Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
...When the RNC hired photographer Jill Greenberg,...

This says it all. RNC hired the photographer. Whether they made final approval or not is irrelevant to this thread. The whole point here is that the model was paid for her likeness and therefore has no rights to final approval. She did not hire the photographer in which case she could have secured that right.

Pixel Peeper wrote:
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.

Let's get one thing straight here. I realize you are new as a photographer so I'll put this gently. In 30 years I have never found a model that is so great and so gorgeous that I'd pay her/him to give up my rights to my photos. I'm the one with the concept. It's my idea and the model is being paid to be an element in my work of art. I think of it, she poses at my direction and I make what's in my head into something that the world can see. If the model is not interested in taking my direction or or concept then she/he can always refuse my offer and go somewhere else. If they want me to make thier idea into a work of art then they need to pay me for my talent and they get to tell me what to do. There has never been a model that I'd be willing to give my rights up for and there never will be. Angelina Jolie, Tyra Banks, whoever, it doesn't matter. That's the way all of this works. If I'm willing to pay thier modelling fee, and they accept that fee then they are my photos. If they come to me and pay me, then I do what they say. End of story!

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
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...

Like duh. Are we talking a super model or celeb? NO. Even then, I think it's all negotiable.

Mike Weston Photography wrote:
This says it all. RNC hired the photographer. Whether they made final approval or not is irrelevant to this thread. The whole point here is that the model was paid for her likeness and therefore has no rights to final approval. She did not hire the photographer in which case she could have secured that right.

I disagree completely. Initially the model has all rights to their image and likeness and use of such. Whether a model gets paid or not, they still have those rights...unless they give up those up in a model release. The model release can specify limits of use, whether the model gets paid or not. The model can give a "blanket release" that enables the photographer to do any damn thing he wants to with the images (and that's fairly standard),  or, the model can put limits on the use of the photos. Remember a model release is essentially the model giving certain described rights to the photographer.

A model release can state that the images: will not be used for publication; cannot be publicly displayed if they show certain body parts; cannot be used in conjunction with unapproved text, cannot be used in conjunction with the model's real name; or that any image publicly displayed be pre-approved.

These are negotiable rights that belong to the model. What  rights or limitations are given to the photographer can be the result of negotiations. Some models negotiate, some don't. Some can, some can't. Everyone has differing expectations and these things are not so "cookie-cutter" that they are dependent on who hires whom.

Are you saying the model automatically gives up all rights because she was paid? If so, I disagree. It's negotiable. The OP indicated she tried to negotiate and he didn't like her terms. No insanity involved.

John Jebbia wrote:
I had a fairly popular model on here try pulling this shit after she was paid and signed the release. From the comfort of her instant messenger. This was several years ago. So no one I've shot with recently. I told her to pack sand.

In your case, the model tried to "re-negotiate" the deal after it was done. That's the wrong way to conduct business, and I'd tell her to suck the sand. The model in the OP should be commended for stating her terms and explaining her wishes prior to the shoot, instead of bitching about things afterwards.

Sometimes negotiations fail and the deal falls apart, like the OP states. Crap occurs.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
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.

The one who writes the checks makes the rules. In this case the RNC was writing the checks. Unlike the OP.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:

I disagree completely. Initially the model has all rights to their image and likeness and use of such. Whether a model gets paid or not, they still have those rights...unless they give up those up in a model release. The model release can specify limits of use, whether the model gets paid or not. The model can give a "blanket release" that enables the photographer to any damn thing he wants to with the images (and that's fairly standard),  or, the model can put limits on the use of the photos. Remember a model release is essentially the model giving certain described rights to the photographer.

A model release can state that the images: will not be used for publication; cannot be publicly displayed if they show certain body parts; cannot be used in conjunction with unapproved text, cannot be used in conjunction with the model's real name; or that any image publicly displayed be pre-approved.

These are negotiable rights that belong to the model. What  rights or limitations are given to the photographer can be the result of negotiations. Some models negotiate, some don't. Some can, some can't. Everyone has differing expectations and these things are not so "cookie-cutter" that they are dependent on who hires whom.

Ok, let me clarify.

When I say that a model gets paid, I mean that she and I have already agreed on what she is to be paid and what is expected of her. That also means she has seen and agreed to and already signed the model release. No model release, no shoot. No shoot, no pay. It's a really simple concept. Not really anything here to agree or diagree with or break down or examine or otherwise nit-pick. You are right that everything is negotiable but once a release or contract is signed, it's a done deal. No take-backs. Actually, the point I was trying to make here was that if a model hires me, they pay me and can accept or deny thier terms. If I hire the model, they can accept or deny my terms. We can negotiate terms to reach another agreement but I'll most likely tell the model that my terms are there and if not acceptable, I have other models that are interested. Have a nice day. You can nit-pick my post all day, even take selections of it and use them out of context if you like, but the point remains that you missed my point entirely so your point is irrellevant.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
You're right. I misunderstood what you were saying. My only point is that all the terms are negotiable. I also agree that the time for negotiation is before the shoot.

