Forums > General Industry > I'm not being a Witch....... It's reality!

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

Have you ever received an email asking you if so and so company can use your photo on their site? They said you'll get full credit on it and possible "paid" work later on. Yeeeaaaahh, you know what I'm talking about.

For those photographers out there who are new and working with agency models. This is a BIG no no. Let me tell you why.

1) The company is asking you to use a photo of yours to advertise their business *FOR FREE* Nothing good will come out of it. Once you give it up for free they will always assume you are a sucker and keep coming back for more free stuff...

2) Even if you wanted to be a sucker for whatever reason. You can not give them a photo of yours if there are agency represented models on it. If you do, expect the agency to sue you or black list you from ever shooting their models. (Doesn't sound fun right?)

Know the etiquette of business. You will look like a complete idiot if you don't.

This also applies to MUA.HAIR/STYLIST etc. If someone loves a photo you were a part of and emails you asking to use the photo for free instead of the photographer (and that said photo has agency models) Do not waste the photographers time.....Their answer should ALWAYS BE NO and you will look like an idiot that they would never work with again!

Am I right or am I right!

Alright kids. Enjoy your weekend! xox wink

Mar 23 13 08:56 am Link

Model

Caitin Bre

Posts: 2248

Naperville, Illinois, US

I get these and I just send them in the direction of the photographer even if I have full rights to the images. I know the photographer will tell them to take a long walk off a short plank. LOL easy way for me to deal with it.

Mar 23 13 09:42 am Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6815

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

Erlinda wrote:
2) Even if you wanted to be a sucker for whatever reason. You can not give them a photo of yours if there are agency represented models on it. If you do, expect the agency to sue you or black list you from ever shooting their models. (Doesn't sound fun right?)

In principal I agree with your point, but this doesn't sound credible.  Unless the modeling release you obtained granted the agency some say over the use of the images, what basis would they have for suing?

Mar 23 13 09:50 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

BTHPhoto wrote:

In principal I agree with your point, but this doesn't sound credible.  Unless the modeling release you obtained granted the agency some say over the use of the images, what basis would they have for suing?

Great question. When working with modelling agencies, models do not sign a model release forum. Every agency will tell their models. DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING. Ever. That's because their agency doesn't want you to profit from the photos you shot of their model and they get NOTHING in return. I know here on MM many will say *but they got compensated with photos* In the real world that is not the case.

Agencies look at it this way. You are shooting their models and *you the photographer get photos to show off your photography skills to future clients* and *models get photos to promote their skills as a model* As soon as the photographer gets money for those photos it's no longer an equal trade and they will come after you.

Real world 101 wink

Mar 23 13 10:12 am Link

Photographer

Yosh Studio

Posts: 1162

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, US

Yeah, I once asked my bank  - instead of making monthly payments for my new Rodeo, how about I drive around with signs on the doors advertising your financial institution...it would be really good exposure and bring you new customers!!!!

......yeah, what was I thinking...

Mar 23 13 10:17 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

Caitin   wrote:
I get these and I just send them in the direction of the photographer even if I have full rights to the images. I know the photographer will tell them to take a long walk off a short plank. LOL easy way for me to deal with it.

Wait what??? What do you mean you have FULL rights to the images? You are the model, how is that even possible? yikes

Mar 23 13 10:18 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

Yosh Studio wrote:
Yeah, I once asked my bank  - instead of making monthly payments for my new Rodeo, how about I drive around with signs on the doors advertising your financial institution...it would be really good exposure and bring you new customers!!!!

......yeah, what was I thinking...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA lol I'm a pee my pants!!!

Mar 23 13 10:19 am Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6815

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

Erlinda wrote:

Great question. When working with modelling agencies, models do not sign a model release forum. Every agency will tell their models. DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING. Ever. That's because their agency doesn't want you to profit from the photos you shot of their model and they get NOTHING in return. I know here on MM many will say *but they got compensated with photos* In the real world that is not the case.

Agencies look at it this way. You are shooting their models and *you the photographer get photos to show off your photography skills to future clients* and *models get photos to promote their skills as a model* As soon as the photographer gets money for those photos it's no longer an equal trade and they will come after you.

