K I C K H A M wrote:
In general, the releases I am presented and sign for trade shoots are for self promotional uses only.

So far as galleries go, I HAVE stated before that I don't have much experience there. I don't shoot nudes, and generally that takes me out of gallery work with one or two exceptions.

If you have a release signed that allows the work to be use for self-promotional rights only, is it still acceptable to put in a gallery? (Speaking of US laws here, as I know other places it isn't relevant and the photographer has all rights regardless).

I think this depends on whether you have a "release" or a "contract". Assuming a contract, with both sides getting signed copies and proper "value" received, then yes, you would be restricted to what the contract says. For the most part, if the photographer did not sign the release, it is not likely to be an enforceable contract (at least that's what we learned in my various contract law classes). While both parties don't always need to sign a contract, it would likely be required in order to restrict the rights the photographer would otherwise have absent the contract.

However, most photographers are reluctant to sign such a contract.

Absent a release or contract, the photographer still has a wide range of acceptable uses - including art, newspapers and books.

As a model, you have rights, such as right of publicity, right of privacy, etc... These laws are state level (which is why the laws I work under in IL are different than the once you work under in CA). CA and NY have the strongest protections for models. IL has fairly strong protections, but not at the same level as CA and NY.

Without having a lawyer who specializes in contract law and IP law review your document, it is impossible to say whether your release has any real weight.

TrianglePhoto wrote:
Please note: IANAL - I didn't even stay at a holiday inn express...


I think this depends on whether you have a "release" or a "contract". Assuming a contract, with both sides getting signed copies and proper "value" received, then yes, you would be restricted to what the contract says. For the most part, if the photographer did not sign the release, it is not likely to be an enforceable contract (at least that's what we learned in my various contract law classes). While both parties don't always need to sign a contract, it would likely be required in order to restrict the rights the photographer would otherwise have absent the contract.

However, most photographers are reluctant to sign such a contract.

Absent a release or contract, the photographer still has a wide range of acceptable uses - including art, newspapers and books.

As a model, you have rights, such as right of publicity, right of privacy, etc... These laws are state level (which is why the laws I work under in IL are different than the once you work under in CA). CA and NY have the strongest protections for models. IL has fairly strong protections, but not at the same level as CA and NY.

Without having a lawyer who specializes in contract law and IP law review your document, it is impossible to say whether your release has any real weight.

I'd say your notion of "most" photographers is a little skewed. Generally when I do testing, as an agency model, this is the document I'm presented with. I don't bring one on my own, it's what I'm provided with. I've never really had this issue in IL, but I have had the experience in multiple states. It could be, of course, that I've always been in places where it's more "normal."

My personal experience is clearly a little skewed as the average MM model is someone that people are more likely to make money off of with prints, whereas the usual issues if people try to "sell" my photos are for stock, which I've learned today puts them into a completely different category.

TrianglePhoto wrote:
EDIT: Looks like Star beat me to it - Alas, I'm a slow typist.

----------------------------------------

Please note: IANAL - I didn't even stay at a holiday inn express...

Maybe she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.......

K I C K H A M wrote:
My stance is simple. If you do trade with someone *because* you have no guarantee of profit, and then you make a decent profit, give some cut to the model.

What's fair is fair.  If the photographer tries to make money and fails and loses money in the process.  Should the model help mitigate those loses by helping out with some money?

K I C K H A M wrote:
I'd say your notion of "most" photographers is a little skewed. Generally when I do testing, as an agency model, this is the document I'm presented with. I don't bring one on my own, it's what I'm provided with. I've never really had this issue in IL, but I have had the experience in multiple states. It could be, of course, that I've always been in places where it's more "normal."

My personal experience is clearly a little skewed as the average MM model is someone that people are more likely to make money off of with prints, whereas the usual issues if people try to "sell" my photos are for stock, which I've learned today puts them into a completely different category.

I suppose you are right on that - my notion of "most" is likely to be skewed. While I have worked with agency models, it has never been through their agency and set up as a "test" - they were set up directly with the models, usually as a TF.

I use a bog standard ASMP release, only so I don't have to pay a lawyer to review a customized one (not that any of my work here on MM is viable as stock photography).

I don't really think it is an issue of location as much as one of genre...

Christopher Hartman wrote:

What's fair is fair.  If the photographer tries to make money and fails and loses money in the process.  Should the model help mitigate those loses by helping out with some money?

Your expenses, as a model, photographer, are up to you. You choose what to spend, what to invest. But IF you make a lot of money selling photos, yes, the model had a fair amount to do with that.

I'm not trying to tell people what they have to do, I'm telling people my personal thoughts, which I keep to on both sides of the lens, and those of the people I work with.

K I C K H A M wrote:
I'm not trying to tell people what they have to do, I'm telling people my personal thoughts, which I keep to on both sides of the lens, and those of the people I work with.

I think that is a laudable goal!

My question is, as a photographer, how do you keep track of the model months or years from now?

I prefer a clean transaction. We get together, agree to our terms and compensation, create images, then go our own way. I don't want to have to chase down a model in order to pay a $50 cut, just like I'd hate to have to chase a photographer in order to get what is owed to me.

TrianglePhoto wrote:

K I C K H A M wrote:
I'm not trying to tell people what they have to do, I'm telling people my personal thoughts, which I keep to on both sides of the lens, and those of the people I work with.

I think that is a laudable goal!

My question is, as a photographer, how do you keep track of the model months or years from now?

I prefer a clean transaction. We get together, agree to our terms and compensation, create images, then go our own way. I don't want to have to chase down a model in order to pay a $50 cut, just like I'd hate to have to chase a photographer in order to get what is owed to me.

TrianglePhoto wrote:

I think that is a laudable goal!

My question is, as a photographer, how do you keep track of the model months or years from now?

I prefer a clean transaction. We get together, agree to our terms and compensation, create images, then go our own way. I don't want to have to chase down a model in order to pay a $50 cut, just like I'd hate to have to chase a photographer in order to get what is owed to me.

Well, I've said it many times in the forums, though not in THIS thread, my basic business goal-- as a model, photographer and any other endeavor-- is to not be a dick.

Generally, I have all of a model's info. Name, email, phone. I would make my efforts to do what I felt was the right thing. Now, in the case that it's 15 years later, everything is different, and maybe the model doesn't even want to be found, it might not be possible. It would not, however, stop me from trying.

K I C K H A M wrote:

Your expenses, as a model, photographer, are up to you. You choose what to spend, what to invest. But IF you make a lot of money selling photos, yes, the model had a fair amount to do with that.

I'm not trying to tell people what they have to do, I'm telling people my personal thoughts, which I keep to on both sides of the lens, and those of the people I work with.

I know what I would do. And I like to reward those that I feel have helped me along the way.  But I don't think people should feel obligated to behave like me in this instance.