|
Forums >
General Industry >
When a TF shot goes commercial
How does a photog compensate a model for a shot or shots taken during a TF shoot that ended up being suitable to be used commercially? Does the photog pay her the hourly rate she normally would have gotten for a paid commercial shoot? Feb 08 13 03:56 pm Link Thats a good question. I would hazard that most shooters take their money and run with it since they own the photo. I believe the model should get paid and since she shot without compensation. In my TF release I say that if I sell a photo from the session within the a certain period of time (depending on the model, session, etc but typically a year) that she receives 30% of the profit. Its only happened to me once, but it felt good because she was floored it could happen. Feb 08 13 04:13 pm Link JOEL McDONALD wrote: I only shoot tf and the intent is creating and selling prints through galleries. When a print sells, I send the model 50% of the proceeds (after gallery fees). It's a collaboration, we benefit equally. Feb 08 13 11:36 pm Link 1k-words-photograpy wrote: The model was paid with photos. That's what a shrewd businessman or lawyer wikd say. Feb 08 13 11:56 pm Link 255 West wrote: LEGALLY??? you own the photo no question,,, doesn't mean you have the right for commercial use of models looks without a release... Feb 09 13 12:26 am Link Unless it's otherwise specified in the Usage Agreement, the model has already been 'paid' with images, so no, she gets nothing else. This is why the Usage Agreement part of the paperwork is arguably more important - to the Model anyway. Feb 09 13 12:34 am Link My releases are all NON commercial and request a future contract to be enacted / entered into separately - should the need arise for any sales which later are agreed upon. I would not offer an hourly rate, after then fact, unless images got lost and the model got nothing from the shoot. Rather, i would offer, and suggest you offer, a percentage of potential profit for the sale n question.  And ... here's a bunny ...  Feb 09 13 01:07 am Link You had me at bunny Feb 09 13 01:19 am Link If it was me, I'd ask the model how they wished to be compensated. Feb 09 13 01:34 am Link Do not ever offer shared ownerships, percentages, or anything like that. If you feel you want to give the model some money, then just give her some money, presumably what you would have paid her in the first place. If you're feeling mean, you could deduct the cost of the pics she received, I suppose, but I wouldn't. Feb 09 13 01:41 am Link Zack Arias suggests sharing the wealth with the talent. I happen to agree. Nothing wrong with sharing a windfall and engendering goodwill with people you've worked with. Now, if the licensing fee was only a couple hundred bucks, I probably wouldn't bother, as the talent's share would only equal the cost of a nice lunch. The cost in time to cut a check and figure out all the accounting wouldn't justify it. If it was a few thousand, I'd definitely pass along a few hundred. Feb 09 13 03:35 am Link As has been stated, legally you don't owe anything unless you had an agreement to the contrary. If you want to send her a gift (please don't use the word compensate, as this connotes that she is owed something), that's fine - and I would probably do the same. I would advise paying her a lump sum, and not a percentage. If you want to enter into such an agreement in future TF shoots, it would probably best be placed in the model release - in it the model is giving you and others the right to publish her image for commercial purposes in exchange for the pics and whatever monetary arrangement you agree to. Just make sure that if it is a percentage, you clearly specify that it's a share of the amount you receive from the publisher, not "net sales" or something like that. Also clearly state whether any of your expenses are to be deducted first. Just my .02 - for which I usually charge $200/hr (after expenses). Cheers, John F2D4 Feb 09 13 03:57 am Link Most of my work, TF and Paid, is meant to be sold as prints. I make sure the models I work with know this, and know that some of them go for quite a lot. I keep my photos legally unencumbered, so I can sell anything at any time through any channel. Now, if by some chance one of my photos from a "screwing around" session that doesn't fit with the body of my work meant to sell in the prints market winds up looking commercially useful and sells somewhere, and I still know where the model is, I'll usually surprise her with a small percentage of whatever I made. I generally say something like, "I made a little cash off one of our 'playing around' TF shoots. The one where you were wearing the ball-gown on the bridge with the stuffed hippopotamus. Here's a little Thank-you." For my prints, I have a much more structured, but still not legally binding, arrangement. If a customer refers someone to buy one of my prints, I give that customer a gift with a price equal to an appreciable percentage of the sale. If a model does the same thing, I give her roughly the same amount of money. (I figure an 18-30ish year