Lisa Everhart wrote:

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.

Randy Dixon wrote:

I'm just going to jump in here and say that this should be obvious, but apparently isn't.

Lisa Everhart wrote:
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.

My comment was about your "truly equal" and why it is not feasible. Instead of seeing the fact of it you keep contradicting and derailing the discussion in various other directions. You can be very skillful in those rhetorical tactics, proving to yourself how right you are and so on, but even the most expert sounding words cannot abolish facts. And the fact is - you are still not getting the copyright in that "truly equal" scenario.

anchev wrote:
My comment was about your "truly equal" and why it is not feasible. Instead of seeing the fact of it you keep contradicting and derailing the discussion in various other directions. You can be very skillful in those rhetorical tactics, proving to yourself how right you are and so on, but even the most expert sounding words cannot abolish facts. And the fact is - you are still not getting the copyright in that "truly equal" scenario.

The fact is that the usage license I described gives a model the same basic legal rights, in the US, to the image that a copyright does for the photographer. 1=1.

Your argument is that a models contribution to a "collaboration" with a photographer has no real value as defined by US law. In your opinion, a model should willingly give a photographer the right to use her image in perpetuity, in anyway they choose, in exchange for a few pictures that the model is "allowed" to use on social media, but that she has no real property interest in. Since the model receives no legal ownership of the images in your scenario, she has not been legally "paid". You on the other hand have received a real property value from her. 0 does not = 1

I have stated repeatedly that, in my opinion, this is not an equal trade and has no real property value for a model. I have also repeatedly stated that if a model chooses to model for free, then this is her decision. I just think that is rarely a good one.

I have been clear, and in no way disingenuous, in stating my opinion. You and I simply do not agree on what constitutes "equal."

It is funny to me that your first argument was based on your own individual property rights, ie. labor, studio etc., having such great value, as opposed to a model's time and labor not being worth a "cent". Then you go on to try and make the case that there factually is no such thing as individual property, because you know, the atom, talk about a tangent, hahahahh!

Ima try and use your line of reasoning in lieu of a usage license the next time I try to get a model to collaborate with me. I'll let you know how it goes.

Lisa Everhart wrote:
The fact is that the usage license I described gives a model the same basic legal rights, in the US, to the image that a copyright does for the photographer. 1=1.

Your argument is that a models contribution to a "collaboration" with a photographer has no real value as defined by US law. In your opinion, a model should willingly give a photographer the right to use her image in perpetuity, in anyway they choose, in exchange for a few pictures that the model is "allowed" to use on social media, but that she has no real property interest in. Since the model receives no legal ownership of the images in your scenario, she has not been legally "paid". You on the other hand have received a real property value from her. 0 does not = 1

I have stated repeatedly that, in my opinion, this is not an equal trade and has no real property value for a model. I have also repeatedly stated that if a model chooses to model for free, then this is her decision. I just think that is rarely a good one.

I have been clear, and in no way disingenuous, in stating my opinion. You and I simply do not agree on what constitutes "equal."

You are trying to twist the established law in a direction which would give you your "1=1". It seems you neglect the fact that photos are of value and the permission to use them in a portfolio is also of value. You seem not to realize that "social media" are actually big companies and legally you need permission to share copyrighted material with third parties. So it is not "allowed" but actually required.

You also claim that if you don't receive everything you received nothing. This is nonsense. I have shot quite a few models on TF basis who are quite popular professional actors and commercial models now - the images worked for them. Is this nothing? A zero? For many of those images I received next to none financial compensation - not because I didn't get a release (I did) but just because they were portfolio-styled, not commercially styled. IOW: the images worked in favor to the model. (and I am OK with that)

If we follow your own logic about property and equality - if the photographer receives 0 from what the model is making now (as a result of the good portfolio images) then the model should come back and start to pay regular royalty to the photographer to make the deal "1=1". You are trying to make everything mathematically correct and at the same time you ignore the mathematics of what a resource costs. Similarly you speak of law and at the same time try to invent your own law that contradicts the actual one. And based on the contradictions you are trying to justify the idea of "truly equal". I wonder why you don't realize how baseless and biased this is.

