You're running the risk of sounding redundant at this point. Your opinion has been heard. Just because your opinion of fair work and mine are different, doesn't mean we have to start losing our minds about it.
When almost every single person who has replied to you has said the exact same thing, you would think you'd finally get the hint, but you seem to be a lost cause who will continually refuse to accept that how you think & how most other people think about this aren't the same.
I have no idea why this thread is still going. It has been answered over & over & over again.
Mask Photo wrote: Oh man. Was hoping the locking of the other thread would stem this tide, but i guess that was naive thinking on my part.
OP, if all you want is to look at the finals, just poach them from the photog's port. As long as you aren't publishing them around, there shouldn't be a problem.
If you want a license to publish them, you're asking for more work, because then I have to write that license. One of the benefits of paying a model is that I don't have to do that. I deal with lots of paperwork, and I don't want to have to add to it.
A point a lot of people are missing is that you are charging less than you otherwise would because you're negotiating for pictures as well. While that might be a good idea from a technical standpoint, you're actually going to get the worst of both worlds; flakiness from the TFP side, and headaches from not being paid enough on the cash side.
(and citing expenses that you engender is only going to make us laugh a sad chuckle; there's no way you will ever approach the expenses of the photographic equipment most of us have invested in, and we usually absorb considerable incidental costs ourselves for shoots, TFP or otherwise, whether it's props, dropcloths, latex paint, custom-built backdrops, pizza for the crew, etc etc etc. I guess that, since we also invest 2-5 times more time on each shoot than a model, we sort of do feel like we're above them, as we're out a considerable amount of effort, relative to any member of the crew.)
Way I see it, if you just want to look at finals from the shoot and not do anything with them (my precioussss), charge a fair market rate and then say "by the way, if you wouldn't mind shooting me copies of the final(s) when you're done with it/them, i'd love to see what we came up with" and leave it at that. The better you performed at the shoot, the more likely the photog is going to feel warm fuzzies toward you and pass the images along.
It really feels like you're expecting the images as a tip. Unfortunately, this isn't the service industry, so tipping isn't standard. A very gentle reminder that it would be appreciated is probably the farthest you should push it.
Or you could keep doing this TFP hybrid thing you've been working, but it seems to only be causing you strife, as it's fairly non-standard.
Mask Photo wrote: Oh man. Was hoping the locking of the other thread would stem this tide, but i guess that was naive thinking on my part.
OP, if all you want is to look at the finals, just poach them from the photog's port. As long as you aren't publishing them around, there shouldn't be a problem.
If you want a license to publish them, you're asking for more work, because then I have to write that license. One of the benefits of paying a model is that I don't have to do that. I deal with lots of paperwork, and I don't want to have to add to it.
A point a lot of people are missing is that you are charging less than you otherwise would because you're negotiating for pictures as well. While that might be a good idea from a technical standpoint, you're actually going to get the worst of both worlds; flakiness from the TFP side, and headaches from not being paid enough on the cash side.
(and citing expenses that you engender is only going to make us laugh a sad chuckle; there's no way you will ever approach the expenses of the photographic equipment most of us have invested in, and we usually absorb considerable incidental costs ourselves for shoots, TFP or otherwise, whether it's props, dropcloths, latex paint, custom-built backdrops, pizza for the crew, etc etc etc. I guess that, since we also invest 2-5 times more time on each shoot than a model, we sort of do feel like we're above them, as we're out a considerable amount of effort, relative to any member of the crew.)
Way I see it, if you just want to look at finals from the shoot and not do anything with them (my precioussss), charge a fair market rate and then say "by the way, if you wouldn't mind shooting me copies of the final(s) when you're done with it/them, i'd love to see what we came up with" and leave it at that. The better you performed at the shoot, the more likely the photog is going to feel warm fuzzies toward you and pass the images along.
It really feels like you're expecting the images as a tip. Unfortunately, this isn't the service industry, so tipping isn't standard. A very gentle reminder that it would be appreciated is probably the farthest you should push it.
Or you could keep doing this TFP hybrid thing you've been working, but it seems to only be causing you strife, as it's fairly non-standard.
The first comment was unnecessary however you make good points elsewhere. Aside from you however, a lot of photogs don't bother with any paperwork. Therefore for them it's even less of an issue. You make a good point on the gentle reminder thing is a good idea. Thanks.
Relax. Are you so famous? Do you think you did more work than I at that shoot? Come on.