I can't think of... and I'm willing to bet that you can't think of...

a single person, celebrity or not, that you would be willing to pay under the terms of the OP...

In the case of a celebrity, you'd pay dearly for the shoot in most cases. If you agreed to the terms of the OP, you're basically paying for the privilege of hanging out with said celebrity and not paying them for a photo project.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
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.

John Jebbia wrote:
The one who writes the checks makes the rules. In this case the RNC was writing the checks. Unlike the OP.

John, I agree to a point. An offer of pay, or paying, doesn't mean the model has to give up all rights. The rights provided in a model release doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" transfer of rights. Models, even ones getting paid, have the right to negotiate limitations on usage. Their negotiations may fail or be successful but how it ends up isn't always dependent on who pays whom.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:

John, I agree to a point. An offer of pay, or paying, doesn't mean the model has to give up all rights. The rights provided in a model release doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" transfer of rights. Models, even ones getting paid, have the right to negotiate limitations on usage. Their negotiations may fail or be successful but how it ends up isn't always dependent on who pays whom.

You're absolutely right.. the model in the OP might have stated her terms were that "images can only be used for...."

Now, that I would be more likely to agree with..

The only way I could conceive of agreeing to the OP's terms would be if I was paying her per image she "approved"...

And even then, I'd likely decline. I don't want to shoot for nothing.

John Jebbia wrote:

I can't think of... and I'm willing to bet that you can't think of...

a single person, celebrity or not, that you would be willing to pay under the terms of the OP...

In the case of a celebrity, you'd pay dearly for the shoot in most cases. If you agreed to the terms of the OP, you're basically paying for the privilege of hanging out with said celebrity and not paying them for a photo project.

I'm willing to bet that nearly every photographer that shoots with: Gisele Bundchen, Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Kate Moss, Tyra Banks, Heidi Klum, and Laetitia Casta allows the model (or her management company),  to retain the right to pre-approve images before publication. I'd shoot with any of those models and I'd allow them to have final approval rights. As a general rule, under such an arrangement, poor images won't get approved. Good ones will. It's merely a matter of having enough confidence in your ability to produce images of high quality that such models will approve. The rate of pay can always be determined by the number of "approved" images. So, even under the terms the model wanted in the OP, the photographer can get what was paid for.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
I'm willing to bet that nearly every photographer that shoots with: Gisele Bundchen, Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Kate Moss, Tyra Banks, Heidi Klum, and Laetitia Casta allows the model (or her management company),  to retain the right to pre-approve images before publication.

Those photographers are being paid.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
When the RNC hired photographer Jill Greenberg, to take portraits of John McCain...

For the record, it was not the RNC that hired Jill Greenberg, it was The Atlantic.  I remember that from the time of the incident, and it is also stated in the first paragraph of the quoted article:

"The Atlantic Magazine didn’t do their homework and hired unapologetic liberal photographer Jill Greenberg to shoot Presidential candidate John McCain for the cover of the October issue of their magazine.

http://bumpshack.com/2008/09/15/photog- … in-photos/

Jim Minics  wrote:
But there is someone out there who will agree to it.  Don't know why they would but they will.

I don't have it in the release, but I give the model a chance to veto pictures.  Not the photoshopping, but mainly for "exposure."  I have found that nearly every model has "limits" and that they are more relaxed if they don't have to worry about accidental exposure that exceeds it.  I just tell them they need to let me know right away if there is a problem with an image.  I think there were three images out of several thousand where I felt the need to ask.  One said no, and two said yes.  All thanked me for asking. 

I know a lot of photographers say "if you don't want it used, don't pose for it" but I have taken, usually accidentally (sometimes intending crops or shading), pictures of even extremely experienced models that they wouldn't be comfortable with having public.

Mike Weston Photography wrote:
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.

Actually, that's not the way it works.

When you pay someone, you negotiate a price for a certain set of services / rights etc.

Two examples.  You agree to pay a model for an "implied" shoot, but there is full exposure in a couple shots.  Even though you paid, you do not have the right to use them.  They aren't part of what you paid for.

Second, I'm told it's typical in the commercial realm to pay a given amount for a shoot, and come back later to negotiate for a specific use.  Again, you paid, but you paid for something limited.

