BYS wrote:
People do things in lots of ways.  More ways than you do.  Some of them are OK.  Lighten up.

i don't really understand why if you want my pictures you will change the rules that make me get these pictures

i don't negociate , never , one anything that could denature the final result ,
hopefully it is my only rule lol
but a take or leave it

anything else is negociable 

tb

Thierry, I would love to see the species of release you use in France when shooting a French citizen-resident. I know about the requirements for those, e.g. the time limts and renewals, but I have never seen a really good and comprehensive one translated into English.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Thierry, I would love to see the species of release you use in France. I know about the requirements, e.g. the time limts, but I have never seen a really good and comprehensive one translated into English.

Studio36

LMAO good question , you'll be so surprised :
i never had to sign any fucking release in my life before a picture is sold

Some of my personal tests were sold as an advertising or a cover like the one on my port , then we sign the release
in my concern , before that , it is a waste of time and headache untill there is no client involved


so many things i read on MM i never heard of in my real life , escorts , releases , tf ,irreplaceables models with so many asks (raw files wtf?) , mua that won't move their ass for a go and see and so on

well for your question i will pm you my agent mail and you can ask him about some examples if that's what you asked for

tb

dave wright sf wrote:
basically, this:

Wow... this was me a few weeks ago!

Emeritus wrote:
Consider the following possibilities:

(a)    A model is willing to pose for $300, no pictures.
(b)    A model is willing to pose for $100 if the photographer will give her one unedited shot.
(c)    A model is willing to pose for pictures only.

What is it about options (a) and (c) that are acceptable, but option (b) gets the hounds to baying about how “I will pay or trade, but not both!”?  Is it really immoral or fattening?  What is it that makes people utterly blind to the possibility of mixing the way someone gets compensated for a shoot?

OK, there are lots of variations on those options, but the point remains:  there is not, as near as I can tell, any good reason for excluding any one of them out of hand.  If a particular deal doesn’t make sense, fine.  But to say, “NOT BOTH!” and dogmatically stick to it . . . where does that come from?

You left out option D - a model is willing to pay for pictures.

It's really very simple why the deals are oriented around the extremes. Rates are always a function of leverage and leverage in this context is very difficult to quantify.

When party A wants to work with party B more than vice versa, party B has the leverage and sets the terms. Experience is quantifiable and that's often what determines the leverage - skill is usually commensurate with experience as well. When it gets in to the middle ground there's really no reference point other than trade. Let's say you've got two people who are pretty even, but by the World Scientific Objectivity Scale, should be paid $10, or maybe there's a $40 difference for and 8-10hr day. That's just silly.


One way to quantify it would be for models and photographers to pay each other, which would mean one party making up the difference. Say A's day rate is $1k and B's day rate is $1500, than A pays B $500.

The problem with that is that would mean models would always be paying photographers unless the consistently worked with photographers who's skill and experience was enough less than the model's to keep the day rate lower. Photographers with equivalent status to models will always get more money.


Things that can alter natural leverage are ego and means.

Either side is just as likely to have a distorted self-image/ego. I think it's especially obvious with modeling how the odds are increased that the person will be motivated by narcissism (I'm not saying more than photographers, just more than a regular person). Now the leverage is thrown off by the person's inability to view the situation objectively.

There's also the fact that, for the most part, modeling is a young business. Photography takes a little more time and money to get to the level where you can produce results that are worth showing, so in general you get models aged 16-25 and photographers 25-dirty old man age. Most people don't have the financial means in the modeling age range, so it's very easy for them to refuse to pay the greatest most amazing photographer who they want to work with. So that inability gives them a little leverage - the photographer has to shoot for free or not at all (I do know of some models who've save money for quite a while to pay a specific photographer).


So in the end, with the amount of money that's being discussed for a "Trade +" situation, it's simply not worth the time to figure out whether it's $15 or $30 that should change hands.


I also think that there are a lot of models who shoot trades far more than they admit and photographer who pay when they claim they don't. I don't have any specific knowledge of this happening in either case, but I think it does enough that people will try an inflexible position to see what happens.

In the end, the real client base for photographers and model are business and corporations and it's not wort the time and energy fighting over the scraps. Either pay or trade because people need to spend time making a living, which outside of a few exceptions, means doing something other than charging models or photographers.

Emeritus wrote:
4.  When I shoot I want all the raw files from the shoot!
So yes, it’s not entirely unwarranted, or entirely unreasonable.

