Lachlan K wrote:
I want to know the same. Personally I dont like the idea of 'double dipping' unless its agreed upon first.
I'm still VERY new to the subject but i think it should be either:

1. The photographer being paid by the model for exclusive Patreon content
2. The model being paid by the photographer for exclusive Patreon content
3. TFP agreement where neither party can profit off of the content (ability to upload anywhere but patreon, including uploading to any free tier)

my question is, how do you breach the subject or put it into the release?

You specify what the use can be in either/both the usage license for the model and the model release for the photographer.  If you use a full rights release, and you are the person putting it Patreon, I doubt (just to leave myself legal wiggle room) there is anything else to be put on the release.  If it is a limited release, it goes on the list of acceptable uses.  On the license, it goes in the list of acceptable uses.

You mention your concerns about Patreon early in the conversation with the model or client.  I am sure that when you are doing a photoshoot for a client, you make it clear that they cannot reproduce, sell, or license the output.  This is no different, unless you make it different.

I think there are many other options to consider in your agreement with the model.
-She poses TF and her usage includes Patreon and she keeps the income; or she splits the income with you.  And/or you do what you like with them with a full release. 

It isn't double dipping, it is finding the business relationship which works best for both of you.

I don't consider Patreon to be self promotion.  But there is room for argument on that topic.  I believe it is a commercial use, the same as selling prints at a local coffee shop.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
You specify what the use can be in either/both the usage license for the model and the model release for the photographer.  If you use a full rights release, and you are the person putting it Patreon, I doubt (just to leave myself legal wiggle room) there is anything else to be put on the release.  If it is a limited release, it goes on the list of acceptable uses.  On the license, it goes in the list of acceptable uses.

You mention your concerns about Patreon early in the conversation with the model or client.  I am sure that when you are doing a photoshoot for a client, you make it clear that they cannot reproduce, sell, or license the output.  This is no different, unless you make it different.

I think there are many other options to consider in your agreement with the model.
-She poses TF and her usage includes Patreon and she keeps the income; or she splits the income with you.  And/or you do what you like with them with a full release. 

It isn't double dipping, it is finding the business relationship which works best for both of you.

I don't consider Patreon to be self promotion.  But there is room for argument on that topic.  I believe it is a commercial use, the same as selling prints at a local coffee shop.

Lets assume I don't MIND Patreon use by the model and like the potential self promotional aspects, the model's most fervent followers may want to see more from the photographer.

But I feel like our usage agreements need to adjust to this reality.

(and note, Patreon is just one of many sites and services like it. Creatives even have people paying for access to their snapchat, where photoshoot content is posted for viewing 10 seconds at a time.)

there is no practical way to split income, and it is time consuming and counterproductive to negotiate any kind of TF with models shooting nude, and ultimately you're just splitting hairs over a low 3-figure deal. Nothing to brag about in San Francisco.

so if there was a way to streamline this that would be great. maybe the sites themselves could allow for tagging who revenue could be split with, and therefore anybody reputable will enable it

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Lets assume I don't MIND Patreon use by the model and like the potential self promotional aspects, the model's most fervent followers may want to see more from the photographer.

But I feel like our usage agreements need to adjust to this reality.

(and note, Patreon is just one of many sites and services like it. Creatives even have people paying for access to their snapchat, where photoshoot content is posted for viewing 10 seconds at a time.)

there is no practical way to split income, and it is time consuming and counterproductive to negotiate any kind of TF with models shooting nude, and ultimately you're just splitting hairs over a low 3-figure deal. Nothing to brag about in San Francisco.

so if there was a way to streamline this that would be great. maybe the sites themselves could allow for tagging who revenue could be split with, and therefore anybody reputable will enable it

-
If you don't mind, and/or you see it as homage and exposure, than I don't see any issue.  You are in the same position as a model is for a TF shoot- getting exposure.  The model would be wise to get it in writing, anyway.  But, let's say you don't mind and someone finds your shot on Patreon, and uses it in a national ad campaign and the licensed user has a general license that could be interpreted to permit such a use.  It might become an issue if the constraints for use are not defined in writing.  So, I would agree, your user license needs to address sites which generate income (as opposed to specifying Patreon) in which said income is created by the images covered by the agreement, but does not cover the rate for additional modeling jobs that may have been a result of the promotional value of the photos (set).

I agree, there is no practical way to split income on a business venture where the money isn't coming to one place with good book keeping.  It would also require honesty.  The best way to streamline is to avoid entanglements and misunderstandings.  Which is why the sites providing the platform are unlikely to get involved.  It seems like the best way is to get whatever (both sides) you want from a deal is to realize it at the time that the creative work is executed.  And then be done with each other.

I see Patreon, or sites like them, as a seismic shift in the level of the playing field.  From my readings on MM, it seems TF generally benefits the photographer.  He gets a release (or tries to) and as many rights to do with the photographs as he can, and the model gets images to use in advertisements to attract other photographers that don't want to pay the model either.  Perhaps she will attract art directors or advertisers as well, but MM promotion seems to be directed towards photographers.  Patreon type sites allow models to derive income from even crappy work.  Perhaps more than the photographer is capable of generating on any given TF shoot.  Consequently, it would be reasonable to expect that photographers will want to develop a method of sharing in potential lucrative income streams generated by models.  Unless there is a mechanism in place that tracks the income from a particular image or groups of images, how would anyone know how the income should be shared?  I know very little about the ins and outs of radio, but I do know that songwriters get paid royalties for when their songs play on the radio.  There must be someway that stations track this so the proper people get paid.  I would not think it is insurmountable to be able to do something on pattern, other than the fact that their is nothing in it for Patreon to do.

If a photographer gets a deal for ten percent (or any other figure) of the gross income derived from a photoset, and the license holder is only getting three figures, it may not be worth the hassle.  But if the photographer is providing multiple photo sets to dozens of models, we could be talking about monies that are worth the hassle.  I suspect it will be a business niche that someone will try to exploit.  A platform provider may see the advantage in creating a documentation technique for a little percentage as well.  That would add up.

Lachlan K wrote:
I want to know the same. Personally I dont like the idea of 'double dipping' unless its agreed upon first.
I'm still VERY new to the subject but i think it should be either:

1. The photographer being paid by the model for exclusive Patreon content
2. The model being paid by the photographer for exclusive Patreon content
3. TFP agreement where neither party can profit off of the content (ability to upload anywhere but patreon, including uploading to any free tier)

my question is, how do you breach the subject or put it into the release?

I think there are more ways to potentially slice it. For example, assuming both parties have Patreon...

a. Trade shoot where each party receives an exclusive set for Patreon.
b. Trade shoot where both parties agree to use of specific images (exclusive or non-exclusive) for Patreon.

I'm sure there are many other ways of doing it too and that's why the best option would be to discuss it prior to each shoot and insert the relevant clause into your model release and commercial license.