orias wrote:

yeah why would you pay anyone for their time, their skills, their effort, etc.

that's just CRAZINESS

DONT PAY ANYONE PLEASE!   

if you're not making money off of your pipes,  DONT PAY YOUR PLUMBER PLEASE!

if you're not making money on your home, DONT PAY YOUR LANDLORD PLEASE!

if you're not making money off your pants,  DONT  PAY YOUR RETAILER PLEASE!

if you're not making money off your pot pie,  DONT PAY YOUR CAFE PLEASE!

if you're not making money off your water,  DONT PAY YOUR UTILITIES PLEASE!

if you pay these people and everyone else,   they will start to think they have any sort of value,  we would like them to start thinking that they are worthless and exist only to please us PLEASE


this is literally the dumbest thing i have heard all month and there has been some STIFF competition.

Work (scalar quantity in physics)
"The transfer of energy from one physical system to another, especially the transfer of energy to a body by the application of a force that moves the body in the direction of the force.

YEah art involves no energy expendature whatsoever.  There isn't picking up of a camera, posing of the model, photo editing, model prep hair and makeup, etc. 

this is totally worth the brigging,  what IQ do you have?

This. Was beautiful. And I am laughing.

Meaghan Lynai wrote:

This. Was beautiful. And I am laughing.

As amusing as her post was it doesn't work for photographers paying models.   Professional photographers don't usually pay models their clients do.   If you are not a pro and there is a model who has a look you want or like and she/he won't work for free.   Pay them but unless you have a trust fund or a lot of disposable money you can't do it often.  If there is a wonderful hard to shoot at location I want to shoot at and I need a model then a investment may be in order.   If its a new MUA or I have a chance to get a great new outfit.   Paying makes sense.   Yet if its the typical stuff most of us do that has no commercial use and is just fun shoots done without MUA or stylist or unique location then paying just doesn't work.

Talent charging talent doesn't work.   Agency tests are usually free.   The most known fashion, beauty and art photography of models often had no too very little money paid anybody.   It is primarily amateurs  on sites like MM with their hands out expecting to be paid when to be frank neither has a real value to start with.   Few if any models here could be signed and few shooters produce work strong enough to make a living.   Sorry I wasn't nearly as funny as Orias.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

As amusing as her post was it doesn't work for photographers paying models.   Professional photographers don't usually pay models their clients do.   If you are not a pro and there is a model who has a look you want or like and she/he won't work for free.   Pay them but unless you have a trust fund or a lot of disposable money you can't do it often.  If there is a wonderful hard to shoot at location I want to shoot at and I need a model then a investment may be in order.   If its a new MUA or I have a chance to get a great new outfit.   Paying makes sense.   Yet if its the typical stuff most of us do that has no commercial use and is just fun shoots done without MUA or stylist or unique location then paying just doesn't work.

Talent charging talent doesn't work.   Agency tests are usually free.   The most known fashion, beauty and art photography of models often had no too very little money paid anybody.   It is primarily amateurs  on sites like MM with their hands out expecting to be paid when to be frank neither has a real value to start with.   Few if any models here could be signed and few shooters produce work strong enough to make a living.   Sorry I wasn't nearly as funny as Orias.

No one in this thread seems to have their hands out wanting money thrown at them, especially me, who you seemed to be directing this at. So, you have a point, but it seems to me this thread is about not paying models in general, not not paying models on MM.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
The OP didn't say that models shouldn't be paid.   "They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please"

He has a point.   If a photographer isn't going to monetize his work then paying doesn't make a lot of sense.   If I sell my work in a gallery or on-line or for content or have a client then paying is fair but if its just portfolio building or art paying makes little sense.   I get why some people do it.   I'm a hobby shooter and if there is a model I like who isn't up for a trade then paying is fine but not on a regular basis.   However he didn't say models shouldn't be paid.

In that case, if I'm not going to monetize any work I shoot with a photographer who wouldn't shoot me TF, should I not pay them?

Point is, if you like someone's work and they won't shoot trade with you for whatever reason, it's work and it's worth paying for if you truly want to have their images in your portfolio. Why would you take the time/money for transport/makeup/wardrobe for no pay if it's not mutually beneficial? And yes, art = work to clear up that misconception. That is the issue with OP's post for me.

