Cherrystone wrote:

Dude, let's not talk about getting.....ummm, what were we talking about again?

what's that sonny? Speak up -- I can't hear you.

Justin Foto wrote:

We try not to around here

Please, make my day and tell me something I don't know. I like to learn stuff, isn't that why we do these forums?

glamour pics wrote:
I talked to my lawyer at a lunch get-together and he said, "If you'd signed such a clause, giving the model that kind of censorship authority, it would cost you your pilot's license." I asked why. He said, "If you signed such a thing it would be absolute proof that you're out of your f...ing mind, totally certifiably insane. And they don't let crazy people fly airplanes."

He's right.

lmao.

Christine Rose wrote:

what's that sonny? Speak up -- I can't hear you.

Will this help?

Cherrystone wrote:

Will this help?

Oh cool we're gonna do shots now?

It's 5 o'clock somewhere.

what are we drinking sonny?

Paul Grupp wrote:
Tell her you'll sign that release in lieu of her payment.

This is by far the best reply :-)
It doesn't solve your problem if you had a commitment for a publication but still it's the simple truth.
A better one would be if you ask her to pay you upfront for the potential lost time to track her down and get the preapproval :-)
None realistic. OP did exactly what he should have done!
Dan

Raelyn Monstrosity wrote:
Someone needs to explain to her that a model is being an art supply. Last I checked, paint brushes don't inspect paintings. If she is going to be a model, she needs to understand that allowing others to use her likeness, and accepting that, is a HUGE part of modeling.
Don't sweat it. Find someone who actually understands what they're doing.

Women seem to have a natural gift of eloquence which few men possess. You certainly sum it up in a witty and razor sharp nutshell.

And yeah, I can't work with a girl like that. I also took pains to explain it to her because she will be seeking work with other photographers. Heck...if we'd started working together I would have referred her to more work. And I hate to see her sabotage herself. Oh, well.

glamour pics wrote:

Women seem to have a natural gift of eloquence which few men possess. You certainly sum it up in a witty and razor sharp nutshell.

And yeah, I can't work with a girl like that. I also took pains to explain it to her because she will be seeking work with other photographers. Heck...if we'd started working together I would have referred her to more work. And I hate to see her sabotage herself. Oh, well.

She'll figure it out -- or not.

Jerry Coleman  wrote:
I think the OPs model has never and will never shoot with anyone who can get her anywhere.

I encouraged her to talk to other models and photographers about normal industry practices. I think the girl is smart, just unfamiliar with the way things work. So I sincerely hope she does get in touch with reality, and start shooting, because she'll be a darned good model when she does.

Christine Rose wrote:

Oh cool we're gonna do shots now?

It's 5 o'clock somewhere.

what are we drinking sonny?

I teetotal these days, but I do keep stuff around for certain types of people. Name your poison!

glamour pics wrote:

I encouraged her to talk to other models and photographers about normal industry practices. I think the girl is smart, just unfamiliar with the way things work. So I sincerely hope she does get in touch with reality, and start shooting, because she'll be a darned good model when she does.

Send her the link to this thread.

jonaswahlin wrote:
I had a newbie model asking me today: "do I get to pre-approval the images or do you do as you like?" making it sound like something bad.. wow... where do people get theis ideas anyway?

Too many GWC. I can see where the models come from. Sort of like the escort issue.

Cherrystone wrote:

I teetotal these days, but I do keep stuff around for certain types of people. Name your poison!

Patron?

Mike Weston Photography wrote:
Ok, let me clarify.

When I say that a model gets paid, I mean that she and I have already agreed on what she is to be paid and what is expected of her. That also means she has seen and agreed to and already signed the model release. No model release, no shoot. No shoot, no pay. It's a really simple concept. Not really anything here to agree or diagree with or break down or examine or otherwise nit-pick. You are right that everything is negotiable but once a release or contract is signed, it's a done deal. No take-backs. Actually, the point I was trying to make here was that if a model hires me, they pay me and can accept or deny thier terms. If I hire the model, they can accept or deny my terms. We can negotiate terms to reach another agreement but I'll most likely tell the model that my terms are there and if not acceptable, I have other models that are interested. Have a nice day. You can nit-pick my post all day, even take selections of it and use them out of context if you like, but the point remains that you missed my point entirely so your point is irrellevant.

Alright, now that you clarify, it's merely a bait and switch tactic by the model.  She mislead you to believe that she's fine with the model release, then she tried to add a pre-approval clause right before signing the release.  Hopefully you haven't booked the studio or hired a MUA when she came up with such demands.

