Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Looknsee Photography wrote:
I still maintain that TF* sessions benefit photographers more. ANY session, paid or not, TF* or not, working for a client or not, benefits the photographer more in terms of law. The legal position is quite clear. What you are questioning [espousing?] is much more of a philosophical issue. And it is something that others, at the Internet model and Internet photographer level, simply do not subscribe to.
On the other hand, moving two or three steps up the fashion / commercial photography food chain things are somewhat different.
Studio36
Model
S. Stark
Posts: 13614
Los Angeles, California, US
Most every image I have, has a watermark on it. Every image I use to promote myself, was done on a trade basis.
If I need a print, I ask.
Watermarks don't even register to me, anymore. I don't notice them on any quality person's work They don't mean anything, other than that the photographer wants credit.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Looknsee Photography wrote:
I realize that I'm in the minority, and I realize that most TF* photographers will shout me down, but even with your relatively generous position, I still maintain that TF* sessions benefit photographers more. Really?
I'm a working commercial photographer. If I do a TF shoot, I expect to get no more than one image from it for my portfolio. I rarely shoot TF because it simply isn't worth my time.
A couple of years ago, I was contacted by an aspiring model to please do a TF shoot for her. Her boyfriend is a friend and he asked me if I would do the shoot as a favor. It was her first professional shoot and from it she got a half-dozen images for her portfolio. That first shoot got her on her way and she is now one of the most successful and popular models in Bangkok (and has worked on jobs for me).
That shoot didn't improve my skills or visibility with my clients or make me more income. It did improve her skills, her visibility, get her clients and make her money.
Who benefited more?
Photographer
Bottom Feeder Images
Posts: 668
Portland, Oregon, US
studio36uk wrote:
A watermark, logo or copyright notice, or anything similar even just the name of the photographer [in the US] are now collectively called "copyright management information"
To the OP specifically, be careful with that model's objection because it's a warning sign and it will likely lead to them, or someone at their direction, removing the marks.
I would warn them in advance, and in writing not to do so. If they do you are fully within your rights to issue a DMCA take-down notice where ever you find one like that as well as chase them for money damages for doing so.
For ref see: 17 USC §§1202,1203
Bidness is bidness.
Studio36 This is a brilliant idea that will almost guarantee that no agency would touch these images with a 10 foot poll and the only value the model would get would be posting them on MM or Facebook. I mean seriously tear sheets are so over rated.
Photographer
Miss Photog
Posts: 288
VALLEY VILLAGE, California, US
M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
The question wasn't whether watermarks are desirable or appropriate. The question was whether a watermark conveys the form of compensation of the shoot...which is the most absurd thing I've heard on here in a while.
I swear, just when I think idiocy can't go any further... +1
clearly that model doesn't know much about modeling.
Plus, as a model, I'd rather have people think I got paid for a shoot than did trade - haha
BUT; if she wants it for her printed portfolio, it would be nice to provide her with a non-watermarked image at least large enough to print an 8 x 10.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Miss Photog wrote:
BUT; if she wants it for her printed portfolio, it would be nice to provide her with a non-watermarked image at least large enough to print an 8 x 10. It would be nice to provide her with an actual physical print [or prints]. Providing model-directed-printing copies without an explicit and limited license is practically an invitation for the model to use them in ways not contemplated and beyond any implied license being granted.
Studio36
Photographer
BIP
Posts: 3748
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
I have never seen a good watermark and will never use them
There Is just not much point for them any more and when I see the all I think of is amateur photographers
I ask models to tag me in social media and bloggers to link images but when I see a water mark slapped across the middle of an image it screams beginner
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
BIP wrote:
I have never seen a good watermark and will never use them
There Is just not much point for them any more and when I see the all I think of is amateur photographers
I ask models to tag me in social media and bloggers to link images but when I see a water mark slapped across the middle of an image it screams beginner You know what SCREAMS beginner to me?
