Wardrobe Stylist
Pretty Deadly Stylz
Posts: 559
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
When I organize a shoot, set everything up, etc, I make sure I have a signed contract that states the photographer and myself share the copyright.
Models sign a release to both the photographer and myself in most cases.
I always ask when working for trade, that I have High Res images of all finals for my portfolio, not watermarked. And that I also get Web sized images of all finals, and these can be marked, stamped, logo'd however the photographer wants.
My conditions: credit your teams. I credit them, they credit me. And as much as possible everyone else involved.
How do I achieve this all? I ask beforehand. I talk with my teams, and I have a mutual understanding and respect for those I work with.
Photographer
Keys88 Photo
Posts: 17646
New York, New York, US
OP, when you start a thread entitled "I know this will probably raise hell" - you should be prepared for hell-raising.
Fortunately, you really seem to have posed your question in a respectful way that doesn't antagonize photographers as much as other threads on this subject have.
That said, these threads DO contribute to the "Us vs. Them" mentality that too often pervades this site.
As to the heart of your post, it's simple: becoming a model means accepting the reality of copyright law in the U.S. The photographer is going to own the copyright. Nothing you can do about that - other than buy the copyright from the photographer, negotiate for uses that suit your needs or find a different photographer who will give you what you need.
With respect to watermarks, that seems relatively simple to me: look at the photographer's portfolio. If the photographer has a huge watermark on all of his/her photos, chances are you're safe in assuming that you will receive photos that are similarly watermarked. If you want/need images with smaller watermarks (or none at all) speak to the photographer about this or find a different photographer. The truth is: unless you're putting together a print portfolio, you don't usually NEED images without a watermark.
When it comes to models removing watermarks, the issue has several aspects to it. MY watermark is not particularly big but it IS a copyright notice. It is both a civil and criminal offense to remove a photographer's copyright notice. That is one aspect. Another aspect is that, in this world where most models opt for online portfolios, as opposed to print portfolios, it is perfectly reasonable for a photographer to insist that his/her watermark stay on the image, as it can easily be copied and reposted all over the net.
[note: the people who steal and re-post images may very well remove or attempt to remove the watermark but that doesn't mean that the model should facilitate this theft of intellectual property.]
Photographer
MLRPhoto
Posts: 5766
Olivet, Michigan, US
emleighdee wrote:
Your example just seems to be a misunderstanding or mistake.
I'm talking about stuff like when I see photographers plastering a HUGE watermark on photos, rendering them unusable for the model's portfolio, not to mention, they just ruin the photo in general. Why would it be so uncouth to ask a photographer politely if they could downsize/leave the watermark off in certain instances so the model could get more use from the photo? I have a feeling most photographers here would not like the idea, but it seems fair to make a compromise, to me anyway. It seems unlikely that a photographer would suddenly start doing that. If you don't like their images, don't shoot with them.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Just so we are clear, and it has already been said before, the OP is in Canada. Canadian law is different than US (and most of the world). There are a variety of circumstances where the model, rather than the photographer, will end up owning the copyright. It is even, theoretically possible for a model to end up with copyright on a TF shoot (although, to my knowledge there has never been a published case for or against on the matter).
All of the talk in this thread is good, but it may or may not apply to the OP.
Photographer
Art Silva
Posts: 10064
Santa Barbara, California, US
Sometimes there is a reason why some photographers are hard-ass about their copyrights, just as a model is with her/his limits... Past experiences and mainly bad ones. We have to understand that if something (photos) has been wrongfully ripped off and misused, then spend time and money on lawyers to get their intellectual property back and in some cases protect the likeness and use of the model, insure that the model doesn't sue the photographer for finding her face on a porn site and so on... Before any model questions why photographers feel like they do, they need to step back and realize what is potentially at stake. Holding a copyright carries a big responsibility. hope I'm not off course here but I didn't read the whole tread 
Photographer
Keys88 Photo
Posts: 17646
New York, New York, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
Just so we are clear, and it has already been said before, the OP is in Canada. Canadian law is different than US (and most of the world). There are a variety of circumstances where the model, rather than the photographer, will end up owning the copyright. It is even, theoretically possible for a model to end up with copyright on a TF shoot (although, to my knowledge there has never been a published case for or against on the matter).
All of the talk in this thread is good, but it may or may not apply to the OP. I didn't notice that BUT my post does make clear that I'm referring to U.S. law.
