Rik Williams wrote:
I think the OP is a little nieve about the reality of posting things on the internet, once online it never goes away and if someone wants a copy of something it is all too easy to rip shit off.
If the OP thinks this is the only arena in which her images are on display, think again. I can't tell you how many reverse image searches turn up stolen shots in the least expected places.
Tumblr is renowned for reposting images, along with many other similar sites. I have personally found businesses misappropriating some of my own work from this site ....with watermarks intact.
People are unscrupulous and couldn't care less about your privacy, once online, anything is fair game.

Regarding the photographer, if he agreed to your terms and rates he should honour the agreement. Perhaps the OP should give him a deadline with a threat of outing on social media.
This may just be enough encouragement for him or her to pay up.

And to whichever dill above thinks we're hard up, put down whatever it is you're smoking bro!

Don't encourage anyone to out people on social media.  That is something that is rapidly getting out of hand.  Most of us are familiar with this train wreck:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru … edirect=on

We don't know what was said in private conversations and what misunderstandings there might be.  I once did a shoot with a model who clearly agreed in writing to a 3 hour shoot for $100 per hour.  After two hours into the shoot, she starts fighting with her escort/boyfriend.  Yelling, screaming, turning over furniture.  She kicks him out and then they start fighting over the phone.  The last hour of the shoot was totally ruined.  She doesn't want to stay to make up the time and she also wants to be paid the full 300.  She argued that she was getting paid for the shoot and we did a shoot.  I didn't want to argue with her, so I paid her.  If I stuck to it, and paid her 200, she almost certainly would have trashed me on social media as someone who scams models.

Rik Williams wrote:
And to whichever dill above thinks we're hard up, put down whatever it is you're smoking bro!

You need to learn how to read and comprehend the entire sentence, mate!  Here, let me reiterate for you with emphasis, "Are photographers there that hard-up to agree to this nonsense?"

Black Z Eddie wrote:
You need to learn how to read and comprehend the entire sentence, mate!  Here, let me reiterate for you with emphasis, "Are photographers there that hard-up to agree to this nonsense?"

Sounds like an absurd thing to say/ask about an entire nation of photographers, wouldn't you agree mate!
Another absurd statement/question would be something like, "are all of you over there so arrogant as to speak such dribble".

Anyhoo, I'm sure the OP will sort it out ...or not

MN Photography wrote:
Don't encourage anyone to out people on social media.  That is something that is rapidly getting out of hand.  Most of us are familiar with this train wreck:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru … edirect=on

We don't know what was said in private conversations and what misunderstandings there might be.  I once did a shoot with a model who clearly agreed in writing to a 3 hour shoot for $100 per hour.  After two hours into the shoot, she starts fighting with her escort/boyfriend.  Yelling, screaming, turning over furniture.  She kicks him out and then they start fighting over the phone.  The last hour of the shoot was totally ruined.  She doesn't want to stay to make up the time and she also wants to be paid the full 300.  She argued that she was getting paid for the shoot and we did a shoot.  I didn't want to argue with her, so I paid her.  If I stuck to it, and paid her 200, she almost certainly would have trashed me on social media as someone who scams models.

Sounds like a bit of a nightmare experience for you and not much you could have done to avoid it.
And you're right, we have only heard one side of the OP's story.
I can definitely relate to your encounter, once on a shoot a model turned up somewhat larger than the stats she'd text me earlier that month. I trusted her on her measurements as we had worked together in the past and she was relatively well known within the Melbourne industry.
Anyway none of the outfits bar one extremely stretchy number would fit her. We managed to get a couple of shots at the most and I paid her for the time (2hrs) she was there. However, she was not happy about receiving the hourly rate as opposed to the anticipated shoot time allowed for the complete wardrobe.
Unbeknown to me at the time, she was just about to take up a managing role at a talent agency in my hometown and it's only now, years later that I'm getting wind of the nasty things she had to say about me. 
I guess it takes all types to make up this rich tapestry we call life and you can't please em all

Patrick Conlon wrote:
Take one of his lens he gets it back when you get paid

Or if you want, I know a guy. Eh, you want I should talk to him, or sumthin' like dat?

