Chuckarelei wrote:
If one only wants to have a women in front of the camera and satisfy with it, then there is no need for any release.

That of course makes no sense. I don't get the guys to sign either.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Your missing the entire core of my point......its not to say they cant be sold, its to limit what they can be sold to.  You may have good intentions, but many, with unlimited release will not have the same good intentions, thats just the way the world is.  To grant that to everyone on trust is...well..crazy

For the record I agree that a release should almost always be used.  BUT they should be used correctly.  And saying someone can use my likeness HOWEVER they should please, is not correctly.

Your worried about being stuck on a pron site? There is a pretty easy way around that. Don't shoot porn of any kind.

Show me even two images on here or my link to OMP that a porn site would buy.

Art of the nude wrote:
It relates to why models make money from the images they get from shooting with a good, or in my case, decent, photographer.  The images make them more marketable for paid shoots.  And there is, frankly, a LOT more money in being an art nude model than an art nude photographer.

Ding ding ding...

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Do you often use the "I can use any picture of you I ever take for anything,"  release???  If so, what for?  And how many models are okay with signing that?

Cherrystone wrote:
All of them.

we are treading into the territory of actual models vs. those who just want to have their picture taken to post on the 'net.  and yes, there is a difference...

Cherrystone wrote:

Guess you figure your work has no value.

Do you have another profile on MM?

It has value but not much more then what the model brings into it. Her likeness is in many cases more valuable then my copyright.   I am not fooling myself.

Art of the nude wrote:

Art of the nude wrote:
Well, usually I give more than "a couple" pictures.  But, more to the point, my images have made WAY more "$" for the models than they have for me, in various senses.  Should they pay me, retroactively?

1. Zivity until recently paid models 3X as much as photographers, and it's still almost twice as much, so the models have gotten much more out if it than I have, for a given shoot.

2.  Several models that I know of have started getting paid shoots immediately after our trade shoot.  Like, as soon as they post the images.

Thank you for the answers. Interesting about Zivity. Has that changed now? Togs making more or equal then the models?

Unless it was their first time doing nudes I don't believe 2.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Your missing the entire core of my point......its not to say they cant be sold, its to limit what they can be sold to.  You may have good intentions, but many, with unlimited release will not have the same good intentions, thats just the way the world is.  To grant that to everyone on trust is...well..crazy

Jessie,
You are missing the point of a Model Release. The photographer needs to have the latitude to make a decision on the image at any given moment. Is there invested trust that a model gives a photographer? Yes, there is. That's why you vette the photographer. Don't just go by their images. Look at their portfolio, business practices and if they have a web site, look how the images there are being used.

The fact is that the more professional a photographer is, the more paperwork they will usually have. It's the ones who fly by their pants who you have to be cautious about. They are the ones with the least to lose.

In effect, the  Model release allows the photographer to modify and license the image without having to go thru the model or their representives first.

It's simply business.

-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com

Cherrystone wrote:

Your worried about being stuck on a pron site? There is a pretty easy way around that. Don't shoot porn of any kind.

Show me even two images on here or my link to OMP that a porn site would buy.

1st of all here 18+ https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 1#24944671

2nd of all its not just porn, its herpes ads, depression medicine ads, suicide hotline ads, escort ads do I really need to list how often this can happen and it does happen....wording is key....makes someone ask, why then do you NEED unlimited?  Whats wrong with wording specifics?

Art of the nude wrote:

Cherrystone wrote:
On the net, most models don't make any consistent $$ with a shit portfolio

It relates to why models make money from the images they get from shooting with a good, or in my case, decent, photographer.  The images make them more marketable for paid shoots.  And there is, frankly, a LOT more money in being an art nude model than an art nude photographer.

I disagree with this. As much as MMers like you want to belive these same nude models will make the same amount of money regardless of them tfing with the decent photographers like you. Togs on MM truly overestimate the value of there photographs in that regard.

