|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Models who flake out when they hear the word Contract...
Whats the point on flaking out? I mean, its only to cover both our butts. Very frustrating, Ill tell ya! Jul 18 05 06:35 pm Link Jul 18 05 07:00 pm Link "Whats the point on flaking out? I mean, its only to cover both our butts." True but it depends on the contract and on the type of shoot. The right contract needs to be used for the right situation in order for both the model and the photographer to be covered properly. Standard contract for paid shoots, TFP contracts for TFP shoots. Flaking in general is bad, I agree. Jul 18 05 07:12 pm Link I think you mean a release...contracts are for other things. I would never do a shoot without a release. But if you are telling models they need to sign a contract that might be why they are "flaking out". Jul 18 05 07:46 pm Link That's backwards-ish. A release is a type of a contract. A model release does not protect models. I am happy to shoot without them. I prefer broader contracts that provide ME with protection. Jul 19 05 01:20 am Link well so far I never had problems with signing any releases, but I heard about how sometimes if you don't work with a genuine photographer with proper ethics, the models will find their images used in a porn site or something, and can't complain about it even when that hurts her reputation/future because she's signed a full release. I don't think this is too common of a problem in fashion photography, but I can see that that might be possible if a model was focused in doing glamour, nude, "urban", "import-car", etc... but that's really the only reason I could think of that some models might hesitate to sign a release??? Jul 19 05 06:24 am Link Posted by Sascha: 1. In some cases, what you describe above would be called misappropriation by the courts; and, despite a full release, the model could sue for damages. Jul 19 05 06:32 am Link Posted by Todd Steinwart: Posted by Sascha: 1. In some cases, what you describe above would be called misappropriation by the courts; and, despite a full release, the model could sue for damages. Ah. that's interesting to know, i don't do nude/glamour-nude work so I didn't know about this one. Well, I really can't think of any other reasons why models flee with the mention of a release then? Do you? Jul 19 05 06:36 am Link It could be that when it comes to a contract they wander back to when they heard this or that and how bad it was. If they are associating the contract with 'Scumbag, internet, porn sites) Then i dont blame her for backing out. If you have a contract it is the photogs job to reassure her the bad things will not happen. If they feel comfortable with you then they will shoot with you. Jul 19 05 06:37 am Link Posted by Todd Steinwart: Posted by Sascha: 1. In some cases, what you describe above would be called misappropriation by the courts; and, despite a full release, the model could sue for damages. Yea i think the courts will side with the photog saying the model knew of his intentions. Jul 19 05 06:39 am Link Posted by Peter Dattolo: Posted by Todd Steinwart: Posted by Sascha: 1. In some cases, what you describe above would be called misappropriation by the courts; and, despite a full release, the model could sue for damages. Yea i think the courts will side with the photog saying the model knew of his intentions. That's what I feel too, and that's probably why some models get mad when they discover their images used inappropriately but can't really complain because they know the outcome Jul 19 05 06:48 am Link Most releases are way too long with entirely too much legal gobbledy-gook that is largely unnecessary. There have been other threads about release forms and some of them (the releases) are very dense. Releases such as this should be presented well in advance of the shoot along with calming statements and a plain English version. Releases exist because typically without one, the photographer cannot later "exploit the image for commercial gain." (sorry, I just love that phrase) In other words, it can't be published, sold for stock etc. without the publisher risking liability (and the model, her heirs and assigns blah blah blah wanting a piece of the pie). In this sense, having no release actually provides the MODEL with more protection simply because the photographer cannot - without risk - use the image in many commercial circumstances. If the shoot is simply for portfolio purposes then, as Theda suggested, a release isn't really necessary. The photog still holds all copy- and usage rights and these must be granted to the model in order for her to display them anywhere. Again, this is often implicit in a TFCD shoot. Even with a full release, the model is protected from defamation and misappropriation, but the courts will take image content into consideration. There is a sticky thread at the top of the General Mayhem forum with links to stuff like this. ...todd Jul 19 05 06:57 am Link I use the term agreement. And mines only a page and a half. I am one of the few photogs who give as well as take, hence... agreement. Gary Jul 27 05 08:37 pm Link Posted by GotTheLookPhotographer: Do you think lines like the one above will get more models in the door? Jul 27 05 11:18 pm Link |
