Dekilah wrote:
My take is that for SOME of us, the terms mean basically the same thing. I'm used to developing a concept with a photographer, providing most/all of the wardrobe, doing my own makeup, etc in addition to "just posing". I also think it's a term that makes more sense to those who might be newer and not familiar be familiar with TF/trade.

As always, I think the important thing is to discuss expectations before the shoot no matter what term is used.

one question


why aren't you close by???

Dekilah wrote:
As always, I think the important thing is to discuss expectations before the shoot no matter what term is used.

In my limited opinion, this is always the answer. Always.
Terms can be and often are misinterpreted. Details & discussion help clarify misunderstandings.

Miss 5 11 wrote:
If something has value then it has a price

Ah, but there are many things that have a price but have no value.

Rays Fine Art wrote:

Ah, but there are many things that have a price but have no value.

Definitely, and outside of government in the free market, if we find no value in what is priced, no one is forcing us to purchase it.

Her point is spot on. I very rarely advise a model to model without an exchange of real property (money or commercial usage license and right to alter for the entirety of the product). Those who do are usually selling themselves short, or have no value to offer.

As to the OP's question about collaboration, yes, in this context the term is now used primarily in lieu of trade, which indicates to me that it is an intentional marketing ploy to get models to work for free.

Lisa Everhart wrote:
Definitely, and outside of government in the free market, if we find no value in what is priced, no one is forcing us to purchase it.

Her point is spot on. I very rarely advise a model to model without an exchange of real property (money or commercial usage license and right to alter for the entirety of the product). Those who do are usually selling themselves short, or have no value to offer.

As to the OP's question about collaboration, yes, in this context the term is now used primarily in lieu of trade, which indicates to me that it is an intentional marketing ploy to get models to work for free.

The inexperienced Model needs to start somewhere, they need images and what better way to attain those images than collaborating with an experienced Photographer, TFP

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
The inexperienced Model needs to start somewhere, they need images.  What better way to attain those images than collaborating with an experienced Photographer, TFP ?

The best way for a new model to have a starting port is to pay the best two photographers she can find to produce images that will help get her the type of work she wants to do. New freelance models are never more in demand in their region on this site as when they are new.

And I didn't say I never advise trade but I generally do so only when there is a real exchange of property.

Lisa Everhart wrote:

The best way for a new model to have a starting port is to pay the best two photographers she can find to produce images that will help get her the type of work she wants to do. New freelance models are never more in demand in their region on this site as when they are new.

And I didn't say I never advise trade but I generally do so only when there is a real exchange of property.

And the same is true for photographers.

BrianYarvin wrote:
Wasn't it once called "testing?" And then about ten or fifteen years ago, testing was replaced by "tfp." If that's now becoming "collab," well, that's the natural evolution of language.

It's still called "test" or "testing" in the agency world. If you contact an agency and ask for a TF or trade shoot it will show you're not used to shooting for agencies or with agency talent.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
It's still called "test" or "testing" in the agency world. If you contact an agency and ask for a TF or trade shoot it will show you're not used to shooting for agencies or with agency talent.

Interesting! Thank you.

Couldn't that mean that this usage exists to distinguish the internet modeling crowd from the agency world? If you use the wrong word here, you'd be outed right away. Could collab be used to identify a group?

BrianYarvin wrote:

Interesting! Thank you.

Couldn't that mean that this usage exists to distinguish the internet modeling crowd from the agency world? If you use the wrong word here, you'd be outed right away. Could collab be used to identify a group?

I've seen people who claim to be knowledgable of the agency world post here that in "tests" the models get nothing. No payment, no images, it's literally a test of their skill and that's it, they're just being sent out for practice. (which sounds fucking absurd to me, unless I know for a fact that my "practice" will pay off when my agency sends me to some great high-paying gig, but hey what do I know)

And of course the lingo isnt just "test", theres paid tests and unpaid tests. Like TF/trade, it seems to mean whatever you want it to mean unless you're *actually* working with agencies.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:

And the same is true for photographers.

Bob, With all due respect, I do not think that a photographer is in demand on this site when they are new to photography. It is also true that when a photographer "collaborates" with a model that they (the photographer) automatically have received a real property value from the model because they have the copyright to the images. A model has to try and negotiate for a signed, unlimited commercial license for all original work product to have the same rights and it is my experience that this truly equal exchange rarely happens.

I do agree that the best way for a new photographer to begin a model port is to hire professional models who can pose the type of work they aspire to.

Lisa Everhart wrote:
Bob, With all due respect, I do not think that a photographer is in demand on this site when they are new to photography. It is also true that when a photographer "collaborates" with a model that they (the photographer) automatically have received a real property value from the model because they have the copyright to the images. A model has to try and negotiate for a signed, unlimited commercial license for all original work product to have the same rights and it is my experience that this truly equal exchange rarely happens.

Truly equal would mean that we invest in the same amount of education/training, we do the same amount of work, split 50/50 all the costs for the business we do together, then we split 50/50 the profit (if anyone of us makes any money from the result). Does that ever happen in your experience? In mine: the models who come to my studio surely haven't invested a cent in it, yet they receive images (which need many hours of retouching after the shoot) for free (and/or get paid, if we agreed to that) and those images work for them afterwards.