Also...if a photographer is making money off a work, isn't that where a contract comes in where the model gets a percentage? Or if it's for a site like Zivity, both the model and the photographer are paid?

Shilo Von Porcelaine wrote:

In that case, if I'm not going to monetize any work I shoot with a photographer who wouldn't shoot me TF, should I not pay them?

Point is, if you like someone's work and they won't shoot trade with you for whatever reason, it's work and it's worth paying for if you truly want to have their images in your portfolio. Why would you take the time/money for transport/makeup/wardrobe for no pay if it's not mutually beneficial? And yes, art = work to clear up that misconception. That is the issue with OP's post for me.

There aren't a lot of good reasons for YOU to pay anybody.   Unless you are using your book or planned to with a agency for commercial or fashion.   Why?   Same for me.   If its about portfolio building and 'pretty' pictures then paying isn't all that smart.   Lets all be candid though.   Most of the paid work on MM is about nudes or lingerie.   Models are being paid largely for art, erotic or explicit nudes.   I understand how some models feel.   However if I can't monetize those nudes to recoup my money its usually wasted.   I don't have money to waste.   I consider myself a artist.   Some do not I'm sure.   I shoot because I love too.   I want models who want to work with me because they love to model and hopefully want to be part of my work and the creative process.

So when I hear about your time, wardrobe, transport when I have cameras, time, software and other things to consider as well for why you need to charge you lose me.   I want models who love being photographed vs. models who simply want to be paid.   I also pay models.   Part of that process is a unpaid brief test shoot.   I do this not only to see them in person but too  gauge their passion, energy and desire to be photographed.   When I'm asked how much does something pay before what it involves.   You lose me.   I want to only ever work with models who are truly passionate about being shot.

Meaghan Lynai wrote:
No one in this thread seems to have their hands out wanting money thrown at them, especially me, who you seemed to be directing this at. So, you have a point, but it seems to me this thread is about not paying models in general, not not paying models on MM.

Some of our best known artists still work free all the time.   They do so because they love to do their thing.   From singers to dancers to actors.   Lets say I was a bass player and a group wanted me to sit in.   How much are you paying me, I might ask.   If their is no money should I do it?   Would you?   If you enjoy playing odds are you would.   Bands around the world play for free.   They play for the simple act of being artists.   Sure we all like money but true artists value the project more then what it pays.   Outside of this asylum.  Agency signed models shoot all the time for FREE.   Photographers shoot them for FREE.   Many times those shooting are not world famous or well known.   They are working together purely for the joy and creation of art.

When models who are agency full time models can its reveling that models on sites like this throw up no TFP banners and say all nude work must be paid.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Bands around the world play for free.

No they don't. It's very rare that people will play for free for the love of music or any of that hippy stuff, sometimes people will play support to a bigger band for free (pub/club gig) in the hope that they will gain new fans or sell some merch, for bigger tours people pay onto those as support with the intention of gaining what they spent back on merch sales, even buskers nights are full of people that want to push a few copies of their CD they recorded at home. Even if they aren't charging the promoter/venue/whatever for their time, bands usually aren't actually playing for free.

Alexandria Web wrote:
No they don't. It's very rare that people will play for free for the love of music or any of that hippy stuff, sometimes people will play support to a bigger band for free (pub/club gig) in the hope that they will gain new fans or sell some merch, for bigger tours people pay onto those as support with the intention of gaining what they spent back on merch sales, even buskers nights are full of people that want to push a few copies of their CD they recorded at home. Even if they aren't charging the promoter/venue/whatever for their time, bands usually aren't actually playing for free.

Actually, I will totally disagree here. As a musician who has played for over 30 years and all over the country, I find what you are saying to be way off. Unfortunately, unless you are established (locally or otherwise) most of the time you are playing for free or almost free. This isn't because of the art but just the hard facts that the entire industry has been embracing the "pay to play" motif. This started in the 70s, was used some in the 80s and in the 90s has become the mode most promoters use. 

75% of the bands in this country only make money on their merch. Selling merch is not playing. So yes, I may not agree with the idea of analogizing these two fields, but saying they dont play for free just shows you may not understand how the music biz works.


edited this because i see you are from the UK. Maybe things are different there but here....it is how I said. :-)

mike connor wrote:
Simple maths!

Quality model = quality images 

Quality model = a fee

Quality banker = quality banking.

Quality banker = bonuses.

