Dorola wrote:
Hold back on signing any release or agreement. Tell him without proper payment he has no right to utilize the image or even maintain them in any format (deleted them). If the photographer is not offering proper payment, then his rights for the images are null and void. He would loose in court.

Is that australian law?

MoRina wrote:
Get a Paypal account or something similar and have them complete the transaction right in front of you from their phone.  They can pay on Paypal using a credit card (Paypal takes a small fee).  Then get a signed invoice in case they charge it back.... because the integrity of anyone who plays the "I'm short on cash" game is suspect.

This.

A lot of photographers will balk at the request for pay up-front, but you can try it (just be prepared for a fuckton of blowback )

You can also try a non-confrontational "So just to confirm before we get started, we're shooting XYZ content, from now until 00:00 o'clock in exchange for ABC dollars?" when you arrive to a shoot. Let them know you're just making sure you're both on the same page, you got all the details correct, whatever sounds friendly but still shows them that you intend to do and get exactly what was agreed upon, no more no less. It wont stop someone who intended to shortchange you all along, but it might dissuade someone who thinks they might be able to pull one over on you at the last minute.

Dorola wrote:
Hold back on signing any release or agreement. Tell him without proper payment he has no right to utilize the image or even maintain them in any format (deleted them). If the photographer is not offering proper payment, then his rights for the images are null and void. He would loose in court.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Is that australian law?

No, it is not Australian Law.

In Australia, the copyright for the work the OP has performed vests automatically with the photographer.

I don't sign release forms but you may upload anything you like onto MM.
Use portraits, fashion & bikini shots anywhere.

How does that work in a case like this?

Mark Salo wrote:
From your profile:

"I don't sign release forms but you may upload anything you like onto MM.
Use portraits, fashion & bikini shots anywhere."

How does that work in a case like this?

Good question. Without a release, I can't use the images for much at all. Why would I pay for that (I'm sure lots of ppl are doing portfolio work that could be ok though)?

In my mind, I'm paying for modelling and a release to use my photography. Not signing a release, for me personally, is a deal-breaker. This model looks great, but I would have to pass based on that.

Rob Photosby wrote:
In Australia, the copyright for the work the OP has performed vests automatically with the photographer.

In the USA it is not a question of copyright, it's a issue of the model release allowing the photographer to use the image as the model has released their privacy rights. Copyright here means no one else can publish or profit from the image without permission (license) of the copyright holder.

Rob Photosby wrote:

Dorola wrote:
Hold back on signing any release or agreement. Tell him without proper payment he has no right to utilize the image or even maintain them in any format (deleted them). If the photographer is not offering proper payment, then his rights for the images are null and void. He would loose in court.

What you have to look at is the contract which was in place at the time. In Common Law, both side of the contract must be fulfilled. That mean the service must be adequately provided and payment made in the agreed amount and tender (you can't substitute chickens and eggs of equal value). If either one of these is not satisfied then the contract is null and void. In this case it means that the photographer has not compensated the model and therefore forfeits his right to use her likeness. Therefore, the claim by the photographer of copyright is invalid (and can be considered thieft). Legally, he has no right to use the images. Should the photographer post or publish them, the model can sue the photographer for more than the $75. In most British based legal systems the Common Law is based on fair practices. Quebec and France call their system Civil Law, but for the most part are similar. Imagine you go to buy a water heater for your house and you are $75 short. What do you think is going to happen? The situation with the model is no different. If you go to a shopping mall and start shooting photos inside, you as the photographer, legally don't own the copyright and can not commercially use the photos. You are on private property and have no rights. If the property manager gives you permission you are good to go. The property manager can ask you the usage of the images and charge you a fee for you to have the RIGHT to photograph on their property. I've gone through this scenario myself. Although I am not a lawyer, I do work for one and I have been councilled critically, what is legal for the imagery we use in court.

I got deeply involved in the copyright issue last year. I did a shoot with a model last year and it was not going well. There was something going on in her head, that she did feel the spirit, to do the shoot as she suggested. With a concern for her safety, I killed the shoot and gave her full fee. After, I sent her samples of a couple photos where she appeared to have herself together (these were not even nudes). She demanded all the photos including the raws, so she could do what she wanted with them. She threatened legal action (which I told her to go ahead with). Because I paid her full rate, she had no claim against me. I decided that I would not use the photos as I did not want anyone to think that I endorsed her. Out of almost 600 model shoots in the past few years, this is the only issue I have had, so I am pretty happy with models.  The overriding point here is PAY YOUR MODELS IN FULL.

