Phoenix Glamour wrote:
Just want to point out that if a photographer successfully sells an image for a significant sum of money, it's mostly due to the seller's efforts that the sale took place in the first place.

Discussions like this are precisely why I'd rather just pay a model and be done with it than do a TFP shoot. I'd rather take the hit when it doesn't sell, than deal with the drama if it does sell.

True, like I said I won't know how I *really* feel about the subject unless I actually sell something, which I haven't. Maybe I will feel like the effort expended entitles me to the whole profit...then again maybe I feel like I didn't use *that* much effort. I've had that happen before, in other fields. Each scenario is different. Maybe she was a really great model, haha.

CamelliaFlower wrote:
True, like I said I won't know how I *really* feel about the subject unless I actually sell something, which I haven't. Maybe I will feel like the effort expended entitles me to the whole profit...then again maybe I feel like I didn't use *that* much effort. I've had that happen before, in other fields. Each scenario is different. Maybe she was a really great model, haha.

I'm also one of the few photographers who doesn't get bent out of shape if a model uses the images we shot on trade commercially either.. She gets what she gets, I get what I get, we respectively do what we want with the images... I don't expect a cut.

Phoenix Glamour wrote:
I'm also one of the few photographers who doesn't get bent out of shape if a model uses the images we shot on trade commercially either.. She gets what she gets, I get what I get, we respectively do what we want with the images... I don't expect a cut.

To be honest I feel like *this* would largely depend on how much I personally like the model...if I considered her a friend I would be more generous and wouldn't mind as long as I received credit.

But if it was a bad experience with the model I would probably be pissed lol. I'm pretty biased that way.

CamelliaFlower wrote:
To be honest I feel like *this* would largely depend on how much I personally like the model...if I considered her a friend I would be more generous and wouldn't mind as long as I received credit.

But if it was a bad experience with the model I would probably be pissed lol. I'm pretty biased that way.

I don't need to "Like" the model. It's a business transaction to me. If I TFP with a model, she gets her images and can do whatever she wants with them regardless how well I like her.. On the flipside, so will I.

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Phoenix Glamour wrote:

I'm also one of the few photographers who doesn't get bent out of shape if a model uses the images we shot on trade commercially either.. She gets what she gets, I get what I get, we respectively do what we want with the images... I don't expect a cut.

Yes.

Too often we read of photographers who proudly announce that they put so many restrictions on what models can do with their photos that they effective stop them doing anything at all.

Phoenix Glamour wrote:
I don't need to "Like" the model. It's a business transaction to me. If I TFP with a model, she gets her images and can do whatever she wants with them regardless how well I like her.. On the flipside, so will I.

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Each to their own. I am interested in building relationships with models and photographers that I enjoy working with, so even though it's a business transaction it's important to me that I like the person at least on a cursory professional basis.

If I work with a difficult model and found it troublesome, I see no reason to give her more rights to the images than the usual usage rights and retain control of my images as the photographer.

If your method works for you, that's great! But I don't think my approach is any more complex or stupid than yours.

CamelliaFlower wrote:
Could you point out to me where I made a statement about litigation and image usage inaccurately? The only thing I said was that it's risky to sell an image in a commercial capacity without first obtaining a model release, and I'd just feel more comfortable obtaining one for the sake of covering my ass if I were the photog, no matter the situation. I didn't state anywhere that any type of sale of an image at all was equivalent to commercial use.

You give a perfect example right there.  What a photographer may legally do with images has nothing to do with your comfort.  Also contrary to your previous statement, there are many ways a photographer (or someone else) may be able to legally use images of you without needing a release from you.  To say a photographer needs a release for any images he/she wishes to make any money from is simply inaccurate.  You should consult actual laws regarding rights of privacy, rights of publicity, fair use, etc. rather than rely on such blanket, and often incorrect rules of thumb like saying any commercial use requires a release.   Models who are not at all familiar with such rights may take statements like the ones you make at face value and as a result go into shoots with inaccurate perceptions about what may or may not be legally one with the resulting images.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
You give a perfect example right there.  What a photographer may legally do with images has nothing to do with your comfort.  Also contrary to your previous statement, there are many ways a photographer (or someone else) may be able to legally use images of you without needing a release from you.  To say a photographer needs a release for any images he/she wishes to make any money from is simply inaccurate.  You should consult actual laws regarding rights of privacy, rights of publicity, fair use, etc. rather than rely on such blanket, and often incorrect rules of thumb like saying any commercial use requires a release.   Models who are not at all familiar with such rights may take statements like the ones you make at face value and as a result go into shoots with inaccurate perceptions about what may or may not be legally one with the resulting images.

