Michael Pandolfo wrote:
It's not a feather in your cap just because you can get someone to agree to ludicrous demands. The only statement that makes is that there are desperate hobbyists who will agree to almost anything to shoot an attractive female. I'm sure you could troll the site and even find some desperate guy willing to pay for privilege of all those demands. It doesn't make the demands any less absurd.

And it's certainly not going to sustain a career banking on that type of client. Nor is it going to do much to improve a portfolio in most cases. Experienced, talented photographer would never work under those terms.

But yours is an excellent statement about why so many new models disappear so quickly. If a new model makes ridiculous demands because she's sees another model  making them, a few ignorant and uneducated souls will bite just to shoot a pretty girl.

But when the model has exhausted that small pool and has few, if any, quality images, they usually disappear wondering wa'appened.

There is nothing remotely ludicrous to her demands. This as usual more of a case of photographer ego. Most who's images are completely worthless (95% of MM) actually think it is worth big bucks and that copyright has any value.

Anyone can agree to anything. It isn't a sign of desperation or experience. In the case of togs holding to these ridged rules is just a case of reading on forums like this about how things should be done and being stubborn about it to the detriment of themselves in some cases.

Dan K Photography wrote:

There is nothing remotely ludicrous to her demands. This as usual more of a case of photographer ego. Most who's images are completely worthless (95% of MM) actually think it is worth big bucks and that copyright has any value.

Anyone can agree to anything. It isn't a sign of desperation or experience. In the case of togs holding to these ridged rules is just a case of reading on forums like this about how things should be done and being stubborn about it to the detriment of themselves in some cases.

You should work with her and give her your photos!   

Caitin   wrote:

What if the person you can clearly see isn't that educated in business? Would you educate them and then negotiate? Protect them from there ignorance?

Nope.
Not my job.

I offer what I consider fair.  If they think it is fair also, we have a deal. 
If not, no deal.

Life is way to short to educate everyone I do business with in the subtlties of contract law.  If they are concerned, they can get a lawyer and then their lawyer can talk to my lawyer and months to years from now and thousands of dollars poorer, the model and I can shoot.

Or we can do what I said up front; I offer a fair deal, they agree (or not) and we go from there.

My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
@ Dan K Photography; In that case can I have some of your images and mess around with them and after put them on my port.

I used to post photos (give raws) on the practice forum all the time and allowed people to post the results wherever they wanted.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

You should work with her and give her your photos!   

I probably would.

Dan K Photography wrote:
I used to post photos (give raws) on the practice forum all the time and allowed people to post the results wherever they wanted.

Kool I'll see if I can sell them.... worthless as you stated so you wouldn't mind me making a few $ out of them.

Dan K Photography wrote:

I probably would.

Amazing!

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Kool I'll see if I can sell them.... worthless as you stated so you wouldn't mind me making a few $ out of them.

If you could make money on my photos go ahead. I doubt you can do it though. prove me wrong. I know I can't and neither can most here.

MnPhoto wrote:
From the standpoint of a film photographer, I would agree that it is unrealistic to expect him/her to give away any of the negatives or to print out a ton of 9x12s, but...

let's be honest here:

A lot of people on Model Mayhem are hobbyists that shoot entirely for fun, hence do not put any severe value on whatever they shoot. ...

In reply I'd say your right about me if that was for me to a degree. For me photography is a secondary job that I work occasionally. I average about $25k a year from it, it pays for lenses and trips. I hope it will be a business for me thats bigger when I retire but I don't have plans for it to be huge ever.

But I don't sell digital files at reasonable prices because I don't know what I'm doing. I know a lot about how Getty works and how printers used to pay for photos, I know what the value of a digital file can be. I sell digital files at reasonable prices because its a fair thing to do.

Most of my customers have no desire to steal my work or exploit it. They just want to be able to print new photos of their wedding if they want to and I think thats completely fair.

Your post sounds to me like you think people who make certain decisions make them because they don't know what they are doing or they don't care because its not a real business to them. Neither of those things are true for me. I try to make the decisions that are fairest to me and my customers and still allow my business to turn a profit.

I make my TF decisions because for the kinds of things I shoot on average a model wants $50 or so an hour. So I trade her what my normal customers could get for $50 an hour. Its completely fair, I still own my images if I'm going to make calendars or something and I did a pretty solid trade. Did I lose some value, maybe? But I just got a chance to do something I love with someone who was really good at it. My dad used to say that a fair exchange ain't no robbery.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Amazing!

I am. thank you for noticing.

Dan K Photography wrote:

I probably would.

Looking at your port, I would not pass the chance up!

Dan K Photography wrote:
There is nothing remotely ludicrous to her demands. This as usual more of a case of photographer ego. Most who's images are completely worthless (95% of MM) actually think it is worth big bucks and that copyright has any value.

