Jay Farrell wrote:
Yes. I think I asked them why else would I be paying you? It's happened a couple of times at least. Another classic case of someone getting into the business end of something they don't understand, and not taking time to learn how things work first.

I think it could have something to do with all the guys on here who are paying models for "Portfolio Use Only".

In fact, I recently had one model tell me that she thought that's what paid work on MM was all about.

John Jebbia wrote:
Ever had a model you were paying for a shoot who was taken aback or at least was surprised when she found out that you actually intended on either selling her photos or using them commercially?

This question puzzles me..  I am a commercial photographer,  and my whole business is  the creating of photos and  selling for advertising.

It puzzles me also and I do not know your purpose of being a model.  or a photographer..  To me Photography is a business.  The whole purpose centers around the publishing of  that or those photos  for a purpose.   

Maybe further explanation..

John Jebbia wrote:
Ever had a model you were paying

Client/agency took care of that.

LexLethal wrote:
Honestly, it's because sometimes photographers might forget to say anything.
It's not that I want to approve images, I just would like to know where the hell I am so I can be proud of myself.

That's me, though.

Ohhhhhh wait, I misread that.
They wind up surprised because they don't bother to ask what the intentions are with the image. That's even more important than wether or not you'll be getting paid.

Sigh Photography wrote:
Personally, I don't understand why photographers who have paid models to sit for them then give them access to the images. They have no right to the images. They've been paid. Essentially you are paying the model to shoot their book for them. How dumb is that? Why don't you just get a gun and shoot yourself because it'll be quicker. All that happens is that models start putting themselves on a pedestal and demeaning the value of the work. The point they miss is that this is a symbiotic relationship. Models who try to throw their self importance around are a ball ache and should be avoided. They are not your little princess. They are not going to go out with you because you are nice to them.

Personally I give models I have paid for some images because I am too cheap to pay out agency rates and rely on Internet modelling sites.

Word of mouth here is really important. A reputation for being a nice guy goes a long way in furthering my professional aims.

So it's entirely rational economic calculus.

Sigh Photography wrote:
It should all be discussed prior to the shoot and the model should understand exactly what is expected of them and acknowledge that fact. You should send them a confirmation email before the shoot stating what the terms are of your shoot for them to sign and send back to you.

I'll try to sort through the rest later, but how, exactly, do you "sign and return" an email?

Art of the nude wrote:

I'll try to sort through the rest later, but how, exactly, do you "sign and return" an email?

Maybe have them read, print, and mail back to them by post/bring it to the shoot?

Sigh Photography wrote:
Email, print, sign, scan, email back.
Like any emailed contract.

It seemed fairly obvious to me as well...

Airekahlin wrote:
Maybe have them read, print, and mail back to them by post/bring it to the shoot?

I've done that too (and I have them bring the orignal signed copy in with them as well), but you run the risk of having them quibble over minor points there in the studio - the advantage of having the signed doc emailed back to you is that you know it's all agreed-to beforehand and you can proceed with planning the rest of the shoot: booking MUA/stylist, props etc.

Virtual Studio wrote:

Personally I give models I have paid for some images because I am too cheap to pay out agency rates and rely on Internet modelling sites.

Word of mouth here is really important. A reputation for being a nice guy goes a long way in furthering my professional aims.

So it's entirely rational economic calculus.

There are so many points I started to type down but you know what I really don't want to cause you any offence. Suffice it to say being a nice guy is achievable without being an enabler and that I disagree with your calculus though I understand everyone has to start somewhere and it's a learning curve.

Sigh Photography wrote:

There are so many points I started to type down but you know what I really don't want to cause you any offence. Suffice it to say being a nice guy is achievable without being an enabler and that I disagree with your calculus though I understand everyone has to start somewhere and it's a learning curve.

No - I've been being a nice guy for a lot of years now

Virtual Studio wrote:

No - I've been being a nice guy for a lot of years now

I'm sure you have and all credit for you being so but unfortunately that wasn't the issue. Not to worry.

Tansy Blue wrote:
I'd be EXTREMELY surprised if a photographer had a guaranteed buyer for an art nude set...but only because the market for that style of work is so tiny.

I am presuming you are suggesting that the model was shocked because she naturally wouldn't think the images salable because of the genre?

If I'm getting your point correctly I'm afraid it's irrelevant. He doesn't need a guaranteed buyer at the time of taking the images. If she has agreed to take money for a shoot she shouldn't be surprised to be expected to waive her rights to the images.

A model release for such work doesn't have to cover a guaranteed and preset sale of the images. It is an agreement between model and photographer stating the model has waived any rights to the images in the future for the period stated. The terms and conditions are there to be negotiated between parties. If the photographer is being paid because h/she is doing a job and there is budget then the model should be getting remuneration from that job either from the client directly or via the photographer in a time frame stipulated by him/her.

A model release can deal with future sales as well - as in syndication of images. The model will either receive a buy out amount or agree to a percentage if some sales do occur in the future. It should also be stipulated at the time if there is some genre of publication the model does not want the images appearing in in the future.

If the model is not happy signing a release then don't do the job. It's unprofessional and a waste of everybody's time.

That is the point of 'tests'. These shots may only be used for personal presentation and I suggest in this day and age of misunderstandings all parties sign a release that is limited to this area of usage.