Read my post more carefully...I said "I'd just feel more comfortable obtaining one for the sake of covering my ass if I were the photog". As in, if I were the photographer, I would want the model to sign a release. I didn't say anything about my comfort as a model. So your "example" is not really an example at all.

I did not say anywhere that a model release is required to use a photo of a model. That's your assumption.

Again, I NEVER said that a photographer needs a release to make any money from a photo of a model. This is also an assumption you made.

I also didn't say that "any commercial use requires a release", what I said was "it's risky, so I'd feel more comfortable (as a PHOTOGRAPHER, again) if the model signed a release".

So basically all the points you make about my incorrect statements about usage rights is in fact just your misinterpretations or misreadings of what I said.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
Yes.

Too often we read of photographers who proudly announce that they put so many restrictions on what models can do with their photos that they effective stop them doing anything at all.

Hey, if she sells them, she did so because of the legwork she put into it.. If I sell them vice versa. People act as if buyers are just clamoring to buy our images for thousands of dollars. It really isn't that easy.

It's more like..
"Ooooh! "Model" - I just sold a set of your images. Where should I send your nickel" <<----Reality.

Phoenix Glamour wrote:
It's more like..
"Ooooh! "Model" - I just sold a set of your images. Where should I send your nickel" <<----Reality.

LOL. I would say "I'm coming over with my piggy bank!" It's shaped like a French Bulldog.

CamelliaFlower wrote:
If the photographer intends to use the photos he took in a TFP for commercial purposes (i.e. selling them) then he should get the model to sign a release to that effect...

Only if his usage requires a release.  Some uses do not require a release in which case the photographer may see no need to obtain one from the model.  Whether the photographer wishes to obtain a release for situations which don't legally require one just to play it safe, is for him or her to decide, but it is not the "he should get" you claim it is.

CamelliaFlower wrote:
Signing a model release is relevant in this context because if the original agreement between the photographer and model was NOT that one party would be permitted to make money off the images produced, then there is potentially grounds for messy legal battles.

If the agreement makes no mention of commercial or profit making use, then the laws applicable to that jurisdiction rule.  If there is no model release signed, but the photographer uses images in ways that are clearly complaint with the law, then there is no great risk of messy legal battle as you claim.  images are regularly used in certain ways with no model release signed without messy legal battles resulting.  While I typically get a release, there are many photographers here who are very knowledgeable in matters of copyright and release who typically do not obtain a release when their intended use does not require one. (I personally believe photographs should inform models of intended use, but stating such intention is not necessarily as you claim.)

CamelliaFlower wrote:
if there is intention to profit from the model's image without compensating the model then generally this is something that needs to be hashed out and indicated in a model release. Otherwise the model could potentially have legal grounds to claim a portion of your profits.

Again, its what the law says that matters most and your sweeping generalization will not always be consistent with what the law indicates. If the law indicates images may be used without a model release being signed, then it is not something that needs to be hashed out in a model release as you claim.    A model release is needed when image use is in violation of models right of privacy, right of publicity or other law.  It is not needed if the intended use is legal under the law.  Again, some very knowledgeable photographers do not obtain release when their intended use does not require one.


These and other statements you make strongly insinuate that that a model release is required anytime an image is used in a way which may generate revenues.  This simply is not accurate and I believe you do a disservice to models by implying that images of them may not be used for any commercial or profit making means if the model does not sign a release.

As one knowledgeable photographer has simply but accurately said many times:  "a model release is required when the law requires one"

Phoenix Glamour wrote:

Just want to point out that if a photographer successfully sells an image for a significant sum of money, it's mostly due to the seller's efforts that the sale took place in the first place.