On a somewhat related issue, many models have in their profile "Nudes and implied are OK only if they're tasteful."  Now, at what point do a model determine if a shot is tasteful, before or after the shoot?  Do you agree to a "tasteful" clause in your model release?  Same thing with the word "artistic".  If a model finds your nude shots of her not "artistic" enough AFTER a shoot, do you still publish the photo?

glamour pics wrote:
A wonderful model came by. Pretty, smart, great figure. Little bit of a background in "fine art" portraiture. We went over everything including payment (these would be paid shoots). Then she read the release and said, "I want to have pre-approval over anything that gets published. I don't like the idea of stuff being published without me checking the shot and the cropping and the retouching (Photoshopping)."

I told her it wasn't possible, because it would lead to bad feelings, confusion, etc. I explained that such a clause made the model release worthless because every shot would have to be negotiated anew. And what if I couldn't even reach her anyhow, or there were a deadline? I explained that no professional in the country would agree to such a clause.

I was polite, we left as friends. But haven't heard back, and suspect I never will.

I talked to my lawyer at a lunch get-together and he said, "If you'd signed such a clause, giving the model that kind of censorship authority, it would cost you your pilot's license." I asked why. He said, "If you signed such a thing it would be absolute proof that you're out of your f...ing mind, totally certifiably insane. And they don't let crazy people fly airplanes."

He's right.

many professionals do agree!!!

not to checking their PS I guess, and certainly not to each shot anew...
but as to which shots get deleted / kept and used
after the shooting!

I always shoot that way - simply means I have power of veeto - I have worked since the 80's with that proviso and no one has ever given me stress about it

glamour pics wrote:
Women seem to have a natural gift of eloquence which few men possess. You certainly sum it up in a witty and razor sharp nutshell.

And yeah, I can't work with a girl like that. I also took pains to explain it to her because she will be seeking work with other photographers. Heck...if we'd started working together I would have referred her to more work. And I hate to see her sabotage herself. Oh, well.

Maybe she was less accepting than me, but if I hate a shot I would ask them not to use it.
And if they refused, well, they wouldn't I hope.  As we'd already agreed that part of the release BEFORE even planning any detail of the shoot.

Come to think about it, a couple of photographers inquiring, have turned me down when I told them upfront that I do not waive my right to inspection/ approval, but I assumed, that being the case, they were not willing to consider my feelings or reputation.
So I wouldn't have wanted to work with them anyway!

Getting into the planning re shoot, getting to know them at all, and then saying - might be more successful - but yes, I DO consider that  bait and switch. Don't want to waste anybodys time.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
I'm not so sure I'd agree with the OP and some of those who have posted above. I'll explain. In certain instances a clause like the model asked for makes perfect sense. That's especially true in the case of celebrities. A few bad images published for all to see, of a celebrity can be very detrimental to their career, so requiring final approval is often quite common.

When such a clause isn't included in a model release, things can go very badly for the celebrity/model. For example:When the RNC hired photographer Jill Greenberg, to take portraits of John McCain, there was no such "final approval" clause in the release. Since Jill happened to like his presidential opponent, she purposely used a lighting style and camera angle that made McCain appear ghoulish and evil-looking. http://bumpshack.com/2008/09/15/photog- … in-photos/ 

Because of the possible damage that could be done to a celebrity it's a normal practice for them to insist on final approval of images to be published. They spend a lot of time, energy, and money to create and maintain a certain public image, they like control over that.

So if this model was fabulous, she was just asking for the same thing that Gisele Bundchen, Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Kate Moss, Tyra Banks, Heidi Klum, and Laetitia Casta would insist on. It's a free market and the model could insist on anything she wants, and might get. It doesn't mean she's crazy, and it doesn't mean the photographers who would accept such a proposal are nuts.

I'd venture a guess that most of us would willingly work with any of the above-mentioned models if they insisted on pre-approval of images to be published. This model merely thinks such a clause is in her best interest. That's not insanity either.

who has time to chase down a model everytime you want to use a photo of her, then negotiate what was done all over again...it's nonsense

pullins photography wrote:

who has time to chase down a model every time you want to use a photo of her, then negotiate what was done all over again...it's nonsense

of course that would be

but you show her what you took, right after or asap
and let her ask you then to remove any that are horrid

delete a couple
then you are all set!

pullins photography wrote:

who has time to chase down a model everytime you want to use a photo of her, then negotiate what was done all over again...it's nonsense

What might be nonsense to you is fairly standard for upper-end models (and their agencies) who are concerned about their public image and want some control over that.

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:

What might be nonsense to you is fairly standard for upper-end models (and their agencies) who are concerned about their public image and want some control over that.

*likes Mike*

glamour pics wrote:
A wonderful model came by. Pretty, smart, great figure. Little bit of a background in "fine art" portraiture. We went over everything including payment (these would be paid shoots). Then she read the release and said, "I want to have pre-approval over anything that gets published. I don't like the idea of stuff being published without me checking the shot and the cropping and the retouching (Photoshopping)."

the short answer is NO