Mike Weston Photography wrote:
When I say that a model gets paid, I mean that she and I have already agreed on what she is to be paid and what is expected of her. That also means she has seen and agreed to and already signed the model release. No model release, no shoot. No shoot, no pay. It's a really simple concept. Not really anything here to agree or diagree with or break down or examine or otherwise nit-pick. You are right that everything is negotiable but once a release or contract is signed, it's a done deal. No take-backs. Actually, the point I was trying to make here was that if a model hires me, they pay me and can accept or deny thier terms. If I hire the model, they can accept or deny my terms. We can negotiate terms to reach another agreement but I'll most likely tell the model that my terms are there and if not acceptable, I have other models that are interested. Have a nice day. You can nit-pick my post all day, even take selections of it and use them out of context if you like, but the point remains that you missed my point entirely so your point is irrellevant.

You seem to think that all model releases are inclusive of all rights, when in fact in the professional industry most signed model releases are limited to specific rights and additional rights or usages are subject to additional fees.  Your emphatic stance would severely limit the number of fashion or commercial models available to you, but that is your choice.

I have often remarked that web photographers have benefited from the lack of knowledge about professional releases from inexperienced models, but they will have a rude awakening one day.

Chuckarelei wrote:
I am not going to make sure I know their whereabouts, or how to reach them whenever.

Of all the images in my MM portfolio, none of the models (except my mom) are contact-able, even the newest, 11-month old image. All them have moved, changed names and are no longer modeling. Not surprising for girls in their late teens.

glamour pics wrote:
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.

I would have done the same thing. Explained to her that that wasn't something I offer and it wasn't up for negotiation, thanked her for her time and moved on to another model who didn't demand such a ridiculous thing.

Dan Howell wrote:

You seem to think that all model releases are inclusive of all rights, when in fact in the professional industry most signed model releases are limited to specific rights and additional rights or usages are subject to additional fees.  Your emphatic stance would severely limit the number of fashion or commercial models available to you, but that is your choice.

I have often remarked that web photographers have benefited from the lack of knowledge about professional releases from inexperienced models, but they will have a rude awakening one day.

Ok, again someone misread. Read this carefully. I NEVER said that model releases were all inclusive. What I did say was that when we get to the point of signing a model release, all of the details such as copyright, usage rights and everything else has already been negotiated and agreed on. If the model and my client or my self agree that the model has the right to veto any shots, that is something that is agreed on and is in the model release. I NEVER said I use one and only one model release. I have many for many different occasions and needs. I also rewrite my model release on a regular basis for whatever circumstances may arise.

Now, here's here it gets tricky. Read this carefully.
Photographer contacts model.
Photog asks model to pose a certain way.
Model asks a set price to model that way.
Photographer agrees to pay that price and sets a date for a shoot.
Model arrives at shoot.
Model then wants to change conditions not discussed earlier before signing a   written agreement.
Photographer does not agree and sends model away.
Her terms did not meet his needs so he didn't hire her, however, she changed her conditions late in the game wasting everyone's time and money. If she feels the need to be able to approve every photo before use, she needs to get a different job. We have tossed around names of some really big time models here without thinking of one thing. When Tyra Banks models for a photographer, she understands that some shots may not be in her best interest. But she also knows that if those photos are published, not only her reputation but the reputation of the photographer as well as his client and whoever's product she's modelling for would lose rep as well. So, you can pretty much count on the less than perfect shots being discarded or destroyed.

Mike Weston Photography wrote:
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)

+1

glamour pics wrote:
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.

You know what's really cool and refreshing about this?

You inquired.  You negotiated.  You couldn't reach mutually acceptable terms.  You didn't shoot, but it ended amicably.

Unlike more than half the posts here in which the photographer describes how butthurt and ego bruised he/she is when this happens.

It's not asking someone on a date.  It's making an offer to trade services.  Sometimes it doesn't work.   It's just business.  If you treat it that way, it can be really drama free, even when you don't agree.  How f'n sane is that? 

B

Edit: I don't agree though with the 'lead to bad feelings' part.  It's about an agreement with legal and industry precedent.  She was asking for a non-standard deal, as her terms for working with you.  You declined.   It's the mixing in of 'feelings' that gets you in trouble. But I guess that was your polite way of saying no. 

glamour pics wrote:
I explained that no professional in the country would agree to such a clause.

It's done all of the time on celebrity shoots.  Don't make assumptions without first checking the facts.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
I disagree completely. Initially the model has all rights to their image and likeness and use of such. Whether a model gets paid or not, they still have those rights...unless they give up those up in a model release. The model release can specify limits of use, whether the model gets paid or not. The model can give a "blanket release" that enables the photographer to do any damn thing he wants to with the images (and that's fairly standard),  or, the model can put limits on the use of the photos. Remember a model release is essentially the model giving certain described rights to the photographer.