"home studio"
Funny thing - I place a copyright notice on everything on mine that goes on the web except for photographs that client puts up and those are branded with the client's logo.
Compared to photographers who fail to do so, I have very little problem with image piracy.
As an example, the model that I mentioned above that I did the first shoot for?
She is constantly finding people using images of her (often for less than flattering purposes) taken by photographers who have failed to place any copyright notice or watermark on their photographs. The photos that I have taken of her (some of which have been published) are rarely pirated. Why? The only conclusion is that the copyright notice does deter piracy.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Looknsee Photography wrote:
... I have never seen a model's watermark -- why is that? ![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110821/03/4e50d7f3cf3c7.jpg]()
Now you have.
Photographer
Ava Photography
Posts: 134
San Francisco, California, US
Thanks for all of the responses. Please allow me to summarize the discussion so far:
1. to the main issue, the consensus is that notion that a watermark implies
that the photographer paid the models is generally not true;
in fact, it generally implies that the model was NOT paid.
2. the consensus is that a model who believes that a watermark implies
that the photographer paid the model is probably a newbie
and lacks experience in the modeling field
3 for web port photos for TFP, photographers should put a watermark on the photo;
for hard prints for TFP photographers should leave off the logo
4. (side issue) the consensus is that it is not common practice for photographers to give
raw photos to models without compensation, and even less of a common practice
for photographers to give raw photos to MUAs without compensation
5. (side issue) TFP photography can result in either watermarked
or unwatermarked images being provided to the model(s).
It is advisable to have a written agreement prior to the shoot
covering watermarking and usage of photos provided to the model(s).
As an aside, the model who brought up the issue with me is male, not female.
Thanks again to all who responded.
Photographer
Bottom Feeder Images
Posts: 668
Portland, Oregon, US
Ava Photography wrote:
Thanks for all of the responses. Please allow me to summarize the discussion so far:
1. to the main issue, the consensus is that notion that a watermark implies
that the photographer paid the models is generally not true;
in fact, it generally implies that the model was NOT paid.
2. the consensus is that a model who believes that a watermark implies
that the photographer paid the model is probably a newbie
and lacks experience in the modeling field
3 for web port photos for TFP, photographers should put a watermark on the photo;
for hard prints for TFP photographers should leave off the logo
4. (side issue) the consensus is that it is not common practice for photographers to give
raw photos to models without compensation, and even less of a common practice
for photographers to give raw photos to MUAs without compensation
5. (side issue) TFP photography can result in either watermarked
or unwatermarked images being provided to the model(s).
It is advisable to have a written agreement prior to the shoot
covering watermarking and usage of photos provided to the model(s).
As an aside, the model who brought up the issue with me is male, not female.
Thanks again to all who responded. You forgot agency general will not accept photos from models or photographers with watermarks..and number 5 unless you have a hard on for watermarks isn't necessary it why make it harder for the models to possibly submit photos to an agency.
Photographer
Fred Gerhart
Posts: 747
San Antonio, Texas, US
You are off base on 1..
A Watermark means nothing..
Paid models have watermarked images unless they are working for publication.
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
Ava Photography wrote:
does a watermark (generally, or ever) imply that a model is paid?
the reason i ask is that i recently did an unpaid shoot. After the shoot, watermarked photos were provided. One (of several) models objected, stating as basis for the objection the implication to third parties that the photographer paid the models when that was not actually true in the case at hand. That's absurd. Never heard of such an implication. I would guess it's an inexperienced/low information model.
Nothin' matters and what if it did?
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
ybfoto wrote:
You forgot agency general will not accept photos from models or photographers with watermarks..and number 5 unless you have a hard on for watermarks isn't necessary it why make it harder for the models to possibly submit photos to an agency. Your agency won't accept images that are watermarked? Then pay for them! Get a license or buy the rights outright! I will SELL you whatever you need without watermarks.