MN Photography wrote:
We don't know what was said in private conversations and what misunderstandings there might be.  I once did a shoot with a model who clearly agreed in writing to a 3 hour shoot for $100 per hour.  After two hours into the shoot, she starts fighting with her escort/boyfriend.  Yelling, screaming, turning over furniture.  She kicks him out and then they start fighting over the phone.  The last hour of the shoot was totally ruined.  She doesn't want to stay to make up the time and she also wants to be paid the full 300.  She argued that she was getting paid for the shoot and we did a shoot.  I didn't want to argue with her, so I paid her.  If I stuck to it, and paid her 200, she almost certainly would have trashed me on social media as someone who scams models.

Given some of the OP's followups in this thread, I'm almost certain there's more to the story.

John Jebbia  wrote:
Only on "Model" Mayhem can you find "Models" who don't want their images shown.

I don't think that it's limited to MM. I've seen a lot of offers of various types of "private modeling" over the years. It just gets a certain framing, visibility and promotion here.

John Jebbia  wrote:
However, Model Mayhem needs more threads like this in order to save it.

Yes,  but they seem to have gone the way of much of the rest of the entertaining content.

Dorola wrote:
Contract law over rides copyright law.

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.

In the US the photographer owns the copyright from the instant of exposure and a contract will have zero effect on this unless it is a"work for hire" in writing and complying with other (state) laws and judicial rulings.

With few exceptions property does not have "copyright " protection. Architecture does and even there photographing buildings is covered by a specific exception. Use of photos of property however can be protected under right of publicity laws and may require a "property release"

Back to the original topic. The model has little recourse other than withholding the right to use the photos and the reputation of the photographer. The model community is a small one and good models all seem to know one and other ( same for photographers) and if word is spread the the photographer did not pay in full the word gets around and will have a hard time finding models to work with. Of course there is also legal remedies such as small claims court but is the amount sufficient enough to pursue and does she have documentation  and do other countries have an equivalent to small claims courts?

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?

Maybe he got confused and thought he was buying a USED CAR and not modeling services.
Did you tell him you ae a model and NOT a used car???
My employer has NEVER shorted me on my paycheck, I wonder if his ever has??
Maybe it was an honest mistake, you should have asked for collateral. Maybe one of his lenses until he could pay you, with maybe a 10 day limit then the lens was yours!!!
Sorry for you there are such scumbags out there! Good luck
John

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?

What are your options?  Take $75 less or take nothing.  Hmmmm, hard choice.  I know, it's not what you had asked for and all, but take it, as a loss, and just don't work with them again because they were short.  Do you require something up front in the future?  Sure, if you're in the former Soviet Union and you want to play Stalin.  Otherwise, this is part of the risk we take in this industry, we all get shorted once in awhile.  I wonder, how many times did you get a little bit extra for your work?  Probably a few times, so it works out.  I wouldn't worry too much about this.

SilkDesires wrote:
I had a model once try and "stipulate" the terms of where, how and when I could use any potential photographs I'd have shot.  I declined her offer of service.

I decline to work with photographers UNLESS they DO agree to specific usage. Private collection must be on a different pay scale to national billboard advertising and erotic work different to fashion in fee structure and agreed usage. There is no blanket release anymore. Copyright is different. If your work is copied then you can go after the culprit but usage is a whole different agreement between model and photographer and depends on what is paid for and agreed to.

Kym Anthony wrote:
Regarding releases. I read something useful on another forum thread about this subject which I found useful.

It was a contribution from a pro photographer and he wrote the following:

I can't believe how many photographers make blustery statements like 'I don't pick up a camera until…' Ugh. There are probably more situations where a model release isn't appropriate than it is. 

If you ever shoot a celebrity, you will never get a model release. 

Portrait shoots, most of the time, do not require a model release unless there is an anticipated usage. 

Agency models have it drilled into them NOT to sign a release and only sign the voucher. Virtually never sign an all-rights/stock release which so many photographers here shove in front of freelance models. 

Many photographers, including some in this thread, are in for a rude awakening as the model community becomes more informed about blanket releases or conditional releases. 

It is my practice is to get a model release for the anticipated usage. If I am shooting a stock submission, I get a stock release. If I am working with agency models, I get a release that is suited to the project I am working on since the models are only getting paid for the agreed usage. For editorial, depending on the project, I will either get an editorial release or no release at all. Again, in the agency world, models get paid different fees for different types of usage, just like many photographers do.

This is closer to the truth