It is funny to me that your first argument was based on your own individual property rights, ie. labor, studio etc., having such great value, as opposed to a model's time and labor not being worth a "cent". Then you go on to try and make the case that there factually is no such thing as individual property, because you know, the atom, talk about a tangent, hahahahh!

I have never used words like "great value" or "not being worth a cent". This again your exaggeration of everything to a 0/1 absolute. I simply explained that the resources are not equal and that's why the "truly equal" is not happening. The side note about the psychological illusion was just aimed to make you question your own way of thinking about property because you sound obsessed by the idea ownership, individualism, rights, property which are all just ideas. The fact is: good photos can work for the model and this can have much more value than receiving the copyright. Also collaboration and TF is pretty much about establishing good relationship. Good relationship is much more important than any exchange/trade of property. Maybe not to you.

anchev wrote:

Lisa Everhart wrote:
The fact is that the usage license I described gives a model the same basic legal rights, in the US, to the image that a copyright does for the photographer. 1=1.

Your argument is that a models contribution to a "collaboration" with a photographer has no real value as defined by US law. In your opinion, a model should willingly give a photographer the right to use her image in perpetuity, in anyway they choose, in exchange for a few pictures that the model is "allowed" to use on social media, but that she has no real property interest in. Since the model receives no legal ownership of the images in your scenario, she has not been legally "paid". You on the other hand have received a real property value from her. 0 does not = 1

I have stated repeatedly that, in my opinion, this is not an equal trade and has no real property value for a model. I have also repeatedly stated that if a model chooses to model for free, then this is her decision. I just think that is rarely a good one.

I have been clear, and in no way disingenuous, in stating my opinion. You and I simply do not agree on what constitutes "equal."

You are trying to twist the established law in a direction which would give you your "1=1". It seems you neglect the fact that photos are of value and the permission to use them in a portfolio is also of value. You seem not to realize that "social media" are actually big companies and legally you need permission to share copyrighted material with third parties. So it is not "allowed" but actually required.

You also claim that if you don't receive everything you received nothing. This is nonsense. I have shot quite a few models on TF basis who are quite popular professional actors and commercial models now - the images worked for them. Is this nothing? A zero? For many of those images I received next to none financial compensation - not because I didn't get a release (I did) but just because they were portfolio-styled, not commercially styled. IOW: the images worked in favor to the model. (and I am OK with that)

If we follow your own logic about property and equality - if the photographer receives 0 from what the model is making now (as a result of the good portfolio images) then the model should come back and start to pay regular royalty to the photographer to make the deal "1=1". You are trying to make everything mathematically correct and at the same time you ignore the mathematics of what a resource costs. Similarly you speak of law and at the same time try to invent your own law that contradicts the actual one. And based on the contradictions you are trying to justify the idea of "truly equal". I wonder why you don't realize how baseless and biased this is.


I have never used words like "great value" or "not being worth a cent". This again your exaggeration of everything to a 0/1 absolute. I simply explained that the resources are not equal and that's why the "truly equal" is not happening. The side note about the psychological illusion was just aimed to make you question your own way of thinking about property because you sound obsessed by the idea ownership, individualism, rights, property which are all just ideas. The fact is: good photos can work for the model and this can have much more value than receiving the copyright. Also collaboration and TF is pretty much about establishing good relationship. Good relationship is much more important than any exchange/trade of property. Maybe not to you.

I have stated my case and stand by its accuracy in all regards.

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.

You'll get asked to leave if you say TF in a model agency.

goofus  wrote:
does it make a difference?

TF and "collaboration" have overlapping meanings, but they aren't exactly the same thing.  The former is typically a trade of your photography for the model's modeling.  In some cases, there's plenty of collaboration when it comes to planning and preparing for the shoot.  In other cases, working together is more limited as I show up to do a shoot that the model has planned and prepared for or the model shows up to model for a shoot that I've done the planning and preparation for.  It comes down to whether the decision making is done in collaboration or if it is more one-sided.

While I'm sure there are models out there who can do what they do with little to no effort on their part as was previously implied by someone else, I know of several quite good models who work hard to stay in shape, care for their hair and skin, etc.  I'd guess that most models find a need to diet and/or exercise at some point in their careers while only a minority find that they have the look required for their modeling without any effort on their part.  In a way, many models are artists much like sculptors except that they are their own work of art.