Good catch!
Photographer
ChanStudio
Posts: 9219
Alpharetta, Georgia, US
ei Total Productions wrote:
Just so we are clear, and it has already been said before, the OP is in Canada. Canadian law is different than US (and most of the world). There are a variety of circumstances where the model, rather than the photographer, will end up owning the copyright. It is even, theoretically possible for a model to end up with copyright on a TF shoot (although, to my knowledge there has never been a published case for or against on the matter).
All of the talk in this thread is good, but it may or may not apply to the OP. I remember reading somewhere in Canada that the initiator (person who initiate or person who is paying for the service) owns the copy right to the image. But I am not 100% sure about this..
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
theda wrote:
Yup. Canada is the only country I know of in which the copyright may default to the model. Barring an agreement to the contrary, whoever commissions the work owns the copyright in Canada. In other countries, it's whoever commits the work to tangible form. That's why I photographed a Canadian model in the US. 
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5665
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
ChanStudio wrote:
I remember reading somewhere in Canada that the initiator (person who initiate or person who is paying for the service) owns the copy right to the image. But I am not 100% sure about this.. ...And TF releases people use assign the copyright and often moral rights back to the photographer...
Photographer
-Koa-
Posts: 5250
Castaner, Puerto Rico, US
OP,
What you are suggesting is that actors should also own a motion picture which a producer made.
We all know that is not the case.
reality is, a photographer, just as a movie producer, has to market the product. If a model (or actors) own an equal share, the the photographer/producer would need to ask them for permission every time they wanted to do something with the work.
You do a photo shoot and ten years down the road, a large company is interested in using the shot for an ad. As a dual copyright owner, the photographer, who marketed the image, would have to hunt you down before licensing the image. What if the photographer cannot find you? Does he take the chance in licensing the image? What if he wants to modify it? Again, he would have to hunt you down and ask permission.
The Model Release allows a photographer to use his best judgment in using the image.
That is why in my and in most releases, it states that the image may not be used in a manner that would cause embarrasment to the model. Example, let someone use your image in an AIDS or erectile dysfuncion ad.
-Koa-
Photographer
Nico Simon Princely
Posts: 1972
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
emleighdee wrote:
What about the models?
Basically, it takes two to produce a photo featuring a person. A photographer, and a model. So why is it that generally, the photographer has most of the rights to the photos(how many and which ones the model gets, where the watermark is placed, if they can be edited, which websites they can be displayed on, etc), when the model is to comply with his/her "rules" about the photos. Of course, one could say, if you don't like it, don't work with the photographer, which I would do, but I'm just posing a question here. Why is it we have most of the rights?
Stephen has answered the legal aspect. I'll talk about my view point.
We do 4 or 5 times the work. At least I do.
I generally plan the shoot and concept. (This can vary)
I setup the lighting and background if required and moving it during the shoot.
I tear down the lighting and background equipment.
I have spend hundreds of hours studying my craft, studying images, studying retouching.
I Select wardrobe
I Shoot.
I Own the Equipment costing thousands of dollars.(For those that have a studio even more.)
I Generally Provide the Location.
I Direct The Model.
I Chose the poses.
I Process The Images and Retouch Them.
I once had a model I did all of the above for and she told someone I took all of the credit. HELLO I did everything except be the model. She even showed up without makeup when I told her to bring makeup and I added it digitally. And I took all of the credit.
I put in 4 hours for every one hour the models puts in doing all of the above. Especially in the retouching. The easiest thing to replace in the equation is the model.
Unless I'm being paid I have no desire to remove my watermark or and I do not want it cropped out. I lose all exposure that way and when is does get copied and stolen on line no one will know who it shot the image. Cropping out my watermark is like cropping out your face on a full length or 3/4 image.
Does that put in to perspective that the is not a 50/50 cooperative effort? Most of the time it's like 90/10 or 80/20 with the larger part on my end.
Look at portfolios you see the photographers that have good ports have consistently good shots. Look at the modeling ports and your often see both good and bad depending on the photographer the model has shot with. The photographer makes the shot not the model if you doubt this go shoot with some GWC and see how the images come out or let one of your friends take some pictures of you.
Yet you want to take our well deserved credit from us?
Now when you have a great model and great photographer working together that's when the real magic happens.