Let's be absolutely clear on this point. Photography is a job and a business: No watermarks? "Fuck you, pay me"
Why should I supply images un-watermarked, and you [model] probably want them free as well, so your AGENCY can make money?
Studio36
Photographer
Michael See Photography
Posts: 15
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Watermark to me implies a copyright status, not if the model was paid or not. Besides, if your doing a TF shoot then the trade is you get the copyright and they get to use in their portfolios. That's the way I would work it. So the model is getting a trade off which in itself is payment. Otherwise they would have to shell out the cash to get a photographer to take photos of them to expand their portfolio etc.
Photographer
Model Mentor Studio
Posts: 1359
Saint Catharines-Niagara, Ontario, Canada
ArtistryImage wrote:
The individual can imbed copyright information within the file...
I always credit the full team...
If the photographer doesn't accept my request... so be it... I don't accept the job...
btw... tearsheets trump everything in a talent's book....
haven't seen many watermarked tearsheets recently...
enough said... Tear sheets don't come from TF shoots (almost never) and you are referring to EXIF data which is stripped out by most websites on upload.
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
studio36uk wrote:
A watermark, logo or copyright notice, or anything similar even just the name of the photographer [in the US] are now collectively called "copyright management information"
To the OP specifically, be careful with that model's objection because it's a warning sign and it will likely lead to them, or someone at their direction, removing the marks.
I would warn them in advance, and in writing not to do so. If they do you are fully within your rights to issue a DMCA take-down notice where ever you find one like that as well as chase them for money damages for doing so.
For ref see: 17 USC §§1202,1203
Bidness is bidness.
You want a photographer to wave their right to be identified as the author and copyright owner and not to include appropriate copyright management information? Pay for the privilege. End of story.
Studio36 ...and that's all there is to say on the subject of watermarks on images supplied as part of a TFP agreement or shared online 'for fun'.
Paying clients get what they pay for.
Photographer
Ava Photography
Posts: 134
San Francisco, California, US
ybfoto wrote:
You forgot agency general will not accept photos from models or photographers with watermarks..and number 5 unless you have a hard on for watermarks isn't necessary it why make it harder for the models to possibly submit photos to an agency. No, I did not forget it. The larger scope beyond the immediate issue I posted extends to the agreement between the photographer and the model, which is covered in general by #5. It is not the photographer's business to be concerned with the desires and needs of the model's agency any more than it is the photographer's business to be concerned with the desires and needs of the model's plumber or cable repair person. For photographers who photograph TFP offering models watermarked photos, models always have the choice to negotiate in advance of the shoot, including paying an additional fee for additional requests, or walking away. IMHO, the primary purpose of TFP from the photographer's perspective is to advertise his or her skill via watermarks on the photographs and get new business. Likewise, the primary purpose of TFP from the model's perspective is to demonstrate her model skills and give an idea of his or her appearance via the photographs and get new business. The model's skill and appearance will show in the photograph whether or not a conventional unobtrusive watermark is present.
Photographer
Jakov Markovic
Posts: 1128
Belgrade, Central Serbia, Serbia
First of all. Watermark=very useful. I consider watermarking to be way to tacky on my shots, but puting small website link in the very bottom right is a great contact tool (also in EXIF). Now, IF ANYONE has a problem with a "look" of your photos, then maybe they shouldn't hire next time, or maybe they should've checked your work before agreeing to cooperate.  You have EVERY RIGHT to put a stamp on the image if that is something that defines your work. :thumbs up: As of asking for the RAW, I don't remember anyone asking me for a film negative, so this applies to RAW, you don't have to give out any. In my experience when models start asking for all these things, it is because they believe they under-performed and are trying to get more from the shot then they gave into it. There is no substitute for spirit.