You see: maths isn't as simple as that... ;-)))

Meaghan Lynai wrote:
No one in this thread seems to have their hands out wanting money thrown at them, especially me, who you seemed to be directing this at. So, you have a point, but it seems to me this thread is about not paying models in general, not not paying models on MM.

Hi,
I've read Tony's posts advocating collaboration for a while. I've had a face to face discussion with him on this topic earlier this year and am fairly certain he wasn't aiming it at you. I've been on the forums for a few months and have read posts by models who only shoot for pay so, there is a bit of that mentality here too. Just wanted you to know his post was likely not aimed at you as you perceived it.
Jen

Orson Quetz wrote:
There are few reasons to NOT pay models:

If you are providing them with a service, promotion or portfolio work, which is as valuable as cash, or if they want to be a collaborator with equal presence in the work. I do find sometimes models want to control the work and still expect to be paid, which is insulting.

Otherwise they do a job and they deserve to be paid.

And politically I find the attempt to conspire to fix the price for models at zero really offensive. Also potentially illegal. The principle of a free market is that different buyers and sellers make decisions on value independantly. You can share your opinion of a model, or of modeling in general, but "please don't pay models" is on very shaky ethical grounds.

The OP didn't say please don't pay models.   You have the right too  be offended though.   This might be offensive so get ready.   One of the problems with photographers who make a living doing tests is they often end up having to shoot models who don't have a great look to pay the rent.   One I know has suffered for it.  Models who only model from sites like MM often can't get plum assignments from good shooters so they end up being paid by shitty photographers.

Not saying I'm not shitty mind you.   A few of these horrible dudes post those horrible images and the models who aren't working with folks who could help them post those crappy shots.   Its a downward spiral.  Photographers want to move away from doing paid model tests as quickly as possible and find real world clients.   Sadly most models from sites like these don't have that luxury.   When you have bills to pay you take the work that's offered.   Smart models in my view or progressive ones should always be open to new ideals and photographers who have work they like.   The bottom line to me is doing what you truly love isn't about what that thing pays or doesn't.   People who only work for what a thing pays and not what it is and those involved are not people I want to work with.

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

What happens when someone offers to buy your "art" in the future?
Will you choose to give it away for free instead?

If people want to pay someone to spend part of their very short, finite lives helping others create what you call "works", then how does that affect you?

Seems to me like you think that if photographers stop paying models, it will somehow benefit you.

People erroneously make the assumption that people looking for modeling gigs via the Internet, are necessarily looking to start a serious modeling career, or even create art.

Newsflash: A lot of accounts are created, used very infrequently, and then forgotten.

BTHPhoto wrote:
Do what ever it takes to get the model you want to willingly do the shoot you want, and it's no business of anyone else.

WORD...

CASUAL CLASSIC wrote:
.... my equipment cost MONEY...it shoots any number different subjects...MODELS being one of them... a newbie with very little exp, some how expects to be PAID... A seasoned pro, should be paid... in order for models to 'make it' on mm, like it or not, you have to learn and earn your fee's and skill level... you may be pretty as a new puppy, but , that hardly earns you the right to say PAID JOBS ONLY... Coming on here with a list of I WON'T, and any number of demands is tacky at best... so lets all play together, make NICE.... Until model start doing the shooting, the photog with $5000 in equip, has to be apart of this , and yes that means paid.........................

I hate to bust anyone's bubble, but spending lots of money on photography equipment does not entitle you to place demands on people's time, regardless of whether the models are professionals or amateurs.

1. "Quality images including studio time in exchange for modeling time"? Fine.*

2. "Shooting an agency's talent in exchange for port content"? Also a good exchange.

3. "Implying that spending $5000 in equipment automatically entitles anyone to someone else's time for free" Preposterous!

Regardless of whether the model is an experienced individual, or someone discovered on a queue at the bank, compensation should be based not only on the intended use of the images+, but on how badly you wish to have someone work with you.

Sure there are some people that think they are the next Upton, Evangelista, or Naomi, but reality (not your D4 or even your Hassie) has a way of pulling people's heads back down from the clouds.

* these tests are usually done with the understanding that the model needs to gain experience in front of the camera.
+ Standard rates apply for standard jobs, but agencies for some "celebrity" models charge much higher fees.

TomFRohwer wrote:

Quality banker = quality banking.