No I didn't do more work than you. But you were paid for the work weren't you? And now you are taking additional value away by getting pics? It's essentially as if the photographer were paying twice.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: Yet when you take the photos and pay me, I can't even have a couple copies from my hours of hard work? It's really not unreasonable.
NO - because you got CASH instead!
How hard is this for you to understand? Let's try some examples:-
1. You work at a bakery. Do you expect to be able to take home everything you bake? No, because you were PAID to bake.
2. You work at a car factory. Do you expect the company to give you a car for your birthday? No, because you were PAID to build cars.
3. You work as a figure model for a painter. Do you expect the painter to give you his painting when it's finished? No, because you were PAID to model for it.
4. You work as a photographer's model...... { you fill in the rest }
Yes, I actually think I did more before, during and after the shoot. But that's really irrelevant to your argument of "wanting it all".
There is one consolation in your inability to comprehend. The exposure you're getting here is a priceless tool for potential photographers.
That tells me how much you appreciate how much work models actually put into a shoot, before as well. Nothing wrong with wanting to see my work, stop being so negative.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: I can understand that. What if I said take the images, send them to me, don't leave yourself a copy, and we're set! Yet, when a model pays a photographer, he gets to keep the photos, no? And maybe even put them in his/her port?
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: Work for hire, or 'I pay you' means what I said above: you send me a copy yet you have copies too.. not to mention you get to use them as well. Yet when you take the photos and pay me, I can't even have a couple copies from my hours of hard work? It's really not unreasonable.
I think part of the problem here is you either don't understand or don't know what copyright law is.
In the US the photographer OWNS the photos unless a contract is signed stating otherwise. As property of the photographer, they can do WHATEVER they want with it, even if they pay a model to be in the photos.
If you have a photographer sign a "work for hire" CONTRACT that usually means they are signing over their copyright to you. A "work for hire" is NOT the same as just paying a photographer.
Tim Griffiths
Posts: 212
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
There's often a bit of hostility between photographer and models as a group, probably more so than will be admitted in public. There's a lack of humility which seems to go with the territory. I've never known a trade where empty and loud attitude was so much in evidence. Photographers aren't really any better.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: That tells me how much you appreciate how much work models actually put into a shoot, before as well. Nothing wrong with wanting to see my work, stop being so negative.
I think you should quit this thread now while you are still only a few miles behind
I'm guessing there's a whole lot of photographers reading this thread and quietly crossing you off their "must shoot with" lists.... If I was in the US you'd be off mine by now, for sure.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: ...I'm aware, as I took photos for some time. Yet when I was finished editing pics for myself, my arm didn't fall off to extend the kindness of sharing some extra photos.
And just for the record (to keep my good name, lol), I have paid lots of models (primarily for fine art nudes, a couple of times for fashion), and though I did not have to I *always* gave each model a half dozen or so images from the shoot(s). I am on your side Jane, my points I made are just so models can see why some photographers (even myself perhaps at some point) might not feel obligated to provided images for a paid shoot.
I see a photoshoot as a creative partnership between the model and photographer, which is why I prefer TFP for now. Although for nudes which I used to do, I kind of had to pay. Supply and demand, economics 101, lol. I will probably have to cough up cash for some swimsuit photo sessions this summer unless I can find some local MM models wanting to do TFP. But I might still share some nice photos from the shoots, or not, just to keep a model coming back maybe for a second shoot, or to find a friend interested. But on the other of it all, I am not a commercial photographer so any $ i fork over for a paid shoot is out of my pocket for the sake of art, so in some sense I kind of feel ripped off if I have to pay AND provide images, if you can see that point. If the photoshoot helps the model to someday achieve signing with an agency, learn to pose and all, then why do I have to pay for the photoshoot? All I get out of it is the same, to increase my skills to perhaps someday get paid. I have thousands invested in equipment and years invested learning a skill called photography. But again, econ 101 kicks in, and if the model is hot and is in demand, I will have to fork up the cash for a photoshoot; and providing images on top of that might become part of the deal to sweeten the deal. Hope that makes sense?
Tim Griffiths wrote: There's often a bit of hostility between photographer and models as a group, probably more so than will be admitted in public. There's a lack of humility which seems to go with the territory. I've never known a trade where empty and loud attitude was so much in evidence. Photographers aren't really any better.
No, not at all, only toward people who apparently can't read or just refuse to.