Real world 101 wink

So you're talking about test shoots with models - portfolio work for portfolio work.  That wasn't the impression I got when reading you OP.  Still, while it's common knowledge that a model release is required for commercial usage, it seems to me that the model, not the agency, would be the one with legal standing if the image was used commercially without a model release, unless the photographer signed an agreement signed with the agency that gave them some standing.

Also, in the event that a photographer paid an agency to hire one of their models (which is the understanding I had from reading the OP), then, while a model release that's limited to specific usages makes sense, I can't imagine anyone entering an agreement that would give the agency a legal right to blanket veto any usage of the images. 

I believe agencies have contracts and smart lawyers, but they're businesses, not nation states.  I don't believe that just because a company is an agency they can sue you for using an image in a way they don't like unless you've signed a contract giving them that right.

Mar 23 13 10:30 am Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6815

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

Erlinda wrote:

Wait what??? What do you mean you have FULL rights to the images? You are the model, how is that even possible? yikes

It's possible through the same mechanism that would have to exist for an agency to have veto rights over the usage of an image - a legal instrument such as a contract or assignment of rights.

Mar 23 13 10:31 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

BTHPhoto wrote:

So you're talking about test shoots with models - portfolio work for portfolio work.  That wasn't the impression I got when reading you OP.  Still, while it's common knowledge that a model release is required for commercial usage, it seems to me that the model, not the agency, would be the one with legal standing if the image was used commercially without a model release, unless the photographer signed an agreement signed with the agency that gave them some standing.

Also, in the event that a photographer paid an agency to hire one of their models (which is the understanding I had from reading the OP), then, while a model release that's limited to specific usages makes sense, I can't imagine anyone entering an agreement that would give the agency a legal right to blanket veto any usage of the images. 

I believe agencies have contracts and smart lawyers, but they're businesses, not nation states.  I don't believe that just because a company is an agency they can sue you for using an image in a way they don't like unless you've signed a contract giving them that right.

If you are hiring a model that is a different story. I stated "photographers that are new to working with modelling agencies" Usually that would mean photographers that are starting out testing with modelling agency. I guess I should of added the testing part.

An agent can sue in the models behalf because they are representing her and they have a contract together.

Photographers that "work=test" with agency models do not sign anything but neither do the models. And when you start working with agencies they have rules that agents will state to you when you go meet them etc.

If only life was that easy big_smile

Mar 23 13 10:37 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

BTHPhoto wrote:
It's possible through the same mechanism that would have to exist for an agency to have veto rights over the usage of an image - a legal instrument such as a contract or assignment of rights.

No photographer in their right might should give ALL their rights away to a llama.... Usage right for a year etc makes sense but DAMN thats crazy

Nah, internet llamas aint the same as agency... Don't get it twisted tongue

Mar 23 13 10:39 am Link

Model

CPS

Posts: 32

Winchester, Virginia, US

I agree with you
100%!
Often models will get offers like that from photographers
Hey come shoot
If we make any $ we ll send it your way
And a detail contract stating profit share were filled out
Or zivity
Im sorry
Someone who offers me a promise to post keep up with and share profits from each girl on the site

Doubtful
Ain't nobody got time for dat
Sounds like a bad TFP to me
If you were confident in your ability as a photographer
Pay your help outright
And trust you ll get your $ back because your responsible start to finish

Mar 23 13 10:49 am Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6815

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

Erlinda wrote:

If you are hiring a model that is a different story. I stated "photographers that are new to working with modelling agencies" Usually that would mean photographers that are starting out testing with modelling agency. I guess I should of added the testing part.

An agent can sue in the models behalf because they are representing her and they have a contract together.

Photographers that "work=test" with agency models do not sign anything but neither do the models. And when you start working with agencies they have rules that agents will state to you when you go meet them etc.

If only life was that easy big_smile

I'm sure what you describe is standard expectations when dealing with agencies, but saying "agencies have rules" and saying they have legal standing to sue in court is not the same thing.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, only that I believe you're omitting critical facts.  I just don't believe that characterizing agency practice as legal requirements without describing the legal instrument that establishes legal rights is a credible argument.  It takes more than simply being an agency to have legal rights and standing.

Mar 23 13 11:02 am Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6815

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

Erlinda wrote:

No photographer in their right might should give ALL their rights away to a model.... Usage right for a year etc makes sense but DAMN thats crazy

Nah, internet models aint the same as agency... Don't get it twisted tongue

And what photographer in their right mind would give ALL their rights away to an agency? 