As photographers, we need to smarten up and respect other stakeholders in the visual imaging process. It is very tiring for everyone else to hear photographers talking about copyright like it was Devine Right. Look at Google Maps. They have to blur out every face on people and licence plates on cars. It is illegal to take a photo for commercial use of the Effile Tower at night with the lights on. In Romainia, you can not take street photos, with people, unless you have the permission of every person. In most countries, there is a level of expectation of privacy, even in public. Commercial shots where other people are identifiable, need to have permission and/or compensation. The days of photographers taking any kind of photos they want and claiming copyright to do whatever are gone. If you don't respect all the stakeholder you will spend your time in court and loose.

Dorola wrote:
The days of photographers taking any kind of photos they want and claiming copyright to do whatever are gone. If you don't respect all the stakeholder you will spend your time in court and loose.

I will not attempt to speak to Canadian law, but your conflating of copyright and usage does not hold water with anything I have ever read. Here is the definition of copyright: "the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
"he issued a writ for breach of copyright"

Now, whether or not the copyright holder can in actuality make full and unrestricted *use* of their creation is governed by other additional laws and regulations, as per this example from California .http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/practitioner-s-guide-to-california-right-of-publicity-law.html

Copyright is a principle of ownership and exclusivity, and failure to pay a model does not void the copyright or transfer it to another entity (such as the model). The copyright holder can still enforce action against anyone ELSE who would "print, publish, perform", etc. Copyright *by itself* does not establish permission to do anything at any time with a person's likeness.

BTW, at least in the US, whether you paid your model or not, she would have had no claim to demand your raw files. What she could do would be to prevent you from using the images in certain ways, but she could not usurp your other rights as the copyright holder.

Eye of the World wrote:
I will not attempt to speak to Canadian law, but your conflating of copyright and usage does not hold water with anything I have ever read. Here is the definition of copyright: "the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
"he issued a writ for breach of copyright"

Now, whether or not the copyright holder can in actuality make full and unrestricted *use* of their creation is governed by other additional laws and regulations, as per this example from California .http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/practitioner-s-guide-to-california-right-of-publicity-law.html

Copyright is a principle of ownership and exclusivity, and failure to pay a model does not void the copyright or transfer it to another entity (such as the model). The copyright holder can still enforce action against anyone ELSE who would "print, publish, perform", etc. Copyright *by itself* does not establish permission to do anything at any time with a person's likeness.

BTW, at least in the US, whether you paid your model or not, she would have had no claim to demand your raw files. What she could do would be to prevent you from using the images in certain ways, but she could not usurp your other rights as the copyright holder.

Contract law over rides copyright law. If you have not paid for the service, you are in breach of the contract and have no rights. Try stiffing someone and see how you do in court. As for shooting on private property, that property is the copyright of the property owner. Unless you aquire the permission of the property owner, you took the photo illegally and have no copyright. Rather that dispute with me, go and do either of these things if you feel certain and report back how much it cost you. You have to respect that the model has the copyright for her likeness, just like the property owner does for their property. It is worce in other countries. A few years back, I was in the Sinai Desert and an Egyptian intelegence agent put a loaded machine gun in my face and took my camera away. Extreme, we can say, but obviously, he had no respect for my copyright.

Vector One Photography wrote:
In the USA it is not a question of copyright, it's a issue of the model release allowing the photographer to use the image as the model has released their privacy rights. Copyright here means no one else can publish or profit from the image without permission (license) of the copyright holder.

In Australia, there is no general right of privacy as you seem to have in the US, and the OP is in Australia, so the question of usage comes down to who owns the copyright.

DespayreFX wrote:

Good question. Without a release, I can't use the images for much at all. Why would I pay for that (I'm sure lots of ppl are doing portfolio work that could be ok though)?

In my mind, I'm paying for modelling and a release to use my photography. Not signing a release, for me personally, is a deal-breaker. This model looks great, but I would have to pass based on that.

