Don't you think it sucks when you spend hours editing a picture from a TF shoot for a llama, because you want her to get the best image from you that is possible. When you send it to them, they go and do some crappy "editing" of their own on their cell phone or laptop with those useless free styling apps, then send it back to you like "hey aren't i clever, i did your job for you!"
I tend to try and avoid llama releases unless they are under 18 because i think they they are too rigid, But i generally consider it an unwritten rule that A llama only credits me for MY work, and They dont muck about with images that ive already edited, unless they plan on doing something completely radical with it, thus making it unrecognisable as my work.
I dont want a bunch childishly tinkered images floating about the net with my watermark embedded inside the file. But how do you prevent or reduce the likelihood of it?
This is exactly the kind of thing having a model release form prevents. I've never done a shoot without signing one. It can be basic, I wouldn't worry too much about it being to "rigid." Basically its either that, or allowing your models to butcher your work. What's it worth to you?
Yes i suppose That would be the obvious answer. I dont want to be that asshole who calls up a model shouting at them for screwing with my hard work, but then, I suspect that a model release wouldn't "Stop" it so much as only give you legal leverage when it does happen, but that kind of circles round to my previous statement.
The ones I've signed have mentioned usage restrictions. I guess call it what you want, just have them sign something that clearly says what they can and can not do. It makes it easier for everyone.
Everyones Awesome wrote: Yes i suppose That would be the obvious answer. I dont want to be that asshole who calls up a model shouting at them for screwing with my hard work, but then, I suspect that a model release wouldn't "Stop" it so much as only give you legal leverage when it does happen, but that kind of circles round to my previous statement.
If you clearly lay it out beforehand, why shouldn't it stop it? What else can you do to prevent it besides communicate?
Everyones Awesome wrote: Yes i suppose That would be the obvious answer. I dont want to be that asshole who calls up a model shouting at them for screwing with my hard work, but then, I suspect that a model release wouldn't "Stop" it so much as only give you legal leverage when it does happen, but that kind of circles round to my previous statement.
You don't need to call up screaming at the model to state your case. I've stood my ground many times without alienating the models. And those models who did get pissy and severed the relationship, bon voyage, babe.
When a model mangles one of my images, I gently but firmly remind them:
1) of the restrictions outlined in the usage license
2) they're unfairly misrepresenting my work
3) I do my best to make the model look good and I expect the model to do the same for me
4) if they want image modifications, just ask
Christinare wrote: If you clearly lay it out beforehand, why shouldn't it stop it?
Because no matter how clearly you lay out the rules and requirements, there's always someone who doesn't read the document or does think the rules apply to everyone but them.
Make sure your model release signed by the model states that "Model agrees not to alter, colorize, crop, or otherwise edit the final images provided by the photographer." Get verbal confirmation to all terms and conditions before you even agree to schedule the shoot.
Christinare wrote: The ones I've signed have mentioned usage restrictions. I guess call it what you want, just have them sign something that clearly says what they can and can not do. It makes it easier for everyone.
One of the problems is that there are too many people on the Internet referring to virtually standardized documents, meant to serve a specific purpose and 'calling them what you want', adding whatnot and propagating confusion.
Model releases are intended to serve one purpose and that purpose only. That is for the model to release her rights to limit the use of her/his likeness. Done.
>> I don’t give out unretouched images. No exceptions. And I don’t allow others to retouch my images, with the occasional exception of a professional working under my direction.
That's in my profiles. Both of them. It's in my usage license. It's something I discuss with models. It's in the email when I send files to models. I've never had a problem.
One of the problems is that there are too many people on the Internet referring to virtually standardized documents, meant to serve a specific purpose and 'calling them what you want', adding whatnot and propagating confusion.
Model releases are intended to serve one purpose and that purpose only. That is for the model to release her rights to limit the use of her/his likeness. Done.
+1
Some photographers incorporate the model release and other things into what becomes a contract or agreement rather than just a release. My IP lawyer (who is also a photographer) recommends against it. He says it takes a simple document that relates to a small slice of law and complicates it by bringing the whole body of contract law into the picture.
JadeDRed
Posts: 4,235
London, England, United Kingdom
Everyones Awesome wrote: Yes i suppose That would be the obvious answer. I dont want to be that asshole who calls up a model shouting at them for screwing with my hard work, but then, I suspect that a model release wouldn't "Stop" it so much as only give you legal leverage when it does happen, but that kind of circles round to my previous statement.
Do you inform the model beforehand that they aren't allowed to edit the images in any way? Would seem kind of nasty to shout at them first without trying speaking to them at some part of the process. Especially if its TFP (there seems to be an incredibly wide range of ideas of what that means).