Art of the nude wrote:
1. Zivity until recently paid models 3X as much as photographers, and it's still almost twice as much, so the models have gotten much more out if it than I have, for a given shoot.

2.  Several models that I know of have started getting paid shoots immediately after our trade shoot.  Like, as soon as they post the images.

DanK Photography wrote:
Thank you for the answers. Interesting about Zivity. Has that changed now? Togs making more or equal then the models?

Unless it was their first time doing nudes I don't believe 2.

Zivity used to be:
Model: 60%
Photographer 20%

Now it's
Model 55%
Photographer 30%

They don't add up to 100% because Zivity gets a cut.

As far as number two, some it was their first nude shoot, some it wasn't.  I don't really care if you believe me.

-Koa- wrote:

Jessie,
You are missing the point of a Model Release. The photographer needs to have the latitude to make a decision on the image at any given moment. Is there invested trust a model gives a photographer? yes, there is. That's why you vette the photographer. Don't just go by their images. look at their portfolio, business practices and if they have a web site, look how the images there are used.

The fact is that the more professional a photographer is, the more paperwork they will have. It's the ones who fly by their pants who you have to be cautious about. they are the ones with the elast to lose.

In effect, the  Model release allows the photographer to modify and license the image without having to go thru the model or their representives first.

It's simply business.

-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com

I understand model releases fully.  And trust me I know how to vette a photographer.  But I just cant see an instance where one would ever need an unlimited usage release.  You understand that, you have wording in there against that.  Its vague, but its there.

Art of the nude wrote:

Zivity used to be:
Model: 60%
Photographer 20%

Now it's
Model 55%
Photographer 30%

They don't add up to 100% because Zivity gets a cut.

As far as number two, some it was their first nude shoot, some it wasn't.  I don't really care if you believe me.

Cool I won't. As the saying goes anyone can be anything on the net. I do believe it if it was there first time. Though most anyone  taking pictures of them and her posting it would likely have the same effect.

Art of the nude wrote:
It relates to why models make money from the images they get from shooting with a good, or in my case, decent, photographer.  The images make them more marketable for paid shoots.  And there is, frankly, a LOT more money in being an art nude model than an art nude photographer.

DanK Photography wrote:
I disagree with this. As much as MMers like you want to belive these same nude models will make the same amount of money regardless of them tfing with the decent photographers like you. Togs on MM truly overestimate the value of there photographs in that regard.

I know it's hard to believe, but no one cares if you can accept reality or not.

Art of the nude wrote:
I know it's hard to believe, but no one cares if you can accept reality or not.

reality yes, fantasy or the word of everyone on a message board no. It's not like you have anything to back that up with other then the word of other photographers on MM who have nothing to back it up with. And whos best interest is to spread that as fact.

Cherrystone wrote:

Your worried about being stuck on a pron site? There is a pretty easy way around that. Don't shoot porn of any kind.

Show me even two images on here or my link to OMP that a porn site would buy.

And for the record any girl implied topless or even in a bikini can be the enter page graphic to a porn site

-Koa- wrote:
Jessie,
You are missing the point of a Model Release. The photographer needs to have the latitude to make a decision on the image at any given moment.

actually, jessie has been spot on in her position.  i'm thinking more models aren't responding because they simply don't care, meaning they are too stupid to understand their likeness is an asset.  and the truth is, a model release is not just for the photographer, it is equally a component for model compensation.

a photographer shooting tf* thinking images will be used commercially "years from now" as you stated is pure speculation.  that speculation comes with a cost, and it's much more than, "here's some nice pictures for you to use for the next six-months."  to think otherwise is really missing the point of a model release from both sides of the equity coin.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
For the record I agree that a release should almost always be used.  BUT they should be used correctly.  And saying someone can use my likeness HOWEVER they should please, is not correctly.

It may not be correctly for you, but it apparently is for other models.

That's the beauty of choice - we can all do things as we feel best for us.

Greg Kolack wrote:
It may not be correctly for you, but it apparently is for other models.