Photographer
Clarence Zimmerman
Posts: 4050
Orlando, Florida, US
Well, and it's a deep well... In my honest opinion it comes down to simple economics.
1. Models have a skill to model. This skill can pay.
2. Photographer have a skill to photograph things. This skill can pay.
3. Models can hire a photographer to take pictures of them for a fee based on his/her skill set and usage rights.
4. Photographer can hire a model based on his/her skill set and usage of the models image.
Negotiations can vary between the parties depending on their own bartering for more images/usage rights/"looks" etc. These could even turn the negotiations to a form of payment many have always called TFP (time for prints) on the models behalf. In lieu of or along with reduced funds paid to the model. OR the negotiations could be turned to more usage rights of the models image on behalf of the photographer in lieu of or along with reduced funds paid to the photographer.
Negotiations can be an exchange of garments paid to the model, gas money, dinner, lunch etc.
Anything you desire to work in a negotiation and can both agree upon.
What makes this so? Supply and demand. Who has the supply of what the other needs. Models that don't need prints OR at least don't need prints from a photographer unless they can truly enhance their profile most likely will NOT negotiate TFP or whatever and Photographers that don't need what the model may have to offer will most likely NOT negotiate TFP or whatever as well.
supply and demand
Now how do rights get involved?
1. Models (anyone actually) have rights (I speak for USA for the most part, in some countries this varies) when it comes to the usage of their image in commercial works.
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
emleighdee wrote:
Basically, it takes two to produce a photo featuring a person. A photographer, and a model. So why is it that generally, the photographer has most of the rights to the photos(how many and which ones the model gets, where the watermark is placed, if they can be edited, which websites they can be displayed on, etc), when the model is to comply with his/her "rules" about the photos. Of course, one could say, if you don't like it, don't work with the photographer, which I would do, but I'm just posing a question here.
Why is it that both parties don't draw up a contract/release together based on what both of them would like to see done with the photos? Maybe some people do, but it's unheard of on my end. I think it'd be cool to be able to have some input on the photos, as well as please the photographer as well. You - and many, many others - fail to understand two very simple concepts:
1. The image is the photographer's "product". We tag them and attempt to maintain distribution control because the physical image is our end-product advertising. When a model chops off our tag, he/she is essentially telling us that they are better than we are and that we aren't needed.
2. The image depicted in the physical photograph is the model's "product". In other words, the model's body or face is the product. The model is his/her advertising. Of course you don't see the need for tagging, etc... because you are the marketable product. Does that make any kind of sense?
Ultimately, there are no "lines in the sand". A lot of photographers are open to collaboration - you just have to look for them. The problem seems to be that you expect it to be the norm.
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
emleighdee wrote:
Okay, but my question is why does the photographer have ultimate copyright? Without the model, there would be no photo. Why is the copyright not shared? Not all images have a model, but all photographers retain the copyright to what they create.
Freedom of the press has a lot to do with it, can you imagine a suspected criminal sharing copyright with the photographer? How about if I am in politics and won't let you use a picture of me with any story I don't like?
These are real issues beyond the artistic aspect of creating an image. Remember people use to say they were having their pictures made, not taken. Sure we may not need the advanced chem. knowledge anymore but we, the photographer, make images not take pictures
Photographer
sjx
Posts: 969
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Stephen Markman wrote:
OP, when you start a thread entitled "I know this will probably raise hell" - you should be prepared for hell-raising.
Fortunately, you really seem to have posed your question in a respectful way that doesn't antagonize photographers as much as other threads on this subject have.
That said, these threads DO contribute to the "Us vs. Them" mentality that too often pervades this site.
As to the heart of your post, it's simple: becoming a model means accepting the reality of copyright law in the U.S. The photographer is going to own the copyright. Nothing you can do about that - other than buy the copyright from the photographer, negotiate for uses that suit your needs or find a different photographer who will give you what you need.
With respect to watermarks, that seems relatively simple to me: look at the photographer's portfolio. If the photographer has a huge watermark on all of his/her photos, chances are you're safe in assuming that you will receive photos that are similarly watermarked. If you want/need images with smaller watermarks (or none at all) speak to the photographer about this or find a different photographer. The truth is: unless you're putting together a print portfolio, you don't usually NEED images without a watermark.