I do agree that the best way for a new photographer to begin a model port is to hire professional models who can pose the type of work they aspire to.

Not necessarily.

anchev wrote:

Truly equal would mean that we split 50/50 all the costs for the business we do together, then we split 50/50 the profit (if anyone of us makes any money from the result). Does that ever happen in your experience? In mine: the models who come to my studio surely haven't invested a cent in it, yet they receive images for free (and/or get paid, if we agreed to that) and those images work for them afterwards.


Not necessarily.

A model is not a necessary element of a picture, so no. There are lots of trees and lakes and cats out there.

If you can get girls to pose for free, then more power to you.

Lisa Everhart wrote:
A model is not a necessary element of a picture, so no. There are lots of trees and lakes and cats out there.

I don't know what you want to say with this "so no". I am just pointing out facts. If we talk like this: there are photo booths and mobile phones with which you can take pictures of yourself and own the full copyright of that.

If you can get girls to pose for free, then more power to you.

I don't get anyone to pose for free. I always pay - in images or in cash. With my previous reply I was explaining what a "truly equal" setup would mean and why it is not possible. Not sure why you switch from "truly equal" to "more power".

anchev wrote:

I don't know what you want to say with this "so no". I am just pointing out facts. If we talk like this: there are photo booths and mobile phones with which you can take pictures of yourself and own the full copyright of that.


I don't get anyone to pose for free. I always pay - in images or in cash. With my previous reply I was explaining what a "truly equal" setup would mean and why it is not possible. Not sure why you switch from "truly equal" to "more power".

My point is simply that you do not need to have a model to make a picture that is marketable. An equal trade, as far as i am concerned, would produce an equal right to do whatever one wants with the images produced. Models have outlets to market images that photographers do not and vice versa so why should one or the other tie themselves to the other one's marketing efforts? So yes, unless a model receives the same rights to the images that the photographer has simply by taking the shot, I do not believe it is an equal trade. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions regarding this, and a model may certainly agree to whatever she believes is an equal trade, however, I do not agree with your comment.

Lisa Everhart wrote:
My point is simply that you do not need to have a model to make a picture that is marketable. An equal trade, as far as i am concerned, would produce an equal right to do whatever one wants with the images produced. Models have outlets to market images that photographers do not and vice versa so why should one or the other tie themselves to the other one's marketing efforts? So yes, unless a model receives the same rights to the images that the photographer has simply by taking the shot, I do not believe it is an equal trade. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions regarding this, and a model may certainly agree to whatever she believes is an equal trade, however, I do not agree with your comment.

From the way you discuss it feels like you are rather looking to create a conflict through disagreement (or merely an enumeration) of opinions rather than to understand why it is not possible to have what you consider appropriate. It is not my opinion but a fact: this is how copyright law has been made, I did not invent it. Also it is a fact that expenses are not equal, so "equal right" would be an unfair deal, mathematically and resource wise. Personally I would be OK to work on an equal rights basis with models if the expenses and work were equal too. But they are not and saying "I do not agree" won't change that.

Outside of all that: The whole idea of ownership is non-factual but an invented one. "I own this piece of land" is really nonsense: this land has existed millions of years before me and will exist long after me. Owning anything is really a psychological illusion, yet man has created a whole society and complex economical structure centered around the idea of ownership. I do not agree with it either but what can one do? Live in cave? Will it be "my cave" or an "equal rights cave"? You see - it's far more complicated than disagreeing about a limited concept.

anchev wrote:
From the way you discuss it feels like you are rather looking to create a conflict through disagreement (or merely an enumeration) of opinions rather than to understand why it is not possible to have what you consider appropriate. It is not my opinion but a fact: this is how copyright law has been made, I did not invent it. Also it is a fact that expenses are not equal, so "equal right" would be an unfair deal, mathematically and resource wise. Personally I would be OK to work on an equal rights basis with models if the expenses and work were equal too. But they are not and saying "I do not agree" won't change that.

Outside of all that: The whole idea of ownership is non-factual but an invented one. "I own this piece of land" is really nonsense: this land has existed millions of years before me and will exist long after me. Owning anything is really a psychological illusion, yet man has created a whole society and complex economical structure centered around the idea of ownership. I do not agree with it either but what can one do? Live in cave? Will it be "my cave" or an "equal rights cave"? You see - it's far more complicated than disagreeing about a limited concept.

It is a fact that a model who has a signed, unlimited, commercial usage license in perpetuity from a photographer, has the same basic rights that copyright grants them. Based on your argument that property rights are a psychological illusion, all the expenses that you incur should not matter and I can see no reason for you not to agree to give your models this in the future if the work is based on trade so that you are both on equal footing legally.

As I am sure you are aware, the law and courts in almost all of the world today recognize individual property rights.

Lisa Everhart wrote:
It is a fact that a model who has a signed, unlimited, commercial usage license in perpetuity from a photographer, has the same basic rights that copyright grants them.