That's the beauty of choice - we can all do things as we feel best for us.

Sometimes there are smart choices and dumb choices even if lots of people make the dumb choice.

291 wrote:
actually, jessie has been spot on in her position.  i'm thinking more models aren't responding because they simply don't care, meaning they are too stupid to understand their likeness is an asset.  and the truth is, a model release is not just for the photographer, it is equally a component for model compensation.

Quite a few of the models I have shot TF and who have signed full releases, work quite a bit and are incredibly intelligent and business savvy.

They have their reasons for signing, and I can tell you they do care and are not stupid.

DanK Photography wrote:

Sometimes there are smart choices and dumb choices even if lots of people make the dumb choice.

OK.

1472 wrote:
nope although im shooting some other stuff which has me thinking of art galleries now and some of these posts hmm i suppose i can get some releases out now although a bit late

You don't need releases (legally) for galleries. Though as we have seen on this thread some galleries want you to have them. So it depends which ones.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

1st of all here 18+ https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 1#24944671

2nd of all its not just porn, its herpes ads, depression medicine ads, suicide hotline ads, escort ads do I really need to list how often this can happen and it does happen....wording is key....makes someone ask, why then do you NEED unlimited?  Whats wrong with wording specifics?

A porn site is gonna buy a soft glam image of a woman in bodypaint?? Cmon...gimme a break.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you to an extent.

Hookers/escorts sites don't buy images, they just steal them off the net.

People like to see a clean release. You start putting this and that wording into it, it muddies the waters. I nearly lost a $1,500 sale many years ago because of that. Fortunately I was on friendly terms with the model, knew where she was and had her sign another release.

I'm just not going to go there anymore. It hasn't been a problem whatsoever.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

And for the record any girl implied topless or even in a bikini can be the enter page graphic to a porn site

And for the record I can walk across the street and get run over by a car.
If you're that concerned about that kinda stuff......I dunno.

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
I think make up artist, designer and hair stylist should also have a model release and a photographer release form. .

Not necessary. All the uses that the other trades [or any other third party] may want to make of the images are based on the release given to the photographer by the model; and the license given from the photographer to the others [within the terms of the model's release]. There needs to be only ONE model release.

Studio36

Jessie Shannon wrote:
For the record I agree that a release should almost always be used.  BUT they should be used correctly.  And saying someone can use my likeness HOWEVER they should please, is not correctly.

Greg Kolack wrote:
It may not be correctly for you, but it apparently is for other models.

That's the beauty of choice - we can all do things as we feel best for us.

it's the beauty of choice on the 'net.  but at the professional level of modeling, and that doesn't mean those making some coin here but those working the brick and mortar industry, there is a correct method for requesting the use of likeness.  and it isn't however one pleases.

the problem becomes learning the craft properly or just take pictures and pretend.  those who follow the tf* 'net model will soon find themselves befuddled and doomed to failure taking those practices off-line.  those who understand how the business model works will thrive.

DanK Photography wrote:

I disagree with this. As much as MMers like you want to belive these same nude models will make the same amount of money regardless of them tfing with the decent photographers like you. Togs on MM truly overestimate the value of there photographs in that regard.

I asked you before, do you have another MM profile?

From what your posting from, you've been on here a month. You make a lot of pretty broad brushed definitive statements for someone who hasn't likely figured out the economics and reality of how things work in this little cottage indusrty.

I guarantee you this. Some off the street newb model, who is fortunate enough to find 3-4 quality photographers right off the bat, posts those 15-20 images will make more $$$ as a result of those in 2-3 months time, than those 3-4 photographers will make in 2-3 years.

XenaDyne Photography wrote:
no model release
no shutter release

does your release provide specifically how you will use the model's likeness?  why or why not?

Cherrystone wrote:

And for the record I can walk across the street and get run over by a car.
If you're that concerned about that kinda stuff......I dunno.