Photographer
Jakov Markovic
Posts: 1128
Belgrade, Central Serbia, Serbia
Ava Photography wrote:
No, I did not forget it. The larger scope beyond the immediate issue I posted extends to the agreement between the photographer and the model, which is covered in general by #5. It is not the photographer's business to be concerned with the desires and needs of the model's agency any more than it is the photographer's business to be concerned with the desires and needs of the model's plumber or cable repair person. For photographers who photograph TFP offering models watermarked photos, models always have the choice to negotiate in advance of the shoot, including paying an additional fee for additional requests, or walking away. IMHO, the primary purpose of TFP from the photographer's perspective is to advertise his or her skill via watermarks on the photographs and get new business. Likewise, the primary purpose of TFP from the model's perspective is to demonstrate her model skills and give an idea of his or her appearance via the photographs and get new business. The model's skill and appearance will show in the photograph whether or not a conventional unobtrusive watermark is present. Exactly what I meant, when I said they must be unhappy with their own work, and can't cope with that.
And don't get me wrong, it might be that the images are great, and that they look great in them, and that images end up getting them more work, but they still don't like this or that for some reason.
Photographer
Bottom Feeder Images
Posts: 668
Portland, Oregon, US
studio36uk wrote:
Your agency won't accept images that are watermarked? Then pay for them! Get a license or buy the rights outright! I will SELL you whatever you need without watermarks.
Let's be absolutely clear on this point. Photography is a job and a business: No watermarks? "Fuck you, pay me"
Why should I supply images un-watermarked, and you [model] probably want them free as well, so your AGENCY can make money?
Studio36 LOL yeah good luck with that,
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
Looknsee Photography wrote:
I realize that I'm in the minority, and I realize that most TF* photographers will shout me down, but even with your relatively generous position, I still maintain that TF* sessions benefit photographers more. Al Lock Photography wrote:
Really?
I'm a working commercial photographer. If I do a TF shoot, I expect to get no more than one image from it for my portfolio. I rarely shoot TF because it simply isn't worth my time.
A couple of years ago, I was contacted by an aspiring model to please do a TF shoot for her. Her boyfriend is a friend and he asked me if I would do the shoot as a favor. It was her first professional shoot and from it she got a half-dozen images for her portfolio. That first shoot got her on her way and she is now one of the most successful and popular models in Bangkok (and has worked on jobs for me).
That shoot didn't improve my skills or visibility with my clients or make me more income. It did improve her skills, her visibility, get her clients and make her money.
Who benefited more? 'Tain't my job to assess who benefited more. If you & she are happy with your arrangement, more power to you (and it's none of my business).
But these pictures -- you still own the copyright. You can profit from those images in the future, and she can't.
Photographer
Bottom Feeder Images
Posts: 668
Portland, Oregon, US
Ava Photography wrote:
No, I did not forget it. The larger scope beyond the immediate issue I posted extends to the agreement between the photographer and the model, which is covered in general by #5. It is not the photographer's business to be concerned with the desires and needs of the model's agency any more than it is the photographer's business to be concerned with the desires and needs of the model's plumber or cable repair person. For photographers who photograph TFP offering models watermarked photos, models always have the choice to negotiate in advance of the shoot, including paying an additional fee for additional requests, or walking away. IMHO, the primary purpose of TFP from the photographer's perspective is to advertise his or her skill via watermarks on the photographs and get new business. Likewise, the primary purpose of TFP from the model's perspective is to demonstrate her model skills and give an idea of his or her appearance via the photographs and get new business. The model's skill and appearance will show in the photograph whether or not a conventional unobtrusive watermark is present. except for the fact the model's repairman isn't going to give you the possibility of tearsheet credits.
Photographer
Left Coast Creative
Posts: 54
San Diego, California, US
Ava Photography wrote:
does a watermark (generally, or ever) imply that a model is paid? No.
No it does not.
Cheers!
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
ybfoto wrote:
LOL yeah good luck with that, I have very good luck with that, thank you very much. The rest I don't care to work with anyway. I am not a charity.