When I used to work my fingers to the bone for a studio complex in London as a studio assistant for no money the agreement being I could test on days I wasn't working.They'd constantly renege on the deal and on the occasion (twice in 15 months) I did get to use the facilities I had to sign an agreement that if the images appeared anywhere including magazines that didn't pay anything, the studio would have copyright of the images and you'd be terminated. Now that's a see you next Tuesday for you.

These are all reasons why things are best clarified in advance of a shoot. Explanations are very helpful to those who have just started out or who don't really understand professional T&C's but a flat rejection to understand nor negotiate T&C's because of perceived self worth and the reticence to learn makes it for very stressful shooting.

Sigh Photography wrote:

I am presuming you are suggesting that the model was shocked because she naturally wouldn't think the images salable because of the genre?

[snip for convenience]

These are all reasons why things are best clarified in advance of a shoot. Explanations are very helpful to those who have just started out or who don't really understand professional T&C's but a flat rejection to understand nor negotiate T&C's because of perceived self worth and the reticence to learn makes it for very stressful shooting.

Well, if I were shooting nose picking shots with the OP and learned he was intending to sell them I wouldn't be surprised at all because I'm aware that there's a market out there for images of that.

I'm aware that in the UK the photographer has all rights to an image and can sell them (or do anything else he wants with them) to anyone.

In fact I quite regularly shoot fine art nudes with people who say "I'm going to sell these images [usually in the form of prints selling at exhibition]", and I think "yeah right" because very few photographers in the UK can sell significant numbers of fine art nude prints to the general public.

If I shot fine art nudes with a guy who said "I was commissioned to shoot this by xyz"/"abc says they'll buy this set" I'd be very surprised. I don't think I've ever heard of that happening with the style of image I generally pose for, but then again maybe I just don't move in the right circles.

I was responding to the OP's question from the point of view of a model as opposed to a photographer.

Tansy Blue wrote:

Well, if I were shooting nose picking shots with the OP and learned he was intending to sell them I wouldn't be surprised at all because I'm aware that there's a market out there for images of that.

I'm aware that in the UK the photographer has all rights to an image and can sell them (or do anything else he wants with them) to anyone.

In fact I quite regularly shoot fine art nudes with people who say "I'm going to sell these images [usually in the form of prints selling at exhibition]", and I think "yeah right" because very few photographers in the UK can sell significant numbers of fine art nude prints to the general public.

If I shot fine art nudes with a guy who said "I was commissioned to shoot this by xyz"/"abc says they'll buy this set" I'd be very surprised. I don't think I've ever heard of that happening with the style of image I generally pose for, but then again maybe I just don't move in the right circles.

I was responding to the OP's question from the point of view of a model as opposed to a photographer.

I have a fine art photographer friend who used to sell a considerable amount of nudes through Selfridges. They were beautiful as pieces of work and easily digestible by people on the street as it were.

Yes - the nose picking thing - I see your surprise now. I was working off the word 'nudes'. Less said the better.

The point regarding model releases is still valid though. From what you say regarding UK rights, I don't know if you've previously signed a release. Images can only be published or used to make money if the model has signed a release. It works for the protection of photographer and model so I am coming from it both ways. There is something niggling in the back of my head about 'art photography' not requiring model releases but regarding nudes I would certainly go through it openly and honestly with any subject. It is one thing doing nudes for a personal book, quite another to have them blown up in a gallery if you're not expecting it.

My reaction had I been the model involved wouldn't have been surprise regarding money or sales it would have been, 'You want me to do what now?'. No offence to the OP - if it's your thing, it's your thing.

I humbly accept that some of my remarks may have been based on slight confusion and thank you for taking the time to explain your position more thoroughly.

John Jebbia wrote:
Ever had a model you were paying for a shoot who was taken aback or at least was surprised when she found out that you actually intended on either selling her photos or using them commercially?

Nope.

I say
"This is my release... sign it if you want money"

They say "OK"

Done and done.

John Jebbia wrote:
Ever had a model you were paying for a shoot who was taken aback or at least was surprised when she found out that you actually intended on either selling her photos or using them commercially?

In parts of Colorado, a handshake still does mean something, when it comes to an agreement (the basic concept). But today, even signing a contract doesn't mean anything to some.

John Jebbia wrote:
Ever had a model you were paying for a shoot who was taken aback or at least was surprised when she found out that you actually intended on either selling her photos or using them commercially?

Just what sort of rabble are you shooting?

John Jebbia wrote:
Ever had a model you were paying for a shoot who was taken aback or at least was surprised when she found out that you actually intended on either selling her photos or using them commercially?

I had a model I paid call me a few weeks later asking me where her pictures were... I told her to re-read the contract she signed, first paragraph, second phrase where it says "I acknowledge the receipt of $XXX.XX as complete and final payment for my services." And the 4th paragraph where it says "Model agrees not to download, cause to be downloaded, nor use or cause to be used any of the images taken in this session without prior written consent from photographer. If model wishes to use any images in her portfolio for self-promotion she agrees to purchase the image(s) and a license from photographer at $XX.XX per image."
She said she was going to sue me and tell people I don't deliver on my shoots... it's been almost 3 years and I have not heard form her lawyer yet