Discussions like this are precisely why I'd rather just pay a model and be done with it than do a TFP shoot. I'd rather take the hit when it doesn't sell, than deal with the drama if it does sell.

Not just drama, but keeping tack of different agreements with different models over years? Not going to happen, let alone keep current contact information.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Only if his usage requires a release.  Some uses do not require a release in which case the photographer may see no need to obtain one from the model.  Whether the photographer wishes to obtain a release for situations which don't legally require one just to play it safe, is for him or her to decide, but it is not the "he should get" you claim it is.

The original post of this thread was about "what should the OP's wife get put in the contract", that is why I used the word "should" when I made that statement. Sorry it's confusing, so to clarify, I'm not saying it is LEGALLY REQUIRED, but in my opinion since it's being asked, the model "should" get that put in.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
If the agreement makes no mention of commercial or profit making use, then the laws applicable to that jurisdiction rule.  If there is no model release signed, but the photographer uses images in ways that are clearly complaint with the law, then there is no great risk of messy legal battle as you claim.  images are regularly used in certain ways with no model release signed without messy legal battles resulting.  While I typically get a release, there are many photographers here who are very knowledgeable in matters of copyright and release who typically do not obtain a release when their intended use does not require one. (I personally believe photographs should inform models of intended use, but stating such intention is not necessarily as you claim.)

Again, no disagreement from me, although I think it's obvious that as long as the usage is compliant from the law the photographer is fine. You are assuming the usage IS compliant, and when I say "there could be risk" I'm speaking of if the case is that it is NOT complaint.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Again, its what the law says that matters most and your sweeping generalization will not always be consistent with what the law indicates. If the law indicates images may be used without a model release being signed, then it is not something that needs to be hashed out in a model release as you claim.    A model release is needed when image use is in violation of models right of privacy, right of publicity or other law.  It is not needed if the intended use is legal under the law.  Again, some very knowledgeable photographers do not obtain release when their intended use does not require one.

Same response as above--I'm speaking specifically of instances where a release SHOULD be obtained, sorry I was not more clear about this I was typing from my phone so it's not really easy to review and edit. I made the assumption that it would be obvious that was what I was speaking of (instances outside of those already legal without a release), so that's my mistake.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
These and other statements you make strongly insinuate that that a model release is required anytime an image is used in a way which may generate revenues.  This simply is not accurate and I believe you do a disservice to models by implying that images of them may not be used for any commercial or profit making means if the model does not sign a release.

I've repeated multiple times that this isn't what I'm insinuating, if this is what you interpret from what I wrote then all I can do is clarify my meaning.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
As one knowledgeable photographer has simply but accurately said many times:  "a model release is required when the law requires one"

Obviously. This thread was never about going in-depth about the specific incidences of commercial use that would require a model release, that's why I didn't bother to be specific.

CamelliaFlower wrote:
...I'm speaking specifically of instances where a release SHOULD be obtained, sorry I was not more clear about this I was typing from my phone so it's not really easy to review and edit...

Obviously I'm not being clear.  My point is you are often claiming "a release SHOULD be obtained" in situations when in reality there is no legal reason for one to be obtained and in which it's very common for many photographers to not obtain one.  You are of course entitled to any opinion you wish, but when you say "a release should be obtained" it comes across as more than your personal opinion and again it's inconsistent with law and inconsistent with the way many photographers use releases.  Many photographers don't use releases when they are not required and few are going alter their release based on a single model's wishes.  Amateurs re-writing legal documents is what opens up more law suit potential.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Obviously I'm not being clear.  My point is you are often claiming "a release SHOULD be obtained" in situations when in reality there is no legal reason for one to be obtained and in which it's very common for many photographers to not obtain one.  You are of course entitled to any opinion you wish, but when you say "a release should be obtained" it comes across as more than your personal opinion and again it's inconsistent with law and inconsistent with the way many photographers use releases.  Many photographers don't use releases when they are not required and few are going alter their release based on a single model's wishes.  Amateurs re-writing legal documents is what opens up more law suit potential.

Obviously you're not understanding me.

I did not say "A release SHOULD be obtained [in instances where there is no legal reason]". This isn't my misphrasing, you've plainly misread what I wrote and made assumptions off your own miscomprehension of part of my sentence which you took out of context.