RKD Photographic
Posts: 2,989
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Orca Bay Images wrote: Model releases don't protect the photographer's work. The usage license does.
Correct - mine specifies no unauthorised 'editing or retouching, including cropping or removal of watermarks'. Only one (newbie) model did it and took the image down immediately after I politely adverted her to the relevant paragraph - which she should have read before the shoot, obviously.
Everyones Awesome wrote: Don't you think it sucks when you spend hours editing a picture from a TF shoot for a model, because you want her to get the best image from you that is possible. When you send it to them, they go and do some crappy "editing" of their own on their cell phone or laptop with those useless free styling apps, then send it back to you like "hey aren't i clever, i did your job for you!"
I tend to try and avoid model releases unless they are under 18 because i think they they are too rigid, But i generally consider it an unwritten rule that A model only credits me for MY work, and They dont muck about with images that ive already edited, unless they plan on doing something completely radical with it, thus making it unrecognisable as my work.
I dont want a bunch childishly tinkered images floating about the net with my watermark embedded inside the file. But how do you prevent or reduce the likelihood of it?
It's annoying, but quite rare, since I make a point of mentioning the part of the written license which says it isn't allowed. Even when it does, I'd have to say that "Soul destroying" is a bit dramatic.
I did recently have a model's boyfriend run some ugly filter on one of the pictures, then tell me that I had no say in what he did with it because it was HIS work now. But, fortunately, we sorted that out in just a couple messages.
Christinare wrote: This is exactly the kind of thing having a model release form prevents. I've never done a shoot without signing one. It can be basic, I wouldn't worry too much about it being to "rigid." Basically its either that, or allowing your models to butcher your work. What's it worth to you?
The model release has nothing to do with that. Some photographers use a form that mixes the release and other stuff, but . . . .
Everyones Awesome wrote: Don't you think it sucks when you spend hours editing a picture from a TF shoot for a model, because you want her to get the best image from you that is possible. When you send it to them, they go and do some crappy "editing" of their own on their cell phone or laptop with those useless free styling apps, then send it back to you like "hey aren't i clever, i did your job for you!"
I tend to try and avoid model releases unless they are under 18 because i think they they are too rigid, But i generally consider it an unwritten rule that A model only credits me for MY work, and They dont muck about with images that ive already edited, unless they plan on doing something completely radical with it, thus making it unrecognisable as my work.
I dont want a bunch childishly tinkered images floating about the net with my watermark embedded inside the file. But how do you prevent or reduce the likelihood of it?
No, it would not bother me at all. If any anything I want them to get the most possible use of the image for promotion. So long as they are not selling it, they can use it however they need to market themselves. For me TF is about benefitting everyones needs, my needs and the models needs, my ego is not that fragile. If I tried to put those same limitations about cropping and toning images on a publication, newspaper, magazine or ad agency they would laugh at me. So long as the usage agreement is not violated, they can do what they want with it.
Everyones Awesome wrote: I tend to try and avoid model releases unless they are under 18 because i think they they are too rigid, But i generally consider it an unwritten rule that A model only credits me for MY work...
Model releases and usage licenses are a way of communicating. How will a model know of your unwritten rules?
Most of the model releases on the internet seem to say the same things over and over. Find one that says what you want or have a lawyer write one. Don't try to write it yourself.
Usage licenses often vary from instance to instance.
Christinare wrote: This is exactly the kind of thing having a model release form prevents. I've never done a shoot without signing one.
Nope.
A model release *only* gives your consent for the images to be published. That's it!
I never sign releases for test/trade shoots (unless the shoot is for publication submission, agreed upon ahead of time)... many photographers don't need releases signed just to use the photos for self-promotion but ask the model to sign a standard commercial release anyway for all shoots because they think it's the legal thing to do.
Maybe fine if these photographers/publishers are truly innocent and ignorant or you don't care, but downright slimy and scary if they know what they're doing and looking to take advantage of you.
Why would I give my consent for the photographer to commercially use/sell the photos when I don't get paid? Why would I let my face be plastered on a billboard for a million dollar jewelry campaign without me getting a cent? Unlikely, but this is what can happen. Sorry, I don't waive my rights for free.
I realize some states/areas may need a release in writing even to use just for self-promotion, but so often I've seen this goofy commercial model release presented to models after a test/trade shoot and they sign it not realizing the impact of what they're doing. Worse, they think it "protects them", when it fact it does the very opposite!