An agency is a company, subject to rule of law.  They don't have omnipotent power or super-legal rights just because they're an agency.

Mar 23 13 11:05 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

BTHPhoto wrote:

I'm sure what you describe is standard expectations when dealing with agencies, but saying "agencies have rules" and saying they have legal standing to sue in court is not the same thing.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, only that I believe you're omitting critical facts.  I just don't believe that characterizing agency practice as legal requirements without describing the legal instrument that establishes legal rights is a credible argument.  It takes more than simply being an agency to have legal rights and standing.

You are right, I don't know the legality but I sure as hell don't want to find out big_smile

Mar 23 13 11:08 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

BTHPhoto wrote:

And what photographer in their right mind would give ALL their rights away to an agency? 

An agency is a company, subject to rule of law.  They don't have omnipotent power or super-legal rights just because they're an agency.

We aren't giving them all the rights.... They can't do whatever they please with the photos.

Mar 23 13 11:09 am Link

Photographer

KonstantKarma

Posts: 2513

Hickory, North Carolina, US

Erlinda wrote:

Wait what??? What do you mean you have FULL rights to the images? You are the model, how is that even possible? yikes

Oh geez, this again lol You'll enjoy it.

Mar 23 13 11:19 am Link

Photographer

David Kirk

Posts: 4501

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

So, if I find a model on MM who is signed with an agency, I shoot with her and have her sign a release form then the agency can sue me?  For what exactly?

Mar 23 13 11:20 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

David Kirk wrote:
So, if I find a model on MM who is signed with an agency, I shoot with her and have her sign a release form then the agency can sue me?  For what exactly?

What? Did I say that? I said most agency models are told not to sign anything. If you get one to do, props to ya!

Mar 23 13 11:22 am Link

Photographer

David Kirk

Posts: 4501

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Erlinda wrote:
What? Did I say that? I said most agency models are told not to sign anything. If you get one to do, props to ya!

I have had them sign a model release...perhaps the agencies here in Ottawa are not so concerned, or perhaps the models are unaware or don't care.  Not sure.

But, even if I didn't.  Are you saying that if I didn't have them sign a model release then the agency can sue me?  I think maybe I am still not understanding what you're trying to say.

Mar 23 13 11:24 am Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6815

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

Erlinda wrote:

We aren't giving them all the rights.... They can't do whatever they please with the photos.

Is it accurate to say that the point you wanted to make in the OP is this?

There is a higher probability that an agency will sue on behalf of an agency-represented model than there is that an unrepresented model will sue on his/her own behalf if a photographer uses the model's likeness for commercial purposes without obtaining a release. 

Because I think that is absolutely true without giving the false impression that legal rights automatically exist in the agency world that don't exist elsewhere.

Mar 23 13 11:27 am Link

Photographer

liddellphoto

Posts: 1801

London, England, United Kingdom

David Kirk wrote:
So, if I find a model on MM who is signed with an agency, I shoot with her and have her sign a release form then the agency can sue me?  For what exactly?

If they are on MM and you arranged your shoot outside the agency it is highly likely they won't have an exclusive contract hence no issue.

Mar 23 13 11:33 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

David Kirk wrote:

I have had them sign a model release...perhaps the agencies here in Ottawa are not so concerned, or perhaps the models are unaware or don't care.  Not sure.

But, even if I didn't.  Are you saying that if I didn't have them sign a model release then the agency can sue me?  I think maybe I am still not understanding what you're trying to say.

Yes Ottawa is very weird. Ask an agent in Toronto about you getting their models to sign a release forum and see what they say.

When you hire a model through an agency for a client shoot. Not only does the model get paid but so does the agency (it's called agency fee). You selling photos of their models after you only tested with them and nothing has been signed you could get in a lot of shit! hmm

Mar 23 13 11:33 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

BTHPhoto wrote:

Is it accurate to say that the point you wanted to make in the OP is this?

There is a higher probability that an agency will sue on behalf of an agency-represented model than there is that an unrepresented model will sue on his/her own behalf if a photographer uses the model's likeness for commercial purposes without obtaining a release. 

Because I think that is absolutely true without giving the false impression that legal rights automatically exist in the agency world that don't exist elsewhere.