When it comes to models removing watermarks, the issue has several aspects to it. MY watermark is not particularly big but it IS a copyright notice. It is both a civil and criminal offense to remove a photographer's copyright notice. That is one aspect. Another aspect is that, in this world where most models opt for online portfolios, as opposed to print portfolios, it is perfectly reasonable for a photographer to insist that his/her watermark stay on the image, as it can easily be copied and reposted all over the net.
[note: the people who steal and re-post images may very well remove or attempt to remove the watermark but that doesn't mean that the model should facilitate this theft of intellectual property.] well said S. M. !
Photographer
Fred Gerhart
Posts: 747
San Antonio, Texas, US
emleighdee wrote:
Your example just seems to be a misunderstanding or mistake.
I'm talking about stuff like when I see photographers plastering a HUGE watermark on photos, rendering them unusable for the model's portfolio, not to mention, they just ruin the photo in general. Why would it be so uncouth to ask a photographer politely if they could downsize/leave the watermark off in certain instances so the model could get more use from the photo? I have a feeling most photographers here would not like the idea, but it seems fair to make a compromise, to me anyway. Two reasons:
1. Photographers are concerned the images will be used for other purposes besides portfolio development such as stock photo sales. There have been instances of images on MM that were copied and placed on other sites.
2. Some models do not credit their photographers here on MM. Its a really easy thing to do but I can't keep up count of all the model portfolios on MM I have seen that do not make any reference to the photographer.
All photographers want is credit where credit is due.
Photographer
Feverstockphoto
Posts: 623
Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
emleighdee wrote:
I appreciate your insights.
I guess my beef is with people who are hardheaded and self important. I don't work with those types and won't in the future, but your insights on providing a service vs a product were very helpful. This is a good way to see it, and i like it as well. Very helpfull advice.
Anyway about putting watermark on image has been addresed. It deters people from using/claiming image as theirs, although it can be removed in some cases, that would create an infrigment. Resizing: If i want to use the image for stock on Istock, i have to resize image and not give away full res for display on the internet. I think it's 1200px by 800px because of my exclusive contract with them. I can sell/allow prints, high res, just not for display on internet. That may be some peoples reasoning.
I do however see your point and it's an interseting point, but again you need to discuss that before any shoots that you do and get things in writting if you wish to change things for yourself.
Model
P I X I E
Posts: 35440
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
So far, in over 3 years of modeling, I haven't been offended by a photographer's watermark...
Photographer
BrokenWings Photography
Posts: 158
Killeen, Texas, US
AJScalzitti wrote:
..... we, the photographer, make images not take pictures +1000!!
Photographer
Howick Image Studio
Posts: 906
Panama City Beach, Florida, US
To try to make it simple:
1) At the moment the shutter is released, the ownership of copyright is defined by law. Issues of fairness or otherwise do not enter into the equation in any way. Any change in ownership thereafter can only be effected by agreement between the parties involved.
2) You are well within your rights to try to negotiate any aspect of any shoot.
3) Some photographers will be flexible, others will say "next". You can do the same.
Photographer
I M N Photography
Posts: 2350
Boston, Massachusetts, US
It's a good thing that you clarified the scenario as a trade shoot, and not a regular job.
As a general rule, the photographer's job is to create images. The subject's is to model.
If a model wants images, then she hires a photographer for a session.
If she does not want to hire a photographer, then she agrees to do a trade shoot.
The trade can be for files, prints, or simple camera experience.
At no point does, or should, the copyright ownership come into question.
The owner of the copyright can grant a general usage license. It can give rights similar to those of the copyright owner, but short of a work for hire scenario (e.g., the photographer is specifically hired to take pictures and hand them over when the session/event is done, or the model in Canada is hired to pose and nothing else*) the copyright is always retained.
That last paragraph applies both to Canada and the rest of the continent, when it comes retaining the copyright.
* Unlike the States, models retain copyright of images containing their likeness in Canada, unless an agreement is made so that the copyright is explicitly given to the photographer.
That last agreement is similar to what the OP is postulating, but in this case it makes more sense, because the marketing financing usually comes from the entity that hired the photographer, not the employer of the model.