That concerned? Are you serious?  Being on that side of the lens where image is of no concern I would guess not.  But really your comparison.....FAIL

Jessie Shannon wrote:
I dont think anyone in this thread would do some of the things mentioned.   I do think its bad advice to tell models that its a good thing to sign a full release in all circumstances.

I've never told a model that.

In fact, I've told models, if asked, if they don't get asked to sign a release, don't bring it up.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

That concerned? Are you serious?  Being on that side of the lens where image is of no concern I would guess not.  But really your comparison.....FAIL

Fear is fear. No fail at all.

Image has no concern, with my name on it? Surely you jest....I'm just as concerned, if not more so than you.

Cherrystone wrote:

I asked you before, do you have another MM profile?

From what your posting from, you've been on here a month. You make a lot of pretty broad brushed definitive statements for someone who hasn't likely figured out the economics and reality of how things work in this little cottage indusrty.

I guarantee you this. Some off the street newb model, who is fortunate enough to find 3-4 quality photographers right off the bat, posts those 15-20 images will make more $$$ as a result of those in 2-3 months time, than those 3-4 photographers will make in 2-3 years.

He started this thread from a different profile.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Do you often use the "I can use any picture of you I ever take for anything,"  release???  If so, what for?  And how many models are okay with signing that?

I'm not 100% happy with the release and it hasn't been evaluated by a lawyer...being a law student I can fairly competently throw together something that fits my needs from stock documents and such. 

Anyway, the point is, I have no idea what I might need the photos for now, and, more importantly I don't want to leave potential areas of attack open to the opposing party should I do something that generally would be allowed but that they don't like and are looking for ways to screw me on.  If I write a release that basically allows me to do anything and everything to/with an image for any reason, they are less likely to even attempt litigation.

That said, I'm not beyond changing things to suit their needs, say, they don't want me to use their real name, or they want me to only use a particular false name or if they want notification of all publication or whatever.  A red pen is perfectly acceptable, and I make a point to point them to the release on my website before we meet up.

The point, more than anything, is that it discourages litigation.  I'm not a jerk, I won't do anything that most reasonable people would disapprove of, and I can foresee making most reasonable accommodations, but if they get nasty and I really want to use the images (especially now, when I don't have a huge variety of things to show off) I want them to take their complaint and my release to their lawyer's office and be told, "sorry, we could try, but you will likely not prevail, it's not worth your time." Then they'll blow their money on a cease and desist letter and I'll never hear from them again.

I've had people read and sign it, not a huge sample size yet, so it's hard to say...my girlfriend told me to stick it in a bad place after she read it which caused me to make some modifications.

ETA: The full out, anything and everything release would be for TFP only.  Paying clients deserve different things.

Jose Luis wrote:
I dont do releases unless its a shoot that is intended to be published or sold and I need it for the client.

I don't think its fair to ask a model to sign a full commercial release for a tf shoot.  The consent for portfolio usage is implicit in the very act of doing a portfolio trade shoot.  I think its good practice to not have models sign releases on trade shoots and encourage them to not sign releases on trade shoots.  Otherwise its not if, its when ... when they will get shafted and not get paid for commercial usage of their images by someone.

+100.

Cherrystone wrote:

I asked you before, do you have another MM profile?

From what your posting from, you've been on here a month. You make a lot of pretty broad brushed definitive statements for someone who hasn't likely figured out the economics and reality of how things work in this little cottage indusrty.

I guarantee you this. Some off the street newb model, who is fortunate enough to find 3-4 quality photographers right off the bat, posts those 15-20 images will make more $$$ as a result of those in 2-3 months time, than those 3-4 photographers will make in 2-3 years.

Both my accounts are on this thread. My apologies as I thought I answered that already.

You can guarantee all you want it doesn't mean its true. Any pretty girl with off the street nude photography  will make as much money as having photos done by the main participants on this thread. Which I am not saying is bad.

Now if they get photographers with a name (even just MM fame) to take there pictures then they will benefit from a boost in the money they make.

I will guarantee that.