“entirely” goes to purpose.  it's no more unreasonable to deny such request than asking those who shoot film to provide dupes.  there are certain “forbidden” policies when doing trade for personal growth that make for good business decisions.  those same policies don’t always apply for client work that takes on working within an entirely different framework. 

i suggest certain rigidity be respected that falls under the confines of professional approach.  this is one of them when working with models sans a deliverable to an agency.  unfortunately many a hobbyist on both sides of lens don't see it that way.

Emeritus wrote:
6.  Models Without Experience Should Not Ask to be Paid!

OK, we get it.  You don’t pay inexperienced models.  Here’s what you don’t get:  lots of people do, including both good amateur and professional photographers and commercial and fashion clients.  There is no Law Of Nature that says models can’t get paid just because they aren’t experienced.

i've long been a proponent of look / stats over experience but i also feel it depends entirely on what the model is being paid to do.  it also goes to risk factors not so much in outcome, but how one might handle themselves in a client setting.  it's often the little things people remember most, and those more experienced in a client setting are less likely to create memorable faux pas that lowers the perception of professional value.   

the keyword here is "clients" and potential consequence when the decision falls on one for gaining highest percentage of success.  no "law of nature" but experience does have merit and should not be overlooked when more than just hiring for creating nice pictures is on the line.  exception:  if the client is hiring then one deals with the hand one is dealt.

as for the general premise of rigidity in how one negotiates their position in aspect of conduct, certainly there are those who take on the no soup for you approach.  in the art of negotiation where giving in a little often returns far more, those who view each opportunity as icb and negotiate accordingly are probably more successful.

MC 2 wrote:
You left out option D - a model is willing to pay for pictures.

I left out a lot of options.  My point was not to deal with all the many ways that a deal can be structured, but to point out that refusing to even consider a mix of compensation types is unduly restrictive.

Robert Randall wrote:

I think that you and Roger are very intelligent; your mini essays are informative and enlightening reads. However, if you took into account the level of intelligence of the average MM'er, you would soon realize you were preaching to a giant bowl of guava fruit.

+1

Emeritus wrote:
Yeah, I missed several, and that's a good one.  I was in some danger of writing the sequel to Crime and Punishment, so I quit.

I've been waiting for the sequel, so as long as you offered, I'm looking forward to it.


In the meantime, I am glad you wrote this!

fellfromgrace wrote:
I realise this is just my opinion and very limited um, knowledge lol but PLEASE keep writing useful threads so ppl like me can learn about 'the rules' lol

There is really only one definitive source of knowledge of the rules, as Bruce points out:

www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=15 … ost2740397 

Unfortunately, Boris' book is out of print, so I have to do the best I can.

fellfromgrace wrote:
I realise this is just my opinion and very limited um, knowledge lol but PLEASE keep writing useful threads so ppl like me can learn about 'the rules' lol

Emeritus wrote:
There is really only one definitive source of knowledge of the rules, as Bruce points out:

www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=15 … ost2740397 

Unfortunately, Boris' book is out of print, so I have to do the best I can.

this gives pause to wonder if initial rules written are now out of print, is the interwebnet model of change in approach not valid?  one need look no further than how mass media is presented to see the more rules change...the more rules broken do in fact exert change. 

remember the uproar of fox entering the sports fray?  they succeeded by doing something no other broadcast network did at the time; they placed a running scoreboard on the screen.  now every network does that.

if anything in the modeling / model photography business, resistance of change and steadfast in not accepting broken rules might be creating the enemy for an industry which demands moving forward.  the question becomes; is that a good thing?

Emeritus wrote:

I left out a lot of options.  My point was not to deal with all the many ways that a deal can be structured, but to point out that refusing to even consider a mix of compensation types is unduly restrictive.

Thank you for your post.  And this thought should have been your Cliff's note!

I have had the luxury of bringing 20 years of sales and negotiation experience to my modeling career.  Many here just don't have the background and experience to understand what they miss out on by clinging to their parroted beliefs.

Image is Nothing wrote:
Wait...

Texas!!!

What are you saying ?

The MM Mob Rules are not carved in stone and do not trump all other authorities and common sense?

I'm going to have a nervous breakdown...

what MM mob rules?

MM isn't some singular mass of people that think anyway.   Just read the forums and you can see that.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

what MM mob rules?

MM isn't some singular mass of people that think anyway.   Just read the forums and you can see that.

Oh god... Did you take me seriously?

I guess I'm not funny anymore.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
what MM mob rules?

MM isn't some singular mass of people that think anyway.   Just read the forums and you can see that.

Image is Nothing wrote:
Oh god... Did you take me seriously?

I guess I'm not funny anymore.

oh, sorry, I thought you were part of the MM mob.