A model release can state that the images: will not be used for publication; cannot be publicly displayed if they show certain body parts; cannot be used in conjunction with unapproved text, cannot be used in conjunction with the model's real name; or that any image publicly displayed be pre-approved.

These are negotiable rights that belong to the model. What  rights or limitations are given to the photographer can be the result of negotiations. Some models negotiate, some don't. Some can, some can't. Everyone has differing expectations and these things are not so "cookie-cutter" that they are dependent on who hires whom.

Are you saying the model automatically gives up all rights because she was paid? If so, I disagree. It's negotiable. The OP indicated she tried to negotiate and he didn't like her terms. No insanity involved.

And if she's not a celebrity, unlike John McCain; who incidentally wasn't being paid for those shots, then by the actions described by the OP, by not giving up her rights for being paid, then she isn't a model either. She's just someone with an MM port who talks to photographers.

I had exactly the same issue about two years ago with a model from Denver. Looking at her port recently, I note that she's still active here but hasn't posed any pictures since and the pictures she has on her port look like really awful self portraits.

Dan Howell wrote:

It's done all of the time on celebrity shoots.  Don't make assumptions without first checking the facts.

Apples and Oranges. Who said she was a celebrity?

Dan Howell wrote:

It's done all of the time on celebrity shoots.  Don't make assumptions without first checking the facts.

Why are we bringing up supermodels, celebrities, etc?

The model is none of these people -- she does not  like terms -- fine. There are other models.

Dan Howell wrote:
It's done all of the time on celebrity shoots.  Don't make assumptions without first checking the facts.

Christine Rose wrote:
Why are we bringing up supermodels, celebrities, etc?

The model is none of these people -- she does not  like terms -- fine. There are other models.

Why bring it up? I can think of a lot of reasons. There are people in these forums that don't know jack shit. Someone might read that and etch that statement in mind granite as a 100% absolute for anyone and anybody.

Imagine their surprise if they ever find themselves in a position to get a shot with a major politician or celebrity, when they try and shove a full release under their nose and get told to shove it back.

Cherrystone wrote:

Dan Howell wrote:
It's done all of the time on celebrity shoots.  Don't make assumptions without first checking the facts.

Why bring it up? I can think of a lot of reasons. There are people in these forums that don't know jack shit. Someone might read that and etch that statement in mind granite as a 100% absolute for anyone and anybody.

Imagine their surprise if they ever find themselves in a position to get a shot with a major politician or celebrity, when they try and shove a full release under their nose and get told to shove it back.

I just think you are comparing apples and oranges.

Cherrystone wrote:

Dan Howell wrote:
It's done all of the time on celebrity shoots.  Don't make assumptions without first checking the facts.

Why bring it up? I can think of a lot of reasons. There are people in these forums that don't know jack shit. Someone might read that and etch that statement in mind granite as a 100% absolute for anyone and anybody.

Imagine their surprise if they ever find themselves in a position to get a shot with a major politician or celebrity, when they try and shove a full release under their nose and get told to shove it back.

It's totally off point to the OP in my not so humble opinion

Christine Rose wrote:

I just think you are comparing apples and oranges.

Aw cmon Christine, you can do better than that. That term was just used a couple posts ago.

Justin Foto wrote:

It's totally off point to the OP in my not so humble opinion

But grasshopper, true humility is an admirable trait.

Cherrystone wrote:

But grasshopper, true humility is an admirable trait.

We try not to around here

Cherrystone wrote:

Aw cmon Christine, you can do better than that. That term was just used a couple posts ago.

Dude I am getting old and my short term was never that good anyways.


Ok then X2 +1

Better? ;-)

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
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.

I agree!

Christine Rose wrote:

Dude I am getting old and my short term was never that good anyways.


Ok then X2 +1

Better? ;-)

Dude, let's not talk about getting.....ummm, what were we talking about again?

Cherrystone wrote:
Imagine their surprise if they ever find themselves in a position to get a shot with a major politician or celebrity, when they try and shove a full release under their nose and get told to shove it back.

If I have the coin to pay the celebrity or whomever then I expect them to come to terms with me.  I think we all understand that their status earns them some negotiation power as it would help my career or whatnot.  The OP is not about that situation.  It is about a regular gal trying to dictate terms outside her station.  As noted this is something seen in a number of ports here and elsewhere and models need to understand that if they pay they make the rules but if they are being paid someone else makes the rule.  If you don't want nude shots or shots of you with a parrot dont take those shots.