, so requiring final approval is often quite common. When such a clause isn't included in a model release, things can go very badly for the celebrity/model. For example:When the RNC hired photographer Jill Greenberg, to take portraits of John McCain, there was no such "final approval" clause in the release. Since Jill happened to like his presidential opponent, she purposely used a lighting style and camera angle that made McCain appear ghoulish and evil-looking. http://bumpshack.com/2008/09/15/photog- … in-photos/ Because of the possible damage that could be done to a celebrity it's a normal practice for them to insist on final approval of images to be published. They spend a lot of time, energy, and money to create and maintain a certain public image, they like control over that. So if this model was fabulous, she was just asking for the same thing that Gisele Bundchen, Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Kate Moss, Tyra Banks, Heidi Klum, and Laetitia Casta would insist on. It's a free market and the model could insist on anything she wants, and might get. It doesn't mean she's crazy, and it doesn't mean the photographers who would accept such a proposal are nuts. I'd venture a guess that most of us would willingly work with any of the above-mentioned models if they insisted on pre-approval of images to be published. This model merely thinks such a clause is in her best interest. That's not insanity either. Jul 17 09 10:46 pm Link Ok, when are people going to get the hang of this? It's a very old concept and I mean as old as civilization itself. If you want something from me, tell me what you want and pay me. It's my responsibility to deliver what you are paying me for. If I'm paying you, I have the right to dictate terms to you. It's a very simple concept and not very hard to understand. If you go into a store and buy an apple, does the store manager tell you that you can only buy it if your are going to consume said apple? Does the manager place stipulations on the consumption of apples in regards to where and when you can eat it? What if someone see's you with that apple and offers to buy it from you? You have every right to sell, eat or throw that apple at a wall if you want because you paid for it. People here need to get a better grasp of reality here. You pay me, you get to dictate terms, I pay you, I dictate terms. If both parties agree to the terms and money is exchanged, end of story and it's that simple, folks! (Gets down off his soapbox now) Jul 17 09 10:47 pm Link Pixel Peeper wrote: Well there is your problem. You are a new photographer and have no clue what the hell is even going on. bs Jul 17 09 10:52 pm Link |