Pretty much smile

It's so annoying having english as a third language.... ha

Mar 23 13 11:37 am Link

Photographer

David Kirk

Posts: 4501

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

liddellphoto wrote:

If they are on MM and you arranged your shoot outside the agency it is highly likely they won't have an exclusive contract hence no issue.

Even if they have an exclusive contract - that is the model's problem.  Not mine.  What exactly would they be suing me for?

Mar 23 13 11:38 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

liddellphoto wrote:

If they are on MM and you arranged your shoot outside the agency it is highly likely they won't have an exclusive contract hence no issue.

If the model does this and she has signed a exclusivity contract with her agency. They would be pissed at her and kick her out of the agency. Most fashion models have an exclusivity contract with their agency

Mar 23 13 11:40 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

David Kirk wrote:
Even if they have an exclusive contract - that is the model's problem.  Not mine.  What exactly would they be suing me for?

I don't think they would sue you my friend cause the model signed the release but they would be pissed enough to black list you from using their models as well as telling other agencies about you hmm

Mar 23 13 11:41 am Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

BTHPhoto wrote:
In principal I agree with your point, but this doesn't sound credible.  Unless the modeling release you obtained granted the agency some say over the use of the images, what basis would they have for suing?

Erlinda wrote:
Great question. When working with modelling agencies, models do not sign a model release forum. Every agency will tell their models. DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING. Ever. That's because their agency doesn't want you to profit from the photos you shot of their model and they get NOTHING in return. I know here on MM many will say *but they got compensated with photos* In the real world that is not the case.

Agencies look at it this way. You are shooting their models and *you the photographer get photos to show off your photography skills to future clients* and *models get photos to promote their skills as a model* As soon as the photographer gets money for those photos it's no longer an equal trade and they will come after you.

Real world 101 wink

I often shoot with models who are signed with agencies, and they all sign full releases.  It's far from the "big time", but they are agencies, and they have clients.

Mar 23 13 11:41 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

Art of the nude wrote:

BTHPhoto wrote:
In principal I agree with your point, but this doesn't sound credible.  Unless the modeling release you obtained granted the agency some say over the use of the images, what basis would they have for suing?

I often shoot with models who are signed with agencies, and they all sign full releases.  It's far from the "big time", but they are agencies, and they have clients.

You live in Michigan... Try pulling that off in NY,London,Miami,Paris, Milan, Toronto etc.... Wont get you very far hmm

Mar 23 13 11:43 am Link

Photographer

London Fog

Posts: 6770

London, England, United Kingdom

Here it makes no difference if a model (agency or not) signs or refuses to sign a release. Either way the photographer own all copyright to the images and the model cannot use any of them for any purpose unless the photographer says so!

Am I right or wrong?

Mar 23 13 11:48 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

London Fog wrote:
Here it makes no difference if a model (agency or not) signs or refuses to sign a release. Either way the photographer own all copyright to the images and the model cannot use any of them for any purpose unless the photographer says so!

Am I right or wrong?

I love london for that..... But I am not talking about agencies using the photos... I'm talking about photographers selling photos that have agency models in them that have not signed a release for you to sell them.

Mar 23 13 11:51 am Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6815

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

Erlinda wrote:
You live in Michigan... Try pulling that off in NY,London,Miami,Paris, Milan, Toronto etc.... Wont get you very far hmm

It almost sounds as though the real point you're trying to make is that none of us country-bumpkin putzes have a clue how things work on the pretty peoples' side of the tracks, and you're going to explain it to us just so there's no doubt which side of the tracks you play on.  I don't know if your intent was to come across as giving an elitist lecture, but it's sounding more and more that way with every post.

Mar 23 13 11:52 am Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

BTHPhoto wrote:

It almost sounds as though the real point you're trying to make is that none of us country-bumpkin putzes have a clue how things work on the pretty peoples' side of the tracks, and you're going to explain it to us just so there's no doubt which side of the tracks you play on.  I don't know if your intent was to come across as giving an elitist lecture, but it's sounding more and more that way with every post.

I'm sharing my experience and knowledge that I've learned through being friends with agents. I'm saying it like it is.. Sorry I'm not sugar coding it enough for you.