This is not a fact. It is your desire.

Based on your argument that property rights are a psychological illusion, all the expenses that you incur should not matter and I can see no reason for you not to agree to give your models this in the future if the work is based on trade so that you are both on equal footing legally.

As I am sure you are aware, the law and courts in almost all of the world today recognize individual property rights.

You are missing the point. Of course expenses matter - the whole economy is based on the concept of owning property and trade. But it is still a concept, not a physical fact. There is no such thing as "my group of atoms" because if you go to the depth of it you will have to question who is the entity that says "my" and it itself is the atoms. So it becomes totally meaningless. That's just another example to illustrate that it is just a game of thought, not something actual.

So based on conceptualization: I have accepted in my mind "this is your piece of land, I should not enter" but that doesn't mean it really is your land. It is just an agreement. To make an agreement fair you have to consider facts: and the fact is that the photographer needs much more resources (factually) than the model. Therefore getting an equal piece of the pie at the end is not going to be agreeable. Just like you don't buy a car, fill the tank with fuel and leave it open to let everyone drive around.

Otherwise if we follow your logic: every movie actor (even should have the full right to sell copies of the movie. Maybe even every MUA and every truck driver who delivered stuff to the set).

anchev wrote:
This is not a fact. It is your desire.


You are missing the point. Of course expenses matter - the whole economy is based on the concept of owning property and trade. But it is still a concept, not a physical fact. There is no such thing as "my group of atoms" because if you go to the depth of it you will have to question who is the entity that says "my" and it itself is the atoms. So it becomes totally meaningless. That's just another example to illustrate that it is just a game of thought, not something actual.

So based on conceptualization: I have accepted in my mind "this is your piece of land, I should not enter" but that doesn't mean it really is your land. It is just an agreement. To make an agreement fair you have to consider facts: and the fact is that the photographer needs much more resources (factually) than the model. Therefore getting an equal piece of the pie at the end is not going to be agreeable. Just like you don't buy a car, fill the tank with fuel and leave it open to let everyone drive around.

Otherwise if we follow your logic: every movie actor (even should have the full right to sell copies of the movie. Maybe even every MUA and every truck driver who delivered stuff to the set.

No this is not my logic. My logic states that if a model or actor or truck driver is paid according to their own individual sense of fairness, in whatever "currency" they deem fit, then a trade has occurred. Maybe not equal in your eyes or mine, or the eyes of the law, but voluntary and satisfactory nonetheless.

Once again, a model is not necessary to make a picture. It matters not to me as a model what resources a photographer has had to accumulate in order to ply their trade, nor what they expended in order to acquire them. A model, should a photographer need one to create whatever image it is they want to create and for whatever reason they want to create it, is an expense just as is any other expense they incur.

As to your argument that "property" is not a naturally occurring factual state of nature, you might enjoy reading this. I don't think I am missing the point at all. We just disagree on the fundamental rights of individual human beings.

https://www.libertarianism.org/publicat … rpretation

Regarding the atom and universal collectivism, I think I'll go with Popper.

"“Since we can never know anything for sure, it is simply not worth searching for certainty; but it is well worth searching for truth; and we do this chiefly by searching for mistakes, so that we have to correct them.” - In Search of a Better World (1984)

Lisa Everhart wrote:
No this is not my logic. My logic states that if a model or actor or truck driver is paid according to their own individual sense of fairness, in whatever "currency" they deem fit, then a trade has occurred. Maybe not equal in your eyes or mine, or the eyes of the law, but voluntary and satisfactory nonetheless.

Your logic is that "truly equal" means one party to spend unproportionate amount of money, then let the other party have the full unlimited rights to the final result. And all that - just because a model may be needed for an image to occur. I don't think you will find (m)any photographers who would consider that sane (what's left for satisfactory).

Models are paid according to budget and quality of work not according to "their own individual sense of fairness". When the payment is in images: the model doesn't really need any other rights except to use images for her portfolio.

Once again, a model is not necessary to make a picture. It matters not to me as a model what resources a photographer has had to accumulate in order to ply their trade, nor what they expended in order to acquire them. A model, should a photographer need one to create whatever image it is they want to create and for whatever reason they want to create it, is an expense just as is any other expense they incur.

Well, that may be how you look at it but just because you neglect certain things doesn't make those things futile. Less "I have an opinion" and "I want unlimited rights" results in better collaborations.

anchev wrote:

Your logic is that "truly equal" means one party to spend unproportionate amount of money, then let the other party have the full unlimited rights to the final result. And all that - just because a model may be needed for an image to occur. I don't think you will find (m)any photographers who would consider that sane (what's left for satisfactory).

Models are paid according to budget and quality of work not according to "their own individual sense of fairness". When the payment is in images: the model doesn't really need any other rights except to use images for her portfolio.


Well, that may be how you look at it but just because you neglect certain things doesn't make those things futile. Less "I have an opinion" and "I want unlimited rights" results in better collaborations.

Wrong again. A model is paid what she thinks is fair, otherwise she wouldn't be posing. Value is determined by the market for a good or service, not by the cost of it.