There's so much emphasis placed on the "model release" here but for the vast majority of model-photographer issues presented here, it's truly the USAGE AGREEMENT that people need to be paying attention to.
I *wish* more photographers put their usage agreement in writing -- and focused less on a release -- pure and simple.
Okay everyone I see I used the wrong term lol
All I was trying to say is that if its a problem, he should have his models sign something saying they can't alter his images. His post sounds like he's never even talked to them about it, and not everyone will have the common sense not to.
I appreciate the comments. Some i agree with, others not so much. The simple fact is, that I am the photographer, they are the model. If I make a picture that makes them look bad, then I havent done my job. If they play with the picture and screw it up, it makes me look bad. if they have any specific styling requests then i make an effort to provide, but I dont see why some people think its "ok" for someone to screw up my hard work and then push it out to a wider audience.
"I dont want a bunch childishly tinkered images floating about the net with my watermark embedded inside the file."
Don't use watermarks.
Since you'll never be able to completely control what the model does, and assuming that the re-editing is significantly worse than what you've done, anyone that sees the pictures won't associate them with you. Of course if the "childishly tinkered images" are approximately the same as what you do, it won't make any difference anyway.
Besides, anyone thinking of employing you as a photographer is not going to be browsing the portfolios of any amateur models that you don't refer them to.
I recently had a model edit one of my images and place text over it. That's a huge pet peeve of mine. I've also had a couple of times where people have posted proof images (which is why I no longer give anyone proofs for TF shoots).
In almost every case where this sort of thing has happened, it was someone who absolutely should have known better. In most of the cases the models who did these things are actually photographers themselves as well.
You can't prevent it but I think a statement saying the model is not allowed to edit the images may not be a bad idea. As other people have mentioned, this might be in a document you call a "release" but it's really a usage issue. You should absolutely be getting releases signed. They allow you to use the model's likeness. You can't legally do a lot with images without having one. And it doesn't need to read like a software license either.
Everyones Awesome wrote: I appreciate the comments. Some i agree with, others not so much. The simple fact is, that I am the photographer, they are the model. If I make a picture that makes them look bad, then I havent done my job. If they play with the picture and screw it up, it makes me look bad. if they have any specific styling requests then i make an effort to provide, but I dont see why some people think its "ok" for someone to screw up my hard work and then push it out to a wider audience.
I would suggest instead of TF just pay the model then you have total control. You then don't have give an image to the model. I view TF as needing to benefit all parties involved. So I respect a model's time and MUA's time just as valuable as my own. So I am not that concern about alterations. The other part of it is what impact could it have on me anyway. Now I have some really dumb recrops done by editors then printed and seen by thousands. Now that was irritating.
Everyones Awesome wrote: Don't you think it sucks when you spend hours editing a picture from a TF shoot for a model, because you want her to get the best image from you that is possible.
Hours? Seriously?
Communicate up front that there will be no altering of images. Work with people who you can trust, who are professionals.
Communicate up front that there will be no altering of images. Work with people who you can trust, who are professionals.
Yes hours. The selection process, then the retouching alone can take quite a long time, and thats only if you are doing very basic hair and skin cleanup. Adding "artistic touches" can take anything from 5 minutes to several hours depending on what you are trying to achieve.
No doubt there are Photoshop Savants among us who can blitz through an entire shoots worth of pictures in half a day, however some of us like to be a bit more thorough and methodical/
Everyones Awesome wrote: Don't you think it sucks when you spend hours editing a picture from a TF shoot for a model, because you want her to get the best image from you that is possible. When you send it to them, they go and do some crappy "editing" of their own on their cell phone or laptop with those useless free styling apps, then send it back to you like "hey aren't i clever, i did your job for you!"
I tend to try and avoid model releases unless they are under 18 because i think they they are too rigid, But i generally consider it an unwritten rule that A model only credits me for MY work, and They dont muck about with images that ive already edited, unless they plan on doing something completely radical with it, thus making it unrecognisable as my work.
I dont want a bunch childishly tinkered images floating about the net with my watermark embedded inside the file. But how do you prevent or reduce the likelihood of it?
I have this happen ...but honestly I don't waist my soul in editing I told a none MM model of mine to be tasteful on editing ... and didn't happen of course I feel embarrassment by looking at
both works but is what is:) one thing I dint like she put flowers around her face. Man ...I'm the dark side shooter nothing fancy about , but never lost taste , so sometimes happens just to be a reminder:)
Everyones Awesome wrote: Don't you think it sucks when you spend hours editing a picture from a TF shoot for a model, because you want her to get the best image from you that is possible. When you send it to them, they go and do some crappy "editing" of their own on their cell phone or laptop with those useless free styling apps, then send it back to you like "hey aren't i clever, i did your job for you!"