But in this case the model has stated up front that she will sign no release.  If that's the deal the photographer accepted, then that's the deal; he has no right to complain if she doesn't sign a release.  Another example of why it's critically important to make sure all terms of the deal are [b} explicitly [/b] agreed to in writing before the shoot begins.

As to portfolio work, I normally get a release or at minimum a usage agreement spelling out what uses (if any) may be made of the resulting photographs by either party.

All IMHO as always, of course.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
There's a new way ahead.

https://talentfind.wordpress.com/

That's not a new way. It's a site of a few blog posts. Send the photographer an invoice and ask him when is he going to pay it. Tell him you'll wait a while but will have to charge interest. Beyond that, anything else adds up to a waste of your time.

I have had clients owe me money for photography but they have always paid. Some clients pay in advance. One mm retouching client did the cheque is in the mail over and over., but that's about it.

In arranging payment there are polite ways to get what you want when you do the job. "I am looking forward to this--I can take credit cards on my phone when I arrive, cash as they say is king. If they reply "cash": "Good, a lot of photographers have it in an envelope for me when I arrive."

Building the fulfillment of your expectations in another's mind is art that is hard for some to master. Good luck. I have yet to look at your photos. 5 feet 11 does make me curious.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
Simply put I don't sign release forms because I don't want nude photos of me showing my identity spread around the internet or social media.

HOWEVER, using anything on a MM portfolio is automatically acceptable.

AND anonymous nude images may be used ANYWHERE if there is no shot of my face next to the nudes from the same shoot. People can tell who a girl is that way.

If the photographer understands this, she/he will have no problem with a limited release that spells this out. I would prefer to have this spelled out in writing.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
I prefer to permit specific usage of specific images and reserve approval for further distribution. No blanket releases.
...
I maintain contact with all my photographers and they seek permission for further use of my image.  It's actually good form to maintain a relationship with models like Jock Sturges does and is an example of the new respect we are all developing toward women in the media and workplace.

I would not pay for a photo shoot with this restriction.
YMMV

Miss 5 11 wrote:
In today's climate of rapid dispersion of nude images, the model has to retain the right to have images taken down and the absence of a release is the only basis of control she has. That and proof of age as child pornography charges are severe sometimes we can look underage in some photos.

I maintain contact with all my photographers and they seek permission for further use of my image.  It's actually good form to maintain a relationship with models like Jock Sturges does and is an example of the new respect we are all developing toward women in the media and workplace.

This sounds like the kind of agreement that a "You get to see me naked" model would have with a "Guy with a camera" photographer.  I personally won't do a TF or paying shoot without a full model release.  If someone is paying me, then it's whatever you want.   Most serious photographers are doing shoots to add to their body of work and really don't want to worry about hearing from a model years later who just got religion or is marrying a guy who wants to erase their modeling career and wants all their photos deleted. 

Also, you can't imagine that the photos that you have posted on your MM profile can't end up all over the internet.  MM has tens of thousands of active members and a few of them are not going to respect privacy or copyrights.  It's not that difficult to snatch a photo off of MM and post it someplace else.  For example, years ago, I posted a nude male/female photo on my MM portfolio.  I took it down after a few weeks (too many male models were messaging me asking to be set up with a similar shoot).  MM is the only place that I posted it, but I've seen that photo on a bunch of different sites.  It's been reblogged on Tumblr thousands of times. 

And Jock Sturges, seriously?

Miss 5 11 wrote:
...I prefer to permit specific usage of specific images and reserve approval for further distribution. No blanket releases.

... the model has to retain the right to have images taken down and the absence of a release is the only basis of control she has...

I maintain contact with all my photographers and they seek permission for further use of my image....

I cannot imagine agreeing to terms which effectively give you permanent and unlimited censorship and other authority over the photos. Your terms are also not realistic in light of fact that shooter has no control once images are propagated by any method including piracy.

MN Photography wrote:
This sounds like the kind of agreement that a "You get to see me naked" model would have with a "Guy with a camera" photographer.  I personally won't do a TF or paying shoot without a full model release.  If someone is paying me, then it's whatever you want.   Most serious photographers are doing shoots to add to their body of work and really don't want to worry about hearing from a model years later who just got religion or is marrying a guy who wants to erase their modeling career and wants all their photos deleted. 