Mar 23 13 12:05 pm Link

Photographer

London Fog

Posts: 6770

London, England, United Kingdom

BTHPhoto wrote:

It almost sounds as though the real point you're trying to make is that none of us country-bumpkin putzes have a clue how things work on the pretty peoples' side of the tracks, and you're going to explain it to us just so there's no doubt which side of the tracks you play on.  I don't know if your intent was to come across as giving an elitist lecture, but it's sounding more and more that way with every post.

Well you don't, we know how these things work over here in the civilized world!

Ya all take care now!

Mar 23 13 12:06 pm Link

Photographer

DarrylPascoePhotography

Posts: 477

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Erlinda wrote:

You live in Michigan... Try pulling that off in NY,London,Miami,Paris, Milan, Toronto etc.... Wont get you very far hmm

I beg to differ, the avatar model on my port here is just one represented model I shoot, and I have shot plenty represented models, and  this particular one was with ford till they closed their office little while ago here in Toronto and now is going with Next. Signed a release with me no problem and still would anytime. Then again you are also I believe are talking about going through the agency in order to get the model? Just simply using a model that is agency represented does not mean you cannot have a release signed it has nothing to do with the agency at all unless there is exclusive contract signed by the model and again that is not your problem as the photographer. How would the photographer know that there was an excusive contract signed between model and agency even if there were? The model might have an issue they would be pissed at her, but that's it. I do not go through the agency themselves when I do shoot represented models. Has nothing to do with the agency at all period.

Mar 23 13 12:26 pm Link

Photographer

Michael DBA Expressions

Posts: 3196

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

Here it is, in another context, laid out clearly and so simply any idiot can understand it: http://biznik.com/articles/freelancingo … g-for-free . The author is a graphic designer and writer, and the point applies to creatives in all fields. People wanting you to do things for free are NEVER in it for YOU.

Now, if you want to offer yourself unbidden to some worthy cause, go for it, you can make a difference in this world. But if they come asking for freebies, RUN. ESPECIALLY if they want to use that freebie to make money themselves.

Mar 23 13 12:36 pm Link

Photographer

Erlinda

Posts: 7221

London, England, United Kingdom

DarrylPascoePhotography wrote:

I beg to differ, the avatar model on my port here is just one represented model I shoot, and I have shot plenty represented models, and  this particular one was with ford till they closed their office little while ago here in Toronto and now is going with Next. Signed a release with me no problem and still would anytime. Then again you are also I believe are talking about going through the agency in order to get the model? Just simply using a model that is agency represented does not mean you cannot have a release signed it has nothing to do with the agency at all unless there is exclusive contract signed by the model and again that is not your problem as the photographer. How would the photographer know that there was an excusive contract signed between model and agency even if there were? The model might have an issue they would be pissed at her, but that's it. I do not go through the agency themselves when I do shoot represented models. Has nothing to do with the agency at all period.

I'm talking about Photographers who work with agencies and get models to test with them through agencies... Read my OP...

She is going with NEXT which means she isn't with them yet?

What I stated on my OP no agent in their right mind would be okay with. I know a few agents from NEXT, Sutherland and Elite. Ask what they think about this and they will tell you the same thing I am..... You would be black listed and get in a lot of shit hmm

Mar 23 13 12:41 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Erlinda wrote:
You live in Michigan... Try pulling that off in NY,London,Miami,Paris, Milan, Toronto etc.... Wont get you very far hmm

I agree.  Situations vary.

But I didn't make the broad statement about agencies. You did.  There are almost certainly thousands, probably tens of thousands, of models listed with small agencies around the world who WILL sign a release, and have no problem from their agencies for doing so.

And those models are much more likely to be on, and shoot with photographers who are on, ModelMayhem, than models with Ford, Next, Elite, etc.  So, the situation I describe is quite relevant to the discussion here.

Not that it means you should give away your work, just that in many cases it's the photographer's choice, not that of some agency.

Mar 23 13 12:46 pm Link

Photographer

Digitoxin

Posts: 13345

Houston, Texas, US

Erlinda fucking rocks!  Period.

Mar 23 13 12:49 pm Link

Photographer

Expression Unlimited

Posts: 1140

San Diego, California, US

1) The company is asking you to use a photo of yours to advertise their business *FOR FREE* Nothing good will come out of it. Once you give it up for free they will always assume you are a sucker and keep coming back for more free stuff...


true

so true

Mar 23 13 12:49 pm Link