Quality banker = bonuses.

You see: maths isn't as simple as that... ;-)))

It's those quality bankers that nearly bankrupt this country

Rachel-Elise  wrote:
How is this thread still alive? Mercy lock, PLEASE!

Too bad in some country's we have the freedom of speech. I find this whole discussion rather cathartic .

It illustrates some of the main frustrations between models and photographers on this site. 

It is a discussion woth having and what the heck we are free people in a free society, so I say let it continue

r4u wrote:
They say " every work must be paid"
I don't consider art as a work.
And a photograph (true one;) ) works too, no?
If there 's no commercial issue, don't pay models please!

Your "art" might be another person's polished turd. You may not be able to polish a turd, but you sure can pay someone to try. ;-)

Maja Stina wrote:
Your "art" might be another person's polished turd. You may not be able to polish a turd, but you sure can pay someone to try. ;-)

Well stated. Not every process is about collaboration.
There is the "starving artist" that is only concerned with creating art.
There are those that compromise their art for the sake of money.
And then there are those that try to make a decent living through their art.

We all want to be the last one, but we are usually one of the first two for most of our careers.

ShutterBug4u wrote:
I would only pay a model if I am reaching out for them for a particular project I want to do that absolutely has to have them in it. If they ask for compensation and it's a model I really want to work with I will gladly pay them, however if it is a model desperate for my services in particular then I would do it for a small fee from them or completely free depending on the project.

You just summed up the first week of a basic course in Economics, and took a jab at the bartering system.

CASUAL CLASSIC wrote:
.... my equipment cost MONEY... it shoots any number different subjects...MODELS being one of them... a newbie with very little exp, some how expects to be PAID... A seasoned pro, should be paid... in order for models to 'make it' on mm, like it or not, you have to learn and earn your fee's and skill level... you may be pretty as a new puppy, but , that hardly earns you the right to say PAID JOBS ONLY... Coming on here with a list of I WON'T, and any number of demands is tacky at best... so lets all play together, make NICE.... Until model start doing the shooting, the photog with $5000 in equip, has to be apart of this , and yes that means paid.........................

Buying  $5000 worth of camera gear doesn't make someone a photographer it simply makes them someone whose bought "$5000 worth of camera gear.

Mark in MTL wrote:
Sometimes it's better to just pay and be done with it than deal with all the demands of and extra work of a TF agreement.

My thoughts have evolved over this throughout my photographic career. I started out with the opinion that I would never pay a model. However, I tend to agree with you; I rather have complete and total control over "my product" without the extra obligations, misunderstandings and ambiguity of TF arrangements. Furthermore, when the time comes when a model needs my services, I too expect to be paid.

Great points.

NYMPH wrote:
Let's bring up another troll friendly topic: copyright. It's been sung high and low that the photographer owns the picture. They own the rights, they are the ones able to publish, able to print, able to sell. And photographers don't 'give' models pictures, they allow usage. When you talk about famous photographs, photographer's names come up first, not the model's. Charis is sometimes brought up by name, but Edward Weston always is. In a very legal, simple sense, the photographer is the one who owns the end product.

Sure, some models only need the honor of working with such a great photographer, some want prints, some want digital copies (which, when agreed upon, we still do not always receive). Many prefer to be paid for their time, energy, experience, and creativity. Sometimes photographers and models strike up a relationship that is mutually beneficial. I.e. a wife who models for her husband, two friends who experiment with new techniques.

Each genre has its own systems and expectations. MM does exist in a unique world unto itself. There is such a blending of genres and industries, that it becomes necessary for each individual to carve out their own expectations and parameters.

It seems kind of "antiquated" doesn't it???

tonyfromsyracuse wrote:
WE.....need models more than they need us. so we have to offer an incentive otherwise it will be back to the days of bananas in a bowl.

the days of rock star photographers is coming to a close what with affordable cameras and intuitive software programs that can put hundreds of template sheens and concepts on pictures. I know thats difficult to swallow, but you've all seen the ports on MM.

yes many photos look amazing....but essencially you are seeing clones of the same poses and concepts....only the names and models are changed.
why pay? cause the models themselves here are finally starting to understand, they dont "need" us to take nude pictures of them.

they are starting to understand they are so beautiful...WE need them, which is why so many now, are moving towards... pay me.

i like you :3