Also, you can't imagine that the photos that you have posted on your MM profile can't end up all over the internet.  MM has tens of thousands of active members and a few of them are not going to respect privacy or copyrights.  It's not that difficult to snatch a photo off of MM and post it someplace else.  For example, years ago, I posted a nude male/female photo on my MM portfolio.  I took it down after a few weeks (too many male models were messaging me asking to be set up with a similar shoot).  MM is the only place that I posted it, but I've seen that photo on a bunch of different sites.  It's been reblogged on Tumblr thousands of times. 

And Jock Sturges, seriously?

I tend to agree with this- the images, once posted on the internet, are probably beyond anyone's reasonable control, regardless of the intentions and motivations of the model or photographer. Images can simply be reposted all over the place by anyone once on the internet. Whenever I do a shoot I always have this in the forefront of my mind, that once it's out there, it's out there, and it's beyond anyone's reasonable control. I don't shoot content that I am not comfortable resurfacing in the future for the very reasons that the OP is concerned with. It's much easier than regrets down the road or trying to control what I cannot.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
Simply put I don't sign release forms because I don't want nude photos of me showing my identity spread around the internet or social media.

HOWEVER, using anything on a MM portfolio is automatically acceptable.

AND anonymous nude images may be used ANYWHERE if there is no shot of my face next to the nudes from the same shoot. People can tell who a girl is that way.

I prefer to permit specific usage of specific images and reserve approval for further distribution. No blanket releases.

I maintain contact with all my photographers and they seek permission for further use of my image.

Are photographers there that hard-up to agree to this nonsense?  So, they pay you to model, but, you get to say where/what they can post their images they paid for?  What a bunch of suckers.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
We don't belong to you because you pay us.

But the images do, or should.  I, like others, would balk at this limited release type of agreement if I were paying a Model for their services.

If You don't want the content out there don't shoot it.  It's really quite simple.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
Hey look girls, the men are all upset. It can't be easy for them losing grip on all that power they've had for so long. Things are changing boys. Update your Weinstein manners. We don't belong to you because you pay us.

What the hell does Weinstein and child pornography have to do with any of this?

At any rate, I see you just updated your profile to no nudes and hid your nude albums.  Maybe that's for the best.

Black Z Eddie wrote:
What the hell does Weinstein and child pornography have to do with any of this?

At any rate, I see you just updated your profile to no nudes and hid your nude albums.  Maybe that's for the best.

Quoted for truth.

So much WTF here. The 'togs here are like scumbag Weinstein because unlike GWC we want to actually display our work and not just shoot nude girls? No "real photographer" would agree to those crazy terms of not being able to use the pictures you were hired for. It has NOTHING to do with models belonging to photographers (nobody even thought that, you said it!) it has to due with that fact that is LITERALLY your job. Pose for pictures.

That's like going through the drive-thru window of a fast food place and then being told "Wait! You can't take the food off the premises. Go park and eat it inside. Also we can take it back at any moment!"

Miss 5 11 wrote:
Hey look girls, the men are all upset. It can't be easy for them losing grip on all that power they've had for so long. Things are changing boys. Update your Weinstein manners. We don't belong to you because you pay us.

You can make this about gender if you wish but fact is no professional female photographer would accept these terms either.
I know my former female photography teacher would laugh her head off at your postings

Miss 5 11 wrote:
He was $75 short when it came time to pay my fee.

I couldn't take my modelling back, could I?

What to do?

Situations like this really sucks.  You should be paid at the rate that you had set forward and he agreed too, plain and simple.  What sucks is like you said, can't take your modeling back.  What to do though?  Do you make him delete the images?  Can you force him too?  No, I wouldn't recommend doing that yourself, never start something physical.  Is it worth your time to take him to court?  I don't know, is it worth incurring the court costs and time to do so?  That's something you have to answer.  Well, I'm sorry if I didn't clear anything up, but at least you know that somebody understands the predicament you're in.  Good luck.

Black Z Eddie wrote:
At any rate, I see you just updated your profile to no nudes and hid your nude albums.  Maybe that's for the best.

No soup for you