A model I've worked with wants to use some photos from our shoot to submit to Maxim's Hometown Hotties Competition. I'm flattered, but after reading the release I'm not sure I'm ok with it. It basically says that if the photos are used I will not be credited or paid for anything and they can do anything with the photos whenever they want.
I'd love to be published in a magazine like this, but was wondering if any of you have ever been published in Maxim? The model needs the signed release by this weekend so I'm making my decision today. Really just looking for a few opinions from experienced, published photographers first...
nyk fury
Posts: 2,118
Port Townsend, Washington, US
Tiffany Katz wrote: It basically says that if the photos are used I will not be credited or paid for anything and they can do anything with the photos whenever they want.
Jersey Shore
Posts: 395
Tinton Falls, New Jersey, US
Tiffany Katz wrote: A model I've worked with wants to use some photos from our shoot to submit to Maxim's Hometown Hotties Competition. I'm flattered, but after reading the release I'm not sure I'm ok with it. It basically says that if the photos are used I will not be credited or paid for anything and they can do anything with the photos whenever they want.
I'd love to be published in a magazine like this, but was wondering if any of you have ever been published in Maxim? The model needs the signed release by this weekend so I'm making my decision today. Really just looking for a few opinions from experienced, published photographers first...
not worth it, if you value your work. sounds like highway robbery to me.
i guess it means that you will be giving away usage rights for an indefinite amount of time without any compensation.
Because usually the expected submissions are snapshots taken by the model or friend so there wouldn't be much need to credit anybody. Maxim isn't interested in getting professionally-shot images for these in the first place. It's a contest about models...not photographic talent. Not every image out of your camera warrants being honored.
I'm trying to imagine Hustler back in the 70's when they had the nasty Hustler Honey's pictorials. They were snapshots of a less-than-appealing housewife taken by her adoring husband spread eagle on the bed. I'm imagining that husband today upset that he wasn't being credited as the "photographer" and wanting to place his watermark all over the place.
Jersey Shore wrote: not worth it, if you value your work. sounds like highway robbery to me.
i guess it means that you will be giving away usage rights for an indefinite amount of time without any compensation.
Highway robbery would be implying they're taking something of value. A snapshot of a model for a contest isn't robbery. These aren't exactly high-end works of art or photography. They just want to see how "hot" the model is.
Sometimes a photo isn't about the photographer. I know, it's shocking.
You might not be getting anything out of it, but your model would. I don't know what deal you have with your model, (TFP, paid, etc.) but if the model want to exchange time or maybe cookies in exchange for your permission maybe something could be worked out.
Brian Scanlon wrote: You might not be getting anything out of it, but your model would. I don't know what deal you have with your model, (TFP, paid, etc.) but if the model want to exchange time or maybe cookies in exchange for your permission maybe something could be worked out.
And sometimes we just do things not for the benefit of ourselves, but for the benefit of someone else . . .
the option is keeping the shot and doing what with it?
Publish it, help the model out and if it is that spectacular of a shot maybe you will get noticed or since it cannot be exclusive to the other shots, you have a "as seen in" opportunity.
Michael Pandolfo wrote: Because usually the expected submissions are snapshots taken by the model or friend so there wouldn't be much need to credit anybody. Maxim isn't interested in getting professionally-shot images for these in the first place. It's a contest about models...not photographic talent. Not every image out of your camera warrants being honored.
I'm trying to imagine Hustler back in the 70's when they had the nasty Hustler Honey's pictorials. They were snapshots of a less-than-appealing housewife taken by her adoring husband spread eagle on the bed. I'm imagining that husband today upset that he wasn't being credited as the "photographer" and wanting to place his watermark all over the place.
"Maxim isn't interested in getting professionally-shot images for these in the first place. It's a contest about models...not photographic talent. Not every image out of your camera warrants being honored."
-Yes, Maxim has made their interests clear...and we clearly have a conflict of interest. I'm also aware that it's not about the photographer, but I have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to usage of my images. I'm also aware that not every image that comes out of my camera warrants being honored (that's why us professionals only keep the ones that are).
You sound like you have already decided that the particular photos I'm speaking of are not worth anything. Thanks for that, but I've already made my decision not to get copyright-raped.