Photographer
curtis wood
Posts: 1307
Logan, Utah, US
-this is off the OP's topic and I appologize in advance, but.... -copyright notice/watermark is important. If you want to see an extreme case in point to the negative take a moment to check out this site Noam Galai put up to tell his story: http://www.noamgalai.com/scream.htm
Model
Jessie Shannon
Posts: 2004
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
J Henry wrote:
A lot of times, it takes more than two people to create an image of a person. There may be specific people for hair, makeup, wardrobe, and perhaps a few photography assistants. In which case, the model is the least important person on set. Hahaha.....what??
Model
--Ishtar--
Posts: 1254
Heerlen, Limburg, Netherlands
emleighdee wrote:
Okay, but my question is why does the photographer have ultimate copyright? Without the model, there would be no photo. Why is the copyright not shared? Depends on the country actually, and any release signed. You are always free to discuss your needs with a tog.
In the US, copyright always defaults to the photographer; model releases aren't necessary other than to prevent the model from retracting consent of using her likeness afterwards.
In other nations, copyright defaults to 50/50 split between tog and model in absence of a model release.
Photographer
291
Posts: 11911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US
--Ishtar-- wrote:
In other nations, copyright defaults to 50/50 split between tog and model in absence of a model release. when are people on this site going to learn copyright and model releases have no correlation to one another. might as well compare cows to baseball with such silly notions.
Model
Jessie Shannon
Posts: 2004
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
291 wrote:
when are people on this site going to learn copyright and model releases have no correlation to one another. might as well compare cows to baseball with such silly notions. Probably never this is Mayhem:)
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
emleighdee wrote:
Okay, but my question is why does the photographer have ultimate copyright? Without the model, there would be no photo. Why is the copyright not shared? if some famous painter, painted your portrait, do you believe you should be entitled to sign your name at the bottom?
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 39248
Portland, Oregon, US
--Ishtar-- wrote:
In other nations, copyright defaults to 50/50 split between tog and model in absence of a model release. 291 wrote:
when are people on this site going to learn copyright and model releases have no correlation to one another. might as well compare cows to baseball with such silly notions. Actually, I've been informed by rather credible sources that in Canada, it is not really accurate to say that model releases and copyright have nothing to do with each other.
Apparently, the model release forms in Canada typically releases both privacy/publicity rights AND any possible claim on copyright.
Therefore, there actually IS a correlation under some jurisdictions, such as the one the OP is in.
Ultimately, one more good reason why clear conversation between the model and photographer are always a good idea to communicate each party's needs/expectations and arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement.
Model
P I X I E
Posts: 35440
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
DougBPhoto wrote:
--Ishtar-- wrote:
In other nations, copyright defaults to 50/50 split between tog and model in absence of a model release. Actually, I've been informed by rather credible sources that in Canada, it is not really accurate to say that model releases and copyright have nothing to do with each other.
Apparently, the model release forms in Canada typically releases both privacy/publicity rights AND any possible claim on copyright.
Therefore, there actually IS a correlation under some jurisdictions, such as the one the OP is in. This.
Photographer
291
Posts: 11911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US
--Ishtar-- wrote:
In other nations, copyright defaults to 50/50 split between tog and model in absence of a model release. 291 wrote:
when are people on this site going to learn copyright and model releases have no correlation to one another. might as well compare cows to baseball with such silly notions. DougBPhoto wrote:
Actually, I've been informed by rather credible sources that in Canada, it is not really accurate to say that model releases and copyright have nothing to do with each other.
Apparently, the model release forms in Canada typically releases both privacy/publicity rights AND any possible claim on copyright. please source that information.
Model
Marketa Fei
Posts: 401
Berkeley, California, US
Nico Simon Princely wrote:
We do 4 or 5 times the work. At least I do.
I generally plan the shoot and concept. (This can vary)
I setup the lighting and background if required and moving it during the shoot.
I tear down the lighting and background equipment.
I have spend hundreds of hours studying my craft, studying images, studying retouching.
I Select wardrobe
I Shoot.
I Own the Equipment costing thousands of dollars.(For those that have a studio even more.)
I Generally Provide the Location.
I Direct The Model.
I Chose the poses.
I Process The Images and Retouch Them. You know, I keep hearing stuff like this...and all I can think is "Damn, I should probably be trying less hard" because it certainly seems like I could get away with doing less than a third of the work I generally do before/during a shoot.
Photographer
curtis wood
Posts: 1307
Logan, Utah, US
-double double post post.
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 39248
Portland, Oregon, US
DougBPhoto wrote:
Actually, I've been informed by rather credible sources that in Canada, it is not really accurate to say that model releases and copyright have nothing to do with each other.
