Karl Johnston wrote:
why exactly is she pissed?

That's the million dollar question.  I gave her details of the project, told her it would require a full release with no restrictions.  She gave me a rate and I paid it for the duration of the project.

Don-Jones wrote:
But I usually know how the conversation is going to go when the first thing the model asks "well how much money are you going to make"....

She wanted more money or thought you did not pay her enough.

I figure if I pay a model before I know what I am doing with the pics then any profit is mine as I am the one that took the risk as to whether or not a profit will be realized.

Don-Jones wrote:
Then on the other hand, one of the models that I paid, quite well I might add, is the one pissed off.

Of course she is. She's pissed off because she wanted to be the one making the money in the exchange. It's all well and good when you were paying for her services and she was the only one profiting. A lot of models view that as the entire transaction.

Photographer pays. Model performs the shoot. Photographer puts some pretty pictures on the internet. End of transaction.

She's pissed off because, now that YOU have a chance to profit, the mentality changes to "how dare you use MY images to make money!" like it's some sort of abuse of the original agreement.

I'd be shocked if she didn't feel entitled to some of that profit. Some people are very self-absorbed.

Karl Johnston wrote:
why exactly is she pissed?

that's weird.

Greed.

How dare a photographer try to make money. SHE gets paid. Not the other way around. I guarantee she feels she should have charged more for that shoot and also feels entitled to further compensation now that the photographer can make some money.

There is no logic. But a lack of logic has never been an obstacle for many.

Damianne wrote:
I have a verbal agreement with all my photographers

If they make a million billion dollars off my photo, I request that one of those millions be sent to me.
Otherwise, I'm pretty adamant all the profits should go to the photographer and am not upset if they sell a print. In fact I think it's pretty goddamn badass when they do.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
I know the answer but cant say here

Then be hypothetical, otherwise what was the point in posting?

Edit: Don (OP) - well done man. Kudos. Don't let this take the edge of your wonderful achievement. 

Don-Jones wrote:
Actually that is not really a question I'm addressing to any of you... more of a statement because I'm aggravated. 

Hear recently I had a gallery approach me to use some of my work in an exhibit.  We went over the work they wanted to use and started finalizing things.  So I decide to contact the models and tell them the happy news that their work will be printed and featured.... well guess what, not all of them were too happy.

The strangest thing is one of the models that was involved in the work was not financially compensated.  She's a close friend and not a model.  Did it for fun, but talked with her about it and she's thrilled to death that her work is getting used.  Then on the other hand, one of the models that I paid, quite well I might add, is the one pissed off.

She signed the release, she knew the terms.... so that part doesn't matter. 

But what I do have to ask is what do models think I'm doing?  I pay a model up front in the hopes that I will be able to recover the costs (and if I'm lucky a profit) at some point down the road.  It doesn't always happen.  I'm just astounded by the fact she was upset I was actually going to make my money back or whatever it was she was actually pissed about.

I guess a lot of models just assume that all the photographer is doing is putting stuff in their portfolio.  I don't know.  Just a future note to whom it may concern: If it is costing me money to take a photo, I'm gonna damn well try to make money from it.

:-)

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
I know the answer but cant say here

well that's no fun...

Michael Broughton wrote:

Bwahahahaa!

D S P wrote:
Congratulations on your exhibit!

Your situation is a perfect example of why model releases are needed.

Again, congrats!

helpful sure, but not needed for a gallery show.

Don-Jones wrote:
Well that was the point of contacting the models that are involved.  I'll be attending... and was going to try to get some photos of the exhibit to show them. 

In the past I've worked out special contracts with models... they take as smaller "up-front" payment in exchange for a percentage from prints sales.  But they usually forgo that since it can be a year or longer before I see a penny from some material.   

Perhaps I just took it too much as an insult.  I'm happy to see models I work with succeed and get published.  But I usually know how the conversation is going to go when the first thing the model asks "well how much money are you going to make"....

Totally.  I often tell this to models I work with.  That if I can sell something then I can hire them back again.  There are a couple that sold recently, so I will be contacting them to let them know.  It's also a good idea to not tell them too much before a show to stave crazy reaction, although, I have never had a bad one like that.  Just get them an invite and vip access or something. VIP just means free bar usually.

I take it you wont hire her again, oh well. smm

Don-Jones wrote:
But what I do have to ask is what do models think I'm doing?  I pay a model up front in the hopes that I will be able to recover the costs (and if I'm lucky a profit) at some point down the road.  It doesn't always happen.  I'm just astounded by the fact she was upset I was actually going to make my money back or whatever it was she was actually pissed about.

Most models are great about such things but some can be REALLY weird.

Don't feel bad. The below image:

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs17/f/2007/ … emi234.jpg

Don-Jones wrote:
To display work in an exhibit, you normally don't need a release.  Especially if the copyright holder is also the host of the showing/gallery.

Seriously? Did you not get a release in this instance?

Isis22 wrote:

Seriously? Did you not get a release in this instance?

Read the OP.  I have a release.

Don-Jones wrote:
Then on the other hand, one of the models that I paid, quite well I might add, is the one pissed off.

WHAAA??

I cannot possibly imagine what she could be upset about. If she wanted profit sharing she needed to negotiate that with you before signing a release. But in a way SHE GOT PAID before you did! AND she can say she's a gallery model and put it in her resume. And take her friends to the gallery and point at her big ol' picture and say, "LOOKIT ITS ME I'M IN A GALLERY WUT WUT". And then her boyfriend will buy her fancy champagne to celebrate.

Or she can be an ungrateful butthole.

If someone paid me to model for them, and then ever how many months came to me and said, "Oh btw those pics are gonna be in a gallery yay." I would probably shit myself and cry and squeal all at the same time. Then I'd ask when the exhibition is so I can bring all my friends and family. Then I'd clean myself up and immediately go out and buy a new dress. Then I would brag to everyone I met including my daughter's daycare teachers, grocery store clerks, and gas station attendants.

In fact, I'd still be exactly the same amount of excited if the shoot was for free and I would never be compensated in any monetary way whatsoever.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

Greed.

How dare a photographer try to make money. SHE gets paid. Not the other way around. I guarantee she feels she should have charged more for that shoot and also feels entitled to further compensation now that the photographer can make some money.

There is no logic. But a lack of logic has never been an obstacle for many.

Well of course she thinks that. Cameras and lighting equipment and computers and food and rent are all free right? Why does the photographer need to make money?