old model can probably use the money more than a nice watch or an expensive bottle of wine or scotch. If she wants the watch or liquor, she's just gotten the cash for it anyway.) Feb 09 13 06:40 am Link Quick question. If images from a TF session were used commercially, would you inform the model?..wether you intend to compensate, give a gift etc or not. Feb 09 13 07:09 am Link She/He gets a tearsheet. Feb 09 13 07:11 am Link If it's a TF shoot, that implies the model was compensated with images doesn't it? I expect most models who normally get paid, would not accept a TF offer, but if they do, it's because they feel it's worth their while. Getting a tear and professional, commercial quality photos maybe something of value to some models. Probably the TF shoots I've done that were the best deal for both parties were with musicians I came across who wanted photos to promote themselves. They got a good deal because they otherwise would have paid a fair bit for such photos. I got a good deal because I actually made a little profit on stock sales by keeping the costs down. We were both happy. Feb 09 13 07:14 am Link JOEL McDONALD wrote: The simple answer is, it depends on the agreement. Ideally, a written one. Feb 09 13 07:17 am Link JOEL McDONALD wrote: John Milton wrote: I agree with the concept, but not the math. As you probably know, there's a whole lot involved in selling an image in a gallery beyond the initial production. I see the "trade" as the creation of the initial images for both of us. If / when something sells, my compensation for creating the prints, marketing, getting the prints in galleries, retrieving them when they don't sell, and the like, is in addition to my compensation for taking the images. So, the model gets something, but not half of what's left after gallery fees. Feb 09 13 07:20 am Link Model compensation depends on the conditions agreed to prior to the shoot as stated in the model release. If, after that fact, conditions changed unexpectedly then a new agreement might be reached if both the model and the photographer can reach a new agreement. How much, to whom? That can be worked out with a simple phone call. A lot of my TFP shoots end up as stock. This is made very clear to my models prior to arranging a shoot. They get the images they need for their portfolios, I get the images I need for my stock libraries. When I first started shooting stock, I did give my talent 20% of the net, this became an accounting and paperwork nightmare. Now a days, income from stock is so low that sharing the wealth would be like splitting pennies. In fact, for the last year, when shooting TFP, I really don't think much about the stock potential but just go for interesting imagery. If it later sells as stock, then it is a added bonus. Feb 09 13 07:22 am Link Ok, so basically and depending how the signed release/property rights is worded it's really the honor system to "reward" the model. Feb 09 13 07:24 am Link Abbitt Photography wrote: As a practical matter, I survive as an artist because of trade shoots. I'm rarely able to pay someone cash. When I net enough to matter, I'd be delighted to send a bit to the model. To show appreciation, and because it certainly can't hurt if she chooses to mention that when giving a reference. Feb 09 13 07:24 am Link 20-30% net, if I'm so inclined. Feb 09 13 07:33 am Link Depending on the agreement, like everything else. Usually there is no provision for payment. I've written in, and even have a prepared share income agreement, but quite frankly, in those instances where the llama has insisted on such, I simply don't bother to attempt to market it. It's too easy to recreate the picture when, as and if there is ever a market for it. Quite frankly, there is so little paying market for spec work by most of the photographers/models here, and the bookkeeping and keeping track of the llamas would be so much extra work, that such an agreement is little more than an ego-boosting fantasy anyway. That statement, I hasten to point out is not in any way a critique of the photographers and llamas on MM. It's just a fact of life that the market for that work is driven more by noteriety than the quality of the work, unless you're talking about outright porn, which I would hope, no one is doing on a TF basis anyway. All IMHO as always, of course. Feb 09 13 07:35 am Link JOEL McDONALD wrote: You "compensate" the model with the images. I guess you could say that it's the "honor system" to provide more if you get more. But that assumes that you consider it the right thing to do. I do, for me, but situations vary. Feb 09 13 07:38 am Link If it's commercial it is shot specifically designed for a client - and on a budget - which includes all of the talent.... so the model's rate is determined up front.... are you asking, what happens when you sell an image from a TF shoot after the fact, to someone who wants to use it commercially? That's speculation. In my view the photographer is entitled to speculate with images derived from TF. No different than shooting stock, or for gallery showings, or an art book.... That being