|
Forums >
Hair, Makeup & Styling >
MUA getting bashed in this thread
I'm new to this business. To me a contract allowing MUA's to benefit in the event that TFP work gets sold seems reasonable. There is a very ugly thread happening regarding the actions of an MUA who presented a contract after a TFP was completed. I'm wondering what our rights are? In this thread the photographers seem to think we have none. I wish some more seasoned and experienced MUA's would comment in this thread. Take a look : https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=141491 Apr 24 07 10:38 am Link I read the thread and I have to say that the mua wasn't given all the information and that is unfair but by the same token the attitde of the artist (allegedly) seems slightly off. having been on numerous shoots where the images will be used further down the line I have never produced a contract. I alwas discuss things with the tog and model. Maybe its just me? James Apr 24 07 10:43 am Link TFP or Other, in a Business Dealing, terms are laid upfront. Agreed upon. and Completed. If, any person has 'something up there sleeve' to propose at the end of the shoot they are wrong. If anyone signs anything after the business transaction was conducted they are wrong. Bottom line is bring everything to attention at the start, so terms can be set and if needed changed. What is being talked about in the aforementioned thread the MUA is wrong, the Photographer is Wrong and the Model is Wrong. It was a bad situation that was handled poorly by all involved. and in my Opinion no one did anything right. So, to answer your question, No there is nothing wrong with the MUA wanting to share in any profits made, but it is wrong to Force a photographer to sign something, especially after the shoot. Which in turn alter the original agreements. Hope that helps... if only a little. Apr 24 07 10:50 am Link TFCD means TFCD........ PERIOD! The photographer was stupid for signing it. I would never sign anything after the work is done. Apr 24 07 10:57 am Link Read the whole thread. If the OP of *this* thread thinks that is "getting ripped apart"...stick around MM. That is NOTHING. Plus, it looks like everything is getting worked out. Fault lies with the photographer for signing. Apr 24 07 11:19 am Link Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought TFP meant that all persons involved in the shoot had rights to the images produced for personal use, but that out of obligation to others involved in the shoot did not have the right to publish without permission of the others. Is that just wrong? Does the photographer always have copyright in TFP? If an MUA is asked to TFP and then during the course of the shoot it is revealed that there is intent by the photographer to publish and profit from the images what recourse does she/he have? I know the answer as I ask it..."NONE"...unless she/he procured a contract before shooting. It's a little early in my career to be worried about such things, but I'm learning by leaps and bounds from the experiences of others in here. Thanks Apr 24 07 11:21 am Link Sharon Hawkey wrote: Seems perfectly reasonable to me. MUA's should get paid too. I think the question in the thread was directed at how MUA presented the contract, created a diversion to get it signed, etc. Of course I wasn't there, and I didn't hear the MUA's side of the story... Apr 24 07 11:26 am Link Photographer retains copyright unless contracted out. If, other information is found out during the course of the shoot, the MUA should bite there tung for not asking up front what the images would be used for. Or, they can ask for a review of contract with amendment... Which would stop the shoot dead in its tracks, waste time writing a new contract and everyone agreeing upon it. Personally, if the MUA agreed to something in the start, thats it, they do their thing and its done. You don't go back on your word. And, if you do, be prepared to lose business because be sure that photographer won't work with you again, and will most likely tell everyone what you did. Now, question is, what kind of name in the business do you want to have? Apr 24 07 11:27 am Link Sharon Hawkey wrote: I did not read the previous thread so I don't know what you're specifically referring to, but those are my answers... Photographers a lot of time do TFP so they can make money on an assignment or stock photos. If it does get published, ask where and get a tearsheet. Apr 24 07 11:29 am Link Sharon Hawkey wrote: TFP means nothing except for what's in the contract. Apr 24 07 11:51 am Link I usually have both a contract and a release signed. I've been burned too many times (hence the small portfolio of old stuff). I've done TFP and never gotten images a year later. I've put things in my portfolio only to have models screech that _I_ didn't have a release from them. I've gotten back digital files at 4x5 in 72dpi. I've done things that were to be just fun only to have the images sold and not get a dime. My release is for the model. It allows me to use her image for promotional purposes outside of what the photographer does. It also contains a section for photographer restrictions. Say the photog doesn't want it in an online portfolio but in my book is okay... The contract states that I am providing my services in trade for the photographer's services. They have 3 months to give me 8X10 images or digital files that can be printed. Also, should the images be used commercially the photographer must contact me to negotiate a percentage. It also gives them an opportunity to restrict my usage. I think its fair. But I also check once I get on set, "does everyone have releases signed and do I need to have anything for myself?". If I was called in by the model, she should be responsible for getting me images. Was it the photographer? They should provide everything. I would never make someone sign after the fact though. And if someone asked me to, I'd laugh, grab my kit, and run into the night! Apr 24 07 12:12 pm Link First off all contracts to be signed should happen at the beginning of the shoot- not the end. This sounds to me like