Studio36
Photographer
DwLPhoto
Posts: 808
Palo Alto, California, US
Plenty of things off MM end up on image boards and forums. I know one of mine has, on a porn board. I had one picture end up on tumbler...just stupid 'bokeh' photo of christmas lights off my flickr that ended up on about 30 tumblrs--even though I have all my pix all rights reserved.
Plenty of pictures that are really good nudes are put up on flickr with no watermarks and in full size...
Some people care that their pix are stolen, some dont. That's pretty much the bottom line. It's easy enough to get the big size picture off flickr, ipernity, etc..anything that doesn't change it to flash, and even then you can get a good enough screen cap.
Photographer
Nico Simon Princely
Posts: 1972
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Anything that's going on the web get's my watermark. If they want physical prints I'll reduce it to a small copyright notice. Otherwise the image will get stolen and scraped and might even end up being sold some how. Embedding info in the file does nothing to prevent image theft.
The only time I don't watermark is if I'm getting paid full rates and even then if it's going on the web I still one want a watermark or copyright notice as it will get stolen and passed around. But I also give them un-watermarked copies for offline use.
If you're getting paid for commercial work then that's a different story of course. And also what ever you agree and negotiate is possible. But letting your work out there without any watermark and no way to track who owns is just stupid and bad business.
I could care less if people think it ruins the image or you can't win POTD with a watermark. The point of the watermark is to RUIN the image so that it can't be used by someone else.
You don't like a watermark on your images well guess what your UN-watermarked images are probably on some site right now possibly even with that sites watermark on them from automated scraping software! Maybe even getting thousands of views with you getting ZERO credit for your work!
The cool thing is some clients and models want your watermark. I had one say she wanted it because she wanted me to get credit for my work.
Photographer
Jason Wood Photography
Posts: 68
Concord, California, US
Cry Cry Cry, I pushed a button I did a crappy job editing your image and I now own them so bugger off! IMHO - If you are "Trading" it should be equal rights to use the images with the photographer retaining the copyright. Blah Blah Blah. If a photographer doesn't want to share the images equally then the photographer should pay the model. Thus it's called Trade. Photographers are the biggest bunch of cheap arrogant ass's I have ever met. Like another poster said, get it understood before the shoot. Even trade should have a contract. Then there is no issue whatsoever and if a model thinks so little of herself that she lives only to promote the photographer and is willing to get a few poor quality images so be it. At least it is known ahead of time. And that doesn't mean showing a contract at the shoot but in advance. Now I know the OP and he is not out to screw over Models and to his question NO a watermark does not mean paid. I hate watermarking my images I think it is tacky and takes away from the image. but again just me. And I have been the subject of image theft - https://www.modelmayhem.com/3251548 is using an image of mine as his Avatar. I am flattered but he could of stolen a better one.
Photographer
JAH
Posts: 4
Billingham, England, United Kingdom
DougBPhoto wrote:
craziest thing I've heard all day +1 all it proves is the ownership of the copyright of the creator.
Photographer
Otaner
Posts: 41
San Francisco, California, US
Ava Photography wrote:
does a watermark (generally, or ever) imply that a model is paid?
the reason i ask is that i recently did an unpaid shoot. After the shoot, watermarked photos were provided. One (of several) models objected, stating as basis for the objection the implication to third parties that the photographer paid the models when that was not actually true in the case at hand.
[As an aside, an MUA for the model also made a last minute suggestion prior to the shoot that RAW images be provided for free. I think this ground has already been covered in other discussions and the short answer is no unless it is a paid shoot and there is a sale and/or usage contract.]
I already readily acknowledge that a signed prior agreement is preferred to such post shoot discussions.
I have never heard of this implication before in several years of shooting models. I have an opinion, but I want to doublecheck it with the community. WaterMark has nothing to do with payment or any arrangement the photographer made with the model.....