Anyone can agree to anything. It isn't a sign of desperation or experience. In the case of togs holding to these ridged rules is just a case of reading on forums like this about how things should be done and being stubborn about it to the detriment of themselves in some cases.

ALL OF THIS!!!!

On every photography forum people drone on and on about the value of the images and most of them aren't even selling 4x6s let alone licensing anything.

I mean is it possible that someone here has an image worth millions sitting in their catalogue? Sure. Is it probable that they do? OH HELL NO!

David Kirk wrote:

The value of the photo to a commercial client may be based on how much money they can make using that photo to promote their goods and services.  The same can be said if that client is a model if they are using the photo to seek paid work.  However, I don't think you can assume that your work has the same value to a hobby model (for example) as it may to a commercial client.

If someone agrees to do a TF* shoot then you can only conclude that they believe the results (whether that be the resulting photos, the learning, the experience, the networking) will be worth their time and effort - that does not mean they would pay what a commercial client may for the same photo.

I was not talking a commercial client that would cost even more. I'm talking based on Paid agency tests which have an usage license the same as I give models that do TF with me here. So I value a TF test here the same I would an paid agency test. If the model doesnt value it the same she is free to move on and find a different photographer.

Dan K Photography wrote:

There is nothing remotely ludicrous to her demands. This as usual more of a case of photographer ego. Most who's images are completely worthless (95% of MM) actually think it is worth big bucks and that copyright has any value.

Anyone can agree to anything. It isn't a sign of desperation or experience. In the case of togs holding to these ridged rules is just a case of reading on forums like this about how things should be done and being stubborn about it to the detriment of themselves in some cases.

As I said, it's not difficult to find a photographer to agree to a model's demands. But I'm not sure the majority of photographers share your view that their copyright value is worthless, regardless of their experience or talent.

Do you think copyright law was instituted to protect the fragile ego of artists? No, it was implemented to protect intellectual property. If you feel your work is of such little value that you want to give away the copyright to a model, that's your prerogative. But you're not going to find many in this community, photographers or models, who will agree.

Dan K Photography wrote:

If you could make money on my photos go ahead. I doubt you can do it though. prove me wrong. I know I can't and neither can most here.

You never know, maybe some porn site would be interested in some of your nude pic's... not sure what the model would have to say about it.

Dan K Photography wrote:

If you could make money on my photos go ahead. I doubt you can do it though. prove me wrong. I know I can't and neither can most here.

It's not about making money off an image...it's about retaining ownership of something you produced. Quality has nothing to do with it. Nor does ego. It's not egotistical to want to retain ownership of something you created.

Dan K Photography wrote:

There is nothing remotely ludicrous to her demands. This as usual more of a case of photographer ego. Most who's images are completely worthless (95% of MM) actually think it is worth big bucks and that copyright has any value.

Anyone can agree to anything. It isn't a sign of desperation or experience. In the case of togs holding to these ridged rules is just a case of reading on forums like this about how things should be done and being stubborn about it to the detriment of themselves in some cases.

The part I think that was passed over is, why wouldn't someone that is going to just just stuff them in a closet on a full hard drive,take full advantage of the offer? If I spent days weeks months promoting a photo that they have the rest of the set to. I don't know if most people now know how much work and how much the promotion is worth to them. If the photo makes it somewhere (which is slim)So does there name and the ability to sell the rest of the set without doing the work of promoting.
The ambition that I am willing to give has to be worth more than just a ego. Right?

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

It's not about making money off an image...it's about retaining ownership of something you produced. Quality has nothing to do with it. Nor does ego. It's not egotistical to want to retain ownership of something you created.

Value  has everything to do with making money. And most togs photos have none. Sure most photographer will disagree. I already discussed this in my first post in this thread. They are all under the impression they should only sell the copyright for 100* value. What they fail to realize is that value is 0 and 100*0 is still 0.

Ego has nothing to do with it? yeah I am sure we will disagree. IMO ego is everything in this case.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

It's not about making money off an image...it's about retaining ownership of something you produced. Quality has nothing to do with it. Nor does ego. It's not egotistical to want to retain ownership of something you created.

Sorry, it keeps running through my mind when I read stuff like this... gotta say it!

I dont make any money off my children... but you cant have them either!

*Whew*

Glad to have that off my chest!

But seriously, if the Model believes she can make money off the images, she should not mind paying the photographer to produce them.
Now if the Model has much better contacts than I have, which is likely, and she is willing to work those contacts to sell the photos we produced, then I would be glad to allow her the Rights necessary to do that, provided I get a fair cut. 