the artist has been burned before. We are at the bottom of the barrel. No copyrights or anything. So if a photographer sells the photo or makes some money off of it it seems their is nothing we can do. If they want to PS our work to where we cant useit, there is nothing we can do. I get so irritated when I see images that I did the makeup for, was stuck at the shoot for 12hrs, not fed, and having to do so many looks to find it used in a brochure or cheezy cosmetics ad at CVS or another artist on here where it ended up on a Laura Mercier add crediting someone else. When it was suppose to be for portfolio purposes. Now it was suppose to be a TFP but wasnt the photographer going to use this in a book that he was going to make money off of? Ummm....TFP for everyone but the photographer. Possibly the makeup artist agreed to the TFP, but realized during the shoot, this was something the photographer was planning to make money off of. And wanted to cover her back. Did she know it was going to be in a book beforehand? I could be wrong on that one, but it is a possible scenario. Apr 24 07 02:50 pm Link Roshar I feel ya, I really do. When I think about it I guess the bottom line is we mua's really need to ask more questions upfront, questions to the photographer not the model about the intended use of the pics.......then decide if it's a commercial gig or test. In this case the mua was bought in by the model not the photographer perhaps mua's shouldn't even go in on a tfcd or test via the model because the models don't usually have the copyright. I know how it is we get caught up because of the passion we have for our job. Think about it, most people will live and die never having a job or career that they have so much love for they are willing to work 12hrs non stop for the art and love of it. It's that same passion that causes us to put the business part on the back burner until we walk into that drugstore and there it is. Probably almost every seasoned mua has been burned at some point of their career. LaT Apr 24 07 03:42 pm Link MakeupArtist laT wrote: Good point. Apr 24 07 03:48 pm Link Roshar wrote: lol........you are right! Apr 24 07 03:56 pm Link MakeupArtist laT wrote: the pictures in question that were to be used were pictures of a bare back... there was no make-up applied to the back, at all. Those were the only shots to be used, and were to be put into a collection of similar photos, along with poems and drawings by the artist and made into a book format. Apr 24 07 04:03 pm Link NtlHeaven wrote: Interesting that you mention that here, not in your original thread. So why have an artist at all? This makes no sense to me. Why wasn't anyone upfront with the makeup artist? Apr 24 07 04:10 pm Link there were several looks in the shoot, and it was mentioned that the back shots were to be used for the book. she did the make up on my face for the other looks. my intention was for advice on how to deal with the situation, and whether this was a common occurance, not as a bashing thing Apr 24 07 04:15 pm Link NtlHeaven wrote: If only the back were used and not the artists work then their wouldnt be an issue to begin with. Apr 24 07 04:28 pm Link Roshar wrote: Thank you everyone for your advice, comment, opinons, lectures, criticisms, corny jokes, and all the rest. The input was much appreciated from all angles and the matter is being worked out. Thanks Apr 24 07 04:32 pm Link Sharon Hawkey wrote: Don't confuse the term TFP (form of compensation) with Usage Rights. They are two very distinct terms. Usage terms should be documented in the release/contract and agreed upon prior to the shoot. Apr 24 07 04:39 pm Link I want to thank rachelrose, Roshar, ganeshkarma, EmElle and KatAragon for posting on the original thread and addressing the situation there. I'm reading alot of threads as a newbie (it's addicting) so I'm familiar with all of you allready, but I'm somewhat intimidated to post much since I'm still so damn green. (Makeup artists Pun) Anyway thank you for speaking on behalf of all of us, that thread needed some balance. Apr 24 07 04:54 pm Link I hadn't read the other thread since this morning but I just read it........OMG! MUA's should be thinking........F-TFP!! Maybe we should seriously boycott TFP's .......Sho me the money! Apr 24 07 05:21 pm Link lol i think my brain is fried. i'm afraid i'm gonna get a hex placed on me with that last discussion i'm having in the thread  It was nice knowing you all! take care of my makeup for me ...Apr 24 07 05:32 pm Link This is why I am ADAMANT up front with all involved. How many hours? TESTING FOR WHAT? Useage? Who are the models? What is expected of my services? How long to WAIT FOR IMAGES? Any possibility of a tearsheet? Closed set? (don't ask) etc etc.... You cannot be intimidated by the photographer - when you talk to them on the phone you should be able to discern how serious they are. Plus, look at their portfolio of work and TRUST YOUR GUT. I've been burned COUNTLESS TIMES on "TFP" and I now TEST with published photographers with AGENCY MODELS. Otherwise, YOU NEVER KNOW.... seriously. Live and learn. Thank EmElle, Mary (all the Mary's!) and every fabulous MUA in this forum or helping me realize that TFP is an internet term. MakeupArtist laT wrote: Apr 24 07 05:44 pm Link I have to say that earlier in my greener days... I saw practically ALL photographers I worked with give the RELEASE contract to the model AFTER THE SHOOT. For photographers to say they haven't done this is hypocritical at best. Perhaps, and I'm p-laying devil's advocate - perhaps the MUA FELT they had to use a contract as time went on in the shoot. (I haven't read the link, but am going there...) Maybe as time went on, the MUA felt COMPELLED to use a contract. I can see that happening, oh yes, I can. Not saying it's good business, just sayiing...as the shoot went on - more behavior came to light that may have warranted it. Apr 24 07 05:48 pm Link WHY did the OP, you, Engel (two names??) change the original POST thruout the post? That is very sneaky, IMHO. Sorry, but I tell it like it is. Engel Schrei wrote: Apr 24 07 05:54 pm Link |