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Ava Photography wrote:
does a watermark (generally, or ever) imply that a model is paid?
the reason i ask is that i recently did an unpaid shoot. After the shoot, watermarked photos were provided. One (of several) models objected, stating as basis for the objection the implication to third parties that the photographer paid the models when that was not actually true in the case at hand.
[As an aside, an MUA for the model also made a last minute suggestion prior to the shoot that RAW images be provided for free. I think this ground has already been covered in other discussions and the short answer is no unless it is a paid shoot and there is a sale and/or usage contract.]
I already readily acknowledge that a signed prior agreement is preferred to such post shoot discussions.
I have never heard of this implication before in several years of shooting models. I have an opinion, but I want to doublecheck it with the community. She's objecting to what it means, but not how it looks?
She's not being straight forward. She doesn't want watermarked images because they look terrible. She's just trying to rationalize something that doesn't need to be rationalized.
Photographer
S-a-P
Posts: 232
New York, New York, US
I would recommend to:
- Calmly explain your position (copyright, etc.) and your policies
- Tell her that she is welcome to use the watermarked photos online (I assume your watermark does not cover her face or is extreme (like a PROOF or DO NOT COPY thing)
- Tell her that she is welcome to use un-watermarked versions in her physical portfolio book. Tell her that she may purchase these from you and offer to give her a few 8x10 prints for free as a gesture of goodwill.
Beyond that, if she still has an issue, then tell her you have explained your policies and don't waste your time further in arguing so...she can purchase individual commercial licenses per photo, which includes a high res, un-watermarked file per license for $xx per photo / license.
Photographer
KeithD3
Posts: 1493
Saint Joseph, Missouri, US
I watermark ALL electronically delivered images from TF shoots. It has nothing to do with who got paid by who.
If someone requests an image without a watermark for portfolio I will be happy to sell them a print that meets their needs. I will also listen to anyone's needs for an unwatermarked file and base my decision on the information they give me.
No one has a RIGHT to an unwatermarked file except me, unless you paid me for that right.
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Julian W I L D E wrote:
The only thing a watermark means is that the photographer wants people to know WHO did the work and WHO owns copyright. +1
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
I swear, just when I think idiocy can't go any further... Someone will prove you wrong 
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Everyone note: This is a zombie thread. The people you are replying to are no longer participating in the thread.
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ShotbyRon wrote:
I watermark anything that is TF basis. If a model wants an unmarked image, I am willing to provide a couple in most cases. It depends what the image will be used for and what our working relationship is. If a model wants all images returned without the watermark they better really be benefitting my portfolio or paying me for the time I put into it.
In most cases my shoots run about 3 hours. During that 3 hours both myself and the model are working. Once the shoot is over the model goes home, goes out for drinks, meets up with friends etc. Me on the other hand.. I get to go home and stare at a computer screen for another 5+ hours just to produce the images. And I don't like to keep people waiting, so I like to get them done as quickly as I can. The watermark lets people know who owns the copyright and it helps put my name out there. For the time I put into each shoot I think I deserve to advertise myself a little bit. According to many models and some photographers, your added investment in equipment and time mean absolutely nothing.
Also (according to the above) you are working 3 hours and and the model is working 3 hours so everything is equal, therefore the model is getting ripped off because they are not getting a copy of everything shot.
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
studio36uk wrote:
ANY session, paid or not, TF* or not, working for a client or not, benefits the photographer more in terms of law. The legal position is quite clear. What you are questioning [espousing?] is much more of a philosophical issue. And it is something that others, at the Internet model and Internet photographer level, simply do not subscribe to.
On the other hand, moving two or three steps up the fashion / commercial photography food chain things are somewhat different.
Studio36 Could you expand on this?
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Take One Presents wrote:
And I have been the subject of image theft - https://www.modelmayhem.com/3251548 is using an image of mine as his Avatar. I am flattered but he could of stolen a better one. Nice to know you do not mind.
Thanking you in advance.
|