I tend to try and avoid model releases unless they are under 18 because i think they they are too rigid, But i generally consider it an unwritten rule that A model only credits me for MY work, and They dont muck about with images that ive already edited, unless they plan on doing something completely radical with it, thus making it unrecognisable as my work.
I dont want a bunch childishly tinkered images floating about the net with my watermark embedded inside the file. But how do you prevent or reduce the likelihood of it?
for the internet, why do they need anything bigger than an 8x10 72 dpi, and it should be watermarked. Honestly, the biggest problem is the photgrapher giving them more than what they need. If they are truly models, they need prints to put in a book. On the net, it's small. No agency is going to spend hours going through their myriad of photos on the internet, so for any "model" to think they need a bunch of edited photos form one shoot, is insanity at its best. You don't want the image butchered, control the output.
Christinare wrote: Okay everyone I see I used the wrong term lol
All I was trying to say is that if its a problem, he should have his models sign something saying they can't alter his images. His post sounds like he's never even talked to them about it, and not everyone will have the common sense not to.
having a model sign an agreement to not alter an image is like asking a scorpion to not sting...there's an attitude that "it's of me, so I'll do as I want to," so it's pointless...just control the output..that makes life easy.
e m i l y wrote: A model release *only* gives your consent for the images to be published. That's it!
There's so much emphasis placed on the "model release" here but for the vast majority of model-photographer issues presented here, it's truly the USAGE AGREEMENT that people need to be paying attention to.
I *wish* more photographers put their usage agreement in writing -- and focused less on a release -- pure and simple.
I totally agree. People keep talking about model release when the really need to talk about a TF agreement (or similar) where you specify the model and photographer's usage rights. Mine specifies both are strictly non-commercial use etc. I don't specifically state that a model can't edit my shots - although maybe I ought to. To be honest, once the photos are in someone else's hands there isn't much you can do to stop it. Is anyone really going to try and sue a model over breaching a TFCD agreement?
Loki Studio wrote: Make sure your model release signed by the model states that "Model agrees not to alter, colorize, crop, or otherwise edit the final images provided by the photographer." Get verbal confirmation to all terms and conditions before you even agree to schedule the shoot.
-Scott
My model release says absolutely nothing at all about what the model can, or cannot, do with the images.
Everyones Awesome wrote: Don't you think it sucks when you spend hours editing a picture from a TF shoot for a model, because you want her to get the best image from you that is possible. When you send it to them, they go and do some crappy "editing" of their own on their cell phone or laptop with those useless free styling apps, then send it back to you like "hey aren't i clever, i did your job for you!"
I tend to try and avoid model releases unless they are under 18 because i think they they are too rigid, But i generally consider it an unwritten rule that A model only credits me for MY work, and They dont muck about with images that ive already edited, unless they plan on doing something completely radical with it, thus making it unrecognisable as my work.
I dont want a bunch childishly tinkered images floating about the net with my watermark embedded inside the file. But how do you prevent or reduce the likelihood of it?
If you REALLY don't want it to happen and you REALLY don't want to use a release or usage agreement or basically paperwork, then screen your models better. Only use experienced models who know better than to do that. And tell them up front not to tinker with your work. If they are new to modeling and they don't know how things work, then you can't expect them to know better because they have no way of knowing what it feels like for you. Use an example to make them understand. Like if they were to model for a picture and they spent all their time and energy on the shoot, and then you photoshopped somebody else's head on their body wouldn't they be upset? Yeah probably they would. (Not the best example but the best I could think of off the top of my head)
for the internet, why do they need anything bigger than an 8x10 72 dpi, and it should be watermarked. Honestly, the biggest problem is the photgrapher giving them more than what they need. If they are truly models, they need prints to put in a book. On the net, it's small. No agency is going to spend hours going through their myriad of photos on the internet, so for any "model" to think they need a bunch of edited photos form one shoot, is insanity at its best. You don't want the image butchered, control the output.
This. Only give web sized images and if they want a print for their book then you can print it yourself and give it to them. The last thing you want is for them to take your high res file to walmart to print it out, because then the color will be all wrong and the paper will be blegh.
Everyones Awesome wrote: I tend to try and avoid model releases unless they are under 18 because i think they they are too rigid, But i generally consider it an unwritten rule that A model only credits me for MY work...
I told a none MM model of mine to be tasteful on editing ... and didn't happen of course I feel embarrassment by looking at
| 
| 
| edu