Oh, damn, did I say the photographer gets paid a fair percentage for what the model sells?  Why yes, yes I did.
And if she sells nothing, then it becomes a standard TF session.

Fair is Fair.



My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us

Daeda1us wrote:
Nope.
Not my job.

I offer what I consider fair.  If they think it is fair also, we have a deal. 
If not, no deal.

Life is way to short to educate everyone I do business with in the subtlties of contract law.  If they are concerned, they can get a lawyer and then their lawyer can talk to my lawyer and months to years from now and thousands of dollars poorer, the llama and I can shoot.

Or we can do what I said up front; I offer a fair deal, they agree (or not) and we go from there.

My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us

You've got that right

I have more llamas wanting to shoot with me than I can schedule anyway - if there is any hint of problems communicating or reaching a warmly agreeable understanding based on my terms I move on -  not worth the drama....

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

You never know, maybe some porn site would be interested in some of your nude pic's... not sure what the model would have to say about it.

Since I rarely have a model release I would suggest you do not post them at porno sites. or at least do it so they think I sold it to them and you could be in the clear with the big bucks you made.

Daeda1us wrote:

Sorry, it keeps running through my mind when I read stuff like this... gotta say it!

I dont make any money off my children... but you cant have them either!

*Whew*

Glad to have that off my chest!

But seriously, if the Model believes she can make money off the images, she should not mind paying the photographer to produce them.
Now if the Model has much better contacts than I have, which is likely, and she is willing to work those contacts to sell the photos we produced, then I would be glad to allow her the Rights necessary to do that, provided I get a fair cut. 

Oh, damn, did I say the photographer gets paid a fair percentage for what the model sells?  Why yes, yes I did.
And if she sells nothing, then it becomes a standard TF session.

the thing is that in most cases the tog is trying to do the same. they want the model to sign a release and they will try to make money off it if they can even if they do not pay the model.

Dan K Photography wrote:
Value  has everything to do with making money. And most togs photos have none. Sure most photographer will disagree. I already discussed this in my first post in this thread. They are all under the impression they should only sell the copyright for 100* value. What they fail to realize is that value is 0 and 100*0 is still 0.

Ego has nothing to do with it? yeah I am sure we will disagree. IMO ego is everything in this case.

I have never sold a photo of a model. I have not made the attempt, really...   

I do have a contract for a couple of art books that I will probably make a little bit on at the end of the day -

on the other hand,   a number of models have used my images to increase their earning power in terms of building and maintaining a portfolio that attracts bookings with those willing to pay,  or using my comp cards to compete for commercial  / lifestyle work  -  that is value, is it not? 

They seem to think so

Dan K Photography wrote:

the thing is that in most cases the tog is trying to do the same. they want the model to sign a release and they will try to make money off it if they can even if they do not pay the model.

Apparently all is fair in Love, War and Photography.

But I like to play fair.  If I thought I had an opportunity to sell a picture series, I would very likely offer the model a % of my profit.  (not the sale itself)
IF it is a paid shoot, well, that is another ball game.
(Although, with the right model, I would even consider paid + %... but it would be damn rare.)

My two cents, YMMV
Daeda1us

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Some people don't realize that there is a shark swimming in this thread.   

Dan K Photography wrote:

Since I rarely have a model release I would suggest you do not post them at porno sites. or at least do it so they think I sold it to them and you could be in the clear with the big bucks you made.

You seem to have contradicted yourself, you were all keen on me selling the pic's.
Also if the model thinks you've sold them to a porn site your not be to popular and having to explain yourself.

So images do have some value after all and not just financially.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
I have never sold a photo of a model. I have not made the attempt, really...   

I do have a contract for a couple of art books that I will probably make a little bit on at the end of the day -

on the other hand,   a number of models have used my images to increase their earning power in terms of building and maintaining a portfolio that attracts bookings with those willing to pay,  or using my comp cards to compete for commercial  / lifestyle work  -  that is value, is it not? 

They seem to think so

And that is the real value of tf work. The model uses it to attract more shoots and the Tog uses it to attract more shoots. But it definitely isn't the one way street as implied by what you wrote Gregor and what is often written in these forums.

Tog's egos are second to none.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Some people don't realize that there is a shark swimming in this thread.   

No......we know.
Cheap entertainment....

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

You seem to have contradicted yourself, you were all keen on me selling the pic's.
Also if the model thinks you've sold them to a porn site your not be to popular and having to explain yourself.

So images do have some value after all and not just financially.

I do not follow. I gave you permission to sell the photos but you would of course be held liable for your own acts. Not being able to sell to porn sites is of course another reason why most are worthless.

Do porn sites even buy photos anymore? I don't even think you can do that Chris even if the models were agreeable.