Apparently, the model release forms in Canada typically releases both privacy/publicity rights AND any possible claim on copyright. 291 wrote:
please source that information. Scroll up above your post where a working Canadian model agreed?
or look at #3 on the following:
http://www.capic.org/download_pdfs/Form … eement.pdf
or
http://web.uvic.ca/ail/model.htm
or
page 5 - long form release http://www.carfacontario.ca/images/model_releases.pdf
I could go on, but I presume you know how to Google.
I also have additional references/sources, but will only disclose them privately.
Photographer
Aaron Pawlak
Posts: 2850
New York, New York, US
emleighdee wrote:
EDIT: I am speaking in terms of hobbyist/TF/etc shoots, NOT paid or professional shoots within an agency. Why are you saying a pro photographer and,
in your words,
a "hobbyist/TF/etc shoot"er,
are 2 different animals?
Photographer
Frozen Instant Imagery
Posts: 4152
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
I don't watermark my images (I don't like defacing them ). I add my id to the metadata, where it doesn't get in the way. I own the copyright in the images, but the model has a license to use them, almost entirely without limits (I'd be annoyed if she or he attributes them to another photographer, or claims to own the copyright, but that's about it). That's how I feel. I make no claim that anyone else has to feel the same way.
Photographer
Art Silva
Posts: 10064
Santa Barbara, California, US
Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I don't watermark my images (I don't like defacing them ). I add my id to the metadata, where it doesn't get in the way.
I own the copyright in the images, but the model has a license to use them, almost entirely without limits (I'd be annoyed if she or he attributes them to another photographer, or claims to own the copyright, but that's about it).
That's how I feel. I make no claim that anyone else has to feel the same way. I used to feel the same way and religiously so, until a couple models called me one day to take a look at a couple porn sites where my images of them were being used to sell videos. Then recently I found a sports shot I had up on Flickr has been used in a tourist board website since 2007... yeah I watermark EVERYTHING now that goes up online.
Oh and metadata is not always permanent, software can occasionally filter that out or a simple full size screenshot>save>resize>post is the easiest way to erase it.
Model
Jessie Shannon
Posts: 2004
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
emleighdee wrote:
What about the models?
Basically, it takes two to produce a photo featuring a person. A photographer, and a model. So why is it that generally, the photographer has most of the rights to the photos(how many and which ones the model gets, where the watermark is placed, if they can be edited, which websites they can be displayed on, etc), when the model is to comply with his/her "rules" about the photos. Of course, one could say, if you don't like it, don't work with the photographer, which I would do, but I'm just posing a question here. Nico Simon Princely wrote:
Why is it we have most of the rights?
Stephen has answered the legal aspect. I'll talk about my view point.
We do 4 or 5 times the work. At least I do.
I generally plan the shoot and concept. (This can vary)
I setup the lighting and background if required and moving it during the shoot.
I tear down the lighting and background equipment.
I have spend hundreds of hours studying my craft, studying images, studying retouching.
I Select wardrobe
I Shoot.
I Own the Equipment costing thousands of dollars.(For those that have a studio even more.)
I Generally Provide the Location.
I Direct The Model.
I Chose the poses.
I Process The Images and Retouch Them. Marketa Fei wrote:
You know, I keep hearing stuff like this...and all I can think is "Damn, I should probably be trying less hard" because it certainly seems like I could get away with doing less than a third of the work I generally do before/during a shoot. Right, lol.
Especially if we are the least important person on set, as was previously stated by someone. I dont expect to get copyright unless thats specifically negotiated before the shoot and I value all the money spent and the hard work put in by photographers, Watermarks are ok and perfectly understandable just dont make them bigger than the model or put it over her face etc and its fine. Not a big deal. I personally dont know why models crop them off that seems pretty vain. Unless its a printed models book. I like to prop out the photographers and I always give credit to them for all their hardwork. BUT this Oh holier than thou attitude towards models has to go. It helps nothing and this attitude is repeated throughout the forums. In reality, a good model does put a lot into a shoot and IS your image regardless of how you got there or how much money you spent to become a photographer, its a team effort. Credit is due on both sides. Law determines copyright. If you want a piece of it buy it or negotiate it beforehand. Period.
|
). I add my id to the metadata, where it doesn't get in the way. 