In the exact quote you copied of mine, I said "I'm speaking specifically of instances where a release SHOULD be obtained". As in, instances where a release SHOULD be obtained [because it's required by law]. The full sentence has a different meaning than the part you're focusing on out of context in order to make your argument.

"A release should be obtained", which is your basis for saying I'm being misleading and wrong about my opinion, is NOT the same meaning as "I'm speaking specifically of instances where a release should be obtained".  One is saying a release should be signed no matter what, the other is saying a release should be signed when the situation should have a release.

You are arguing with me over semantics because you think you know what I mean and are applying your own assumptions to what I'm saying, when what I said that has the exact same meaning as YOUR quote "a model release is required when the law requires one". My statement in this instance had nothing to do with my opinion.

MeehanPhotography wrote:
So I myself an a photographer and I started using my wife as a model. She made a profile on here and has done some shoots. Mostly tfp. My question is this? What compensation should she have put in the contract if the photographer sells the photos from a tfp for monetary gain? Any? Credit? Etc.

Wow this is really an interesting and complex question. The real question always comes back to copyright ownership. In most cases the photographer by virtue of creating the image owns the copyright. When an image is "sold" actually the photographer allows the magazine or publication to use the image and transfers some or all rights to the party who will use the image. That being said should she have asked for deferred compensation based on potential future sales? Yes of course if she wanted to, however by asking for monetary compensation (even deferred) means it is no longer a tfp shoot. It is a complex issue, myself I simply ask that the model not sell the images I send them. 
As a photographer it is an issue you may confront someday, my best advice is ensure you use a model release on every shoot involving models and avoid working with minors ( I know there are tons of people here who will strongly disagree).
As for asking for some form of compensation for your wife yes of course you can ask what to ask for is something she will have to work out.

MeehanPhotography wrote:
So I myself an a photographer and I started using my wife as a model. She made a profile on here and has done some shoots. Mostly tfp. My question is this? What compensation should she have put in the contract if the photographer sells the photos from a tfp for monetary gain? Any? Credit? Etc.

As a photographer yourself , what would you agree to when a model starts demanding conditions ?
( especially on a TF shoot )

Personally , I think that trade shoots are more of an EQUAL share deal ...
AND that most releases are worded specifically that no commercial profits can be made by both parties...

That being said , every release should be read and understood
any questions should be discussed and addressed BEFORE signing

IF the photographer is selling the photos , I think that some other form / contract needs to be used instead of a Trade For release

CamelliaFlower wrote:

You're missing the point entirely. Regardless of what opinion YOU have about your work, if there is intention to profit from the model's image without compensating the model then generally this is something that needs to be hashed out and indicated in a model release. Otherwise the model could potentially have legal grounds to claim a portion of your profits. You can cry all you like that your images are compensation enough and that they aren't entitled to any additional profit you might make from them, but the legal system may not see it that way.

And since we're on the subject, you say it shouldn't be assumed the model finds the images useless enough to "deserve" a portion of the profit. Why the assumption that the *photographer* is the one that will find the images so worthless that they would need to "recoup investment"? What if the images ARE useful to both parties' portfolios and there is no "loss" on the photographer's end? Would the model "deserve" a portion of the earnings from the sales then?

You're wrong.  Legally photographer owns copyright and can do whatever he wants w/o compensating the model unless stated otherwise in release / contract.

Joe Bieker wrote:
You're wrong.  Legally photographer owns copyright and can do whatever he wants w/o compensating the model unless stated otherwise in release / contract.

I'm not wrong. You jumped to conclusions. I'm not discussing the LEGALITY of not compensating a model, obviously it is not illegal otherwise TFP shoots would be illegal.

My response was part of an ongoing discussion over "value" obtained in a TFP shoot and who deserved what. As I've said in the rest of the conversation, of which you've only read a part of, it's more of a hypothetical discussion of ethics, not of legal rights.

Also a correction on your assertion--just because the photographer automatically owns the copyrights to an image, doesn't mean he can do WHATEVER he wants with the images. Certain usages will require the model's consent, and if you don't abide by THOSE laws where the situation requires a model release, THEN the model could potentially get something out of you via a lawsuit.