I am still keen on seeing you making the dough with my photos. I will be awaiting your pm of you gloating.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Some people don't realize that there is a shark swimming in this thread.   

Hi Jer
I seen the sharks. Just ignoring them because I don't want to argue. I'm not argumentative.
Any way Jer what would you negotiate for with models for a awesome TF shoot?
Heres your chance Jer models could be watching that might like your answer!

Caitin   wrote:

Hi Jer
I seen the sharks. Just ignoring them because I don't want to argue. I'm not argumentative.
Any way Jer what would you negotiate for with models for a awesome TF shoot?
Heres your chance Jer models could be watching that might like your answer!

I book models in private not in a forum thread.

Dan K Photography wrote:

I do not follow. I gave you permission to sell the photos but you would of course be held liable for your own acts. Not being able to sell to porn sites is of course another reason why most are worthless.

Do porn sites even buy photos anymore? I don't even think you can do that Chris even if the models were agreeable.

I am still keen on seeing you making the dough with my photos. I will be awaiting your pm of you gloating.

I wouldn't have to tell you if I sold them as you've stated ... pic's are worthless, you place no value on them.
But lets say a porn site got hold of the pic's and the model became aware of this how are you going to explain it to her.

Dan K Photography wrote:

And that is the real value of tf work. The model uses it to attract more shoots and the Tog uses it to attract more shoots. But it definitely isn't the one way street as implied by what you wrote Gregor and what is often written in these forums.

Tog's egos are second to none.

I did not mean to imply that it is one way at all -   

I would not have the opportunity to develop my skills - for whatever they are worth - at photography - if it was not for models -

When I started off I chose to pay models whom I thought could really help me develop a good port.   That was a smart move in retrospect.... and one I recommend to others....

Somewhere along the way,  the quality of models who wanted to trade with me increased.....  to a level that surprises me, really.....

Every image I produce may be my "intellectual property" (for whatever that is worth)  but I could not produce it without the models and production team people I am blessed to work with -   I honestly "feel" as though I am there just to witness and to document the moment - much as was the case during my career in photojournalism...

My idea of trade is that both the model and I get something that is of value to us -  you or someone else or another model may not necessarily see this value -  it is a very individual and transactional thing -

often I shoot something specific that a model wants in her port for something I want for my work - maybe for one of my fine art projects -

sometimes we actually want the very same thing

That 's the whole point of trade and it is why most of my work is trade.... 

but at the end of the day - one thing I value - is my *time*

I don't consider it to be worth my time to shoot with models who can't offer me something that justifies the investment -   the time spent planning and organizing,  the time spent shooting, the time spent editing, and all of the sundries that go into this....

The value of my images is a debatable question -  and various people will have differing answers. 

I am honestly grateful that I have had and continue to have the opportunities that I do...

But I am also at a point where I need to ration myself,  and I have learned that a lot of trade offers just do not bring enough value with them at the end of the day, to justify my investment of *time*......

Fotografica Gregor wrote:

I did not mean to imply that it is one way at all -   

I would not have the opportunity to develop my skills - for whatever they are worth - at photography - if it was not for models -

When I started off I chose to pay models whom I thought could really help me develop a good port.   That was a smart move in retrospect.... and one I recommend to others....

Somewhere along the way,  the quality of models who wanted to trade with me increased.....  to a level that surprises me, really.....

Every image I produce may be my "intellectual property" (for whatever that is worth)  but I could not produce it without the models and production team people I am blessed to work with -   I honestly "feel" as though I am there just to witness and to document the moment - much as was the case during my career in photojournalism...

My idea of trade is that both the model and I get something that is of value to us -  you or someone else or another model may not necessarily see this value -  it is a very individual and transactional thing -

often I shoot something specific that a model wants in her port for something I want for my work - maybe for one of my fine art projects -

sometimes we actually want the very same thing

That 's the whole point of trade and it is why most of my work is trade.... 

but at the end of the day - one thing I value - is my *time*

I don't consider it to be worth my time to shoot with models who can't offer me something that justifies the investment -   the time spent planning and organizing,  the time spent shooting, the time spent editing, and all of the sundries that go into this....

The value of my images is a debatable question -  and various people will have differing answers. 

I am honestly grateful that I have had and continue to have the opportunities that I do...

But I am also at a point where I need to ration myself,  and I have learned that a lot of trade offers just do not bring enough value with them at the end of the day, to justify my investment of *time*......

+1

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

I wouldn't have to tell you if I sold them as you've stated ... pic's are worthless, you place no value on them.
But lets say a porn site got hold of the pic's and the model became aware of this how are you going to explain it to her.

A porn site would have to have all records. how would they get those if nobody agrees to it that is in part of it.
I would never sign a release for a porn site!