Your browser makes copies of everything you see in its cache anyway. You can't say "this may not be copied, oh by the way, here it is on the web" because the nature of the internet is to make copies of things for local display.
It's not stealing, it's may technically be piracy, but it's on a small scale, and if you're going to complain about this, you need to complain about tumblr, pinterest, imgur, and every other content aggregator out there.
way out of scope for this discussion.
OP, poach the images. Everyone does it and if you're not making money, there's no real argument against it in this day and age. Every designer in the world has a morgue file, where they stick copies of things they like. No reason for you to not do the same.
Michael Pandolfo wrote: Yes, I actually think I did more before, during and after the shoot. But that's really irrelevant to your argument of "wanting it all".
There is one consolation in your inability to comprehend. The exposure you're getting here is a priceless tool for potential photographers.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: That tells me how much you appreciate how much work models actually put into a shoot, before as well. Nothing wrong with wanting to see my work, stop being so negative.
No it shows how inexperienced you are. Do you approach whatever your day job is with the same attitude of enlightening the client/boss/supervisor how their business should be operated per Jane?
It can be exhausting for those doing this for years (typically the photographer in this model/photographer relationship - but not always), to deal with/educate newbies who think their new way is superior.
Mask Photo wrote: Your browser makes copies of everything you see in its cache anyway. You can't say "this may not be copied, oh by the way, here it is on the web" because the nature of the internet is to make copies of things for local display.
It's not stealing, it's may technically be piracy, but it's on a small scale, and if you're going to complain about this, you need to complain about tumblr, pinterest, imgur, and every other content aggregator out there.
way out of scope for this discussion.
OP, poach the images. Everyone does it and if you're not making money, there's no real argument against it in this day and age. Every designer in the world has a morgue file, where they stick copies of things they like.
Actually it is stealing. I think you need to read up on your copyright laws. No one but the copyright holder is allowed to use, distribute, print, sell, etc anything covered under the copyright laws without permission from the owner. This includes posting on the web.
So you're telling her to break the law by stealing a photographer's photos. Nice one.
4 R D
Posts: 866
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Jane, it does not matter what you or I think it is fair. Every one of us here has different needs and priorities. Some are here for the money. Others are here for a creative outlet. Others are here only for the boobies. Most are here for a combination of these reasons.
Regardless of purpose, usage or motivations, photographs have value. If you want them to be a part of your compensation then you must negotiate your rates or work only for trade.
Velvet Paper Photo wrote: Actually it is stealing. I think you need to read up on your copyright laws. No one but the copyright holder is allowed to use, distribute, print, sell, etc anything covered under the copyright laws without permission from the owner. This includes posting on the web.
So you're telling her to break the law by stealing a photographer's photos. Nice one.
never said she should post them on the web. Said she should save them from the web, WHICH HER BROWSER HAS ALREADY DONE IN ITS CACHE FILE.
You can't browse the internet without generating copies of the photos you look at. Call the cops; everyone's a thief!
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: I see what you mean, however I don't know how this applies to the fact the photog pays the model to benefit their own port; why do people assume that the model isn't working for photos, even if she's paid? How does a model get paid for a shoot and never get the images? Wouldn't it be better marketing for the photog to allow the paid model to then use their image on the model's port for greater visual distribution? I just don't see how this became a standard: I paid you, so shove off.
The main reason I would pay a model for a personal shoot, is so that I wouldn't have to deal with her afterwards. That may sound blunt, but that's just how it is. If I'm working on an art series, I'm not really interested in what the model needs for her port. I'm interested in the photographs that I'm trying to create. Now, if she would like a nice print of one of the photos, should I desire to use one of them in the series, she's more than welcome to have one.
However, in general if I'm providing prints, then that is the payment.
Mask Photo wrote: never said she should post them on the web. Said she should save them from the web, WHICH HER BROWSER HAS ALREADY DONE IN ITS CACHE FILE.
You can't browse the internet without generating copies of the photos you look at. Call the cops; everyone's a thief!
And that is still stealing and... wait for it... ILLEGAL. Yes, you apparently DO need to read the copyright laws. *sigh*
Sekkides
Posts: 69
London, England, United Kingdom
The photographer is the artist, therefore they hold the copyright because they created the images.
You're either paid in said images or with cash. But even if you're paid in cash, most photographers would gladly send you a couple of final pics for your folio if you ask them and as long as you credit their work.