said if I made money off of a specific image I shot with a model (TF or otherwise) I would cut her in for some of it - could not have gotten it without her, right ? But when I'm shooting for projects that might eventually bring in money I let the model know up front - if she is willing to trade to shoot it, or offers me an agreeable rate, we're all square..... Feb 09 13 07:39 am Link Leone P wrote: In my case 'Yes' - because it states this in my TFP Usage Agreement - any third-party commercial use must be agreed-to in writing by both parties (assuming they can be tracked-down - I'm obliged to pursue reasonable lengths to find the model from the contact details provided) and then a separate contract will be drawn up to identify what costs are apportioned to whom (and that may just be a tear-sheet, not actual cash). Feb 09 13 08:22 am Link JOEL McDONALD wrote: I don't really operate on an honor system. As with any other transaction, the terms are spelled out. If it's TF, the models know long before the shoot how many images they will be receiving as compensation for their modeling and in what time frame they will be receiving those images. If I plan to submit images to stock companies, I'm very straight forward about that from the get go. Feb 09 13 08:27 am Link E H wrote: In the US, as copyright owner, the photographer doesn't even need a model release to sell a photo or print. Model releases are not meant to designate what a photographer can or cannot do. I dare say most models and photographers really have no idea what model releases are. You need to obtain a book (I use "Photographer's Legal Guide by Carolyn Wright, Esq. - lawyer and photographer) or a lawyer that explains all the legal issues that people on MM claim to know about, but really have no clue. Feb 09 13 08:30 am Link As a copyright owner, you don't legally owe a model anything you sell from a trade shoot. Some photographers prefer to share the profits, others don't. I don't think you can fault anyone for keeping all the proceeds for themselves. For many, it is their full time business. That's what they do to make a living. I dare say most models I shoot with know I shoot it for profit, not for fun. Even TF shoots have the potential to bring me income. Most models that pose for trade with me do so for fun, so they could care less about making any money from modeling. Feb 09 13 08:35 am Link Assuming she signed a release, you owe her nothing. She got images, you get cash - and perhaps a lot of it, depending. This is why models should always be careful about what they sign, and in general, never sign commercial releases on trade shoots. Although rare, the image could be used in a national campaign and the model wouldn't receive a cent - when she could have been paid in cash and have a tearsheet. Feb 09 13 08:37 am Link Worry about how to sell his/her photos commercially first than whether or not to compensate him/her from a TF shoot. The chance of selling an image from a TF to make sizable money is so small that is not even worth the time to stress over. It's like worrying what to do with all the money when/if you win the $million lottery ticket. Feb 09 13 08:43 am Link JOEL McDONALD wrote: Assuming... Feb 09 13 08:47 am Link This is interesting. The model was already compensated with images. If you had paid the model in cash and an image was sold commercially would you feel the need to give the model more cash or would you feel that she was already compensated? If you feel the need to give the model something more, doesn't that mean that you feel what you provided as compensation in the initial agreement was too little in the first place? Feb 09 13 08:55 am Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: I think the difference here is that a TF shoot is perceived as more of a collaboration than a paid-shooting - we try to shoot TF images that benefit both parties, whereas with a pay-shoot I might shoot images the model would have no interest in ever seeing. the model feels rightly or wrongly that she has more investment in the images from a TF shoot - hence the slew of threads about models wanting 'more' from them... Feb 09 13 08:59 am Link RKD Photographic wrote: I see. I only ask because wether or not i was compensated, given a gift etc. I would still love to know my images have been used commercially and maybe get some proof to keep. I.e if i picture was published, i would find out where and buy a copy. Feb 09 13 09:16 am Link Leone P wrote: If 'our' work was published, I'd send you a copy...lol Feb 09 13 09:22 am Link RKD Photographic wrote: N'aww! Well thankyou kind sir! Hurry up and hot foot it over to the UK! Feb 09 13 09:26 am Link e m i l y wrote: Or, she could have been passed over, assuming that the "national campaign" wasn't arranged in advance. Feb 09 13 09:48 am Link For my rare test shoots, I agree in the model release to share revenue 50/50 with talent after expenses. I have had 6 models arrange for paid licensing of our photos for publication and split profits. Feb 09 13 10:09 am Link Art of the nude wrote: It was just an example. Feb 09 13 10:25 am Link |