4 R D
Posts: 866
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Paramour Productions wrote: The main reason I pay a model for a personal shoot, is so that I don't have to deal with her afterwards. That may sound blunt, but that's just how it is.
Reminds me of what they say about prostitutes: "They are not paid to fuck. They get paid to leave afterwards in peace without drama or love expectations".
Reminds me of what they say about prostitutes: "They are not paid to fuck. They get paid to leave afterwards in peace without drama or love expectations".
Velvet Paper Photo wrote: And that is still stealing and... wait for it... ILLEGAL. Yes, you apparently DO need to read the copyright laws. *sigh*
I;ve read the copyright laws. nowhere in them is the word "stealing" used.
also, since you seem to not be able to read, even though i all-capsed it, i'll repeat:
YOU CANNOT BROWSE THE INTERNET WITHOUT MAKING COPIES OF EVERYTHING YOU LOOK AT.
Saving one image from the internet is also more than likely a civil infringement, which is not ever punishable with jail time (as well as being impossible to prove, since EVERY INTERNET BROWSER DOES IT ALL THE TIME), thus calling it "stealing" is infantile at best, and outright disingenuous at worst.
Paramour Productions wrote: The main reason I would pay a model for a personal shoot, is so that I wouldn't have to deal with her afterwards. That may sound blunt, but that's just how it is.
Agreed. The OP's premise is that the photographer is always going to finish some of the photos for his/her own portfolio and therefore it costs them nothing to send those same finished files to the model to do the same. While it may often be the goal of a shoot to end up with something which is portfolio worthy this is not always the case. Even when that is the goal, I know that for me it does not always happen.
Often I have gotten what I wanted from the shoot by the time we wrap up. There is not always the need (or any benefit) for processing the photos any further. If the model is paid in cash then the photographer is free to move on to the next thing, but if the model is expecting photos from the shoot then there is lots more (unnecessary) work ahead.
Michael Pandolfo wrote: Because you can't have it both ways. If you are working for the photos THAT is your payment. You are receiving images that have value to you.
If you're being paid with cash, THAT is your payment.
Expecting monetary compensation + images is unrealistic, unfair and often insulting. What is the photographer getting out of that arrangement if he's paying you + having to provide you with added value in the form of images?
He gets the privilege of your company? He's giving everything in that arrangement and you're getting all the benefits.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: I would assume that allowing me to post the images would give the photographer more visual distribution. It makes sense to me in terms of marketing. Besides, if one is to be fair, does it really hurt the photog to provide the model with a few images? I did portrait photography for a couple years and I was never greedy about it, because I cared about the other person being happy and content with their images and in working with me. To me, that takes precedence.
There is a dichotomy here that is confusing to me.
Models charge 'extra' to work for photographers who they know will not benefit their portfolio.
Photographers, like me, know we have to pay some models to work with us for this reason. It makes perfect sense.
As an example: Why would Damianne work with me? It is unlikely I will benefit her portfolio and she is well established and has worked with people with name recognition. My name, by contrast, is almost unknown. So, to work with Damianne, I know I have to pay her, probably higher than what she would charge other photographers. I understand that. No biggie. It is the free market.
IF I paid Damianne and it was understood ahead of time she was not getting any pics, AND THEN she saw some in my portfolio and she decided she really liked them, then next time she might want to work with me on TF basis or at least lower rates.
Free market. Value for value. That is the way it works.
But, charging the photographer because you think he can not help your portfolio AND wanting him to give you pics... that is confusing. If he cant help your portfolio, why do you want his pics? Value (cash) was traded for Value (your time). Deciding you want pics after the fact, in addition to the cash you already received... yeah, that is not going to go over so well.
You could offer your rates and add a paragraph indicating you are willing to reduce your rates in exchange for some pics. But there again, you are making the explicit evaluation that his pics of you will be worth the amount you are willing to discount your rates. Confusing...
I;ve read the copyright laws. nowhere in them is the word "stealing" used.
also, since you seem to not be able to read, even though i all-capsed it, i'll repeat:
YOU CANNOT BROWSE THE INTERNET WITHOUT MAKING COPIES OF EVERYTHING YOU LOOK AT.
Saving one image from the internet is also more than likely a civil infringement, which is not ever punishable with jail time (as well as being impossible to prove, since EVERY INTERNET BROWSER DOES IT ALL THE TIME), thus calling it "stealing" is infantile at best, and outright disingenuous at worst.
| 
| 
| edu