Jean Renard Photography wrote: you have a "as seen in" opportunity.
Which would be great marketing to a glamour client base if a person had a few of those. I think a lot of people on here forget that potential clients aren't other photographers.
Highway robbery would be implying they're taking something of value. A snapshot of a model for a contest isn't robbery. These aren't exactly high-end works of art or photography. They just want to see how "hot" the model is.
Sometimes a photo isn't about the photographer. I know, it's shocking.
The photos are far from snapshots and I am offended by this, since I actually do value my work. If I didn't value my work, then why charge anybody, ever?
Jean Renard Photography wrote: the option is keeping the shot and doing what with it?
Publish it, help the model out and if it is that spectacular of a shot maybe you will get noticed or since it cannot be exclusive to the other shots, you have a "as seen in" opportunity.
I can't get noticed if I no longer own the copyright, but my concern was that they get to reproduce the images and profit from them endlessly if they so feel like it. Am I not supposed to value my work? I'm so confused right now.
Tiffany Katz wrote: A model I've worked with wants to use some photos from our shoot to submit to Maxim's Hometown Hotties Competition. I'm flattered, but after reading the release I'm not sure I'm ok with it. It basically says that if the photos are used I will not be credited or paid for anything and they can do anything with the photos whenever they want.
I'd love to be published in a magazine like this, but was wondering if any of you have ever been published in Maxim? The model needs the signed release by this weekend so I'm making my decision today. Really just looking for a few opinions from experienced, published photographers first...
I admit I haven't read the responses before posting my reply, but to me the answer could only be one - based on principal alone. You would basically get nothing at all for it, and furthermore the model would share with others that you're willing to give away your images for free. Free, because you got nothing mention-worthy in exchange. The consideration here is not so much the benefit/lack of benefit to you, but as well the potential harm you can do to your name. Yes, being able to say you were published in a magazine like Maxim is fairly hefty. Anyone can say it though, really. Sure, perhaps you could prove it by showing your original image with-EXIF or whatnot. Trust me, sometimes it takes some bickering to ensure you're credit-lines/etc are printed with your work (although sometimes such as with Maxim it will never happen) - but if more of us did so, we may not find our work being devalued by publishers so hastily
Disclaimer:I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive.
A few years back, I actually took some photos for a model who wanted to submit to Maxim's Hometown Hotties. At that time, I believe that Maxim didn't want any editing or much editing at all, so I didn't edit except for RAW conversion, color, contrast, etc.
We picked 3 for her to use, I signed their release, and from the rest of the set I used for my own portfolio. I figured since they were low resolution files, they really couldn't do too much with them except post her on their site for a particular month in a particular area, which they did.
PhotographybyT wrote: A few years back, I actually took some photos for a model who wanted to submit to Maxim's Hometown Hotties. At that time, I believe that Maxim didn't want any editing or much editing at all, so I didn't edit except for RAW conversion, color, contrast, etc.
We picked 3 for her to use, I signed their release, and from the rest of the set I used for my own portfolio. I figured since they were low resolution files, they really couldn't do too much with them except post her on their site for a particular month in a particular area, which they did.
Excellent point. I was speaking about providing images at high/full-resolution. My point still stands re: "giving away our work", but when a shooter is new allowing use of low-res pix is not such a bad thing at all I suppose. I have a personal rule about high-res images, that being my not sending any out anywhere unless I'm paid cashola or in some cases if every talent involved in the creation of the image is credited on the image - and the credits are always displayed and not obscured wherever the image is posted. Yes, I'm a prick about it which ruffles feathers of a few low-level publishers. Oh well, photography is a second source of income for me (aiming for it to be the sole source years down the road )
What was the original arraingment with the model. Did you pay her, she pay you or a TF? What does the license you gave her say? Under some conditions that may be considered an implied use.
I think all photographers should value their work and getting paid is a good thing.
Lets look at what happens if you sign the release. The model enters the competition and mayb she wins. She tells everyone you were the photographer.
Either case you get "exposure" and yes we all know what that is worth in $$.
Now if you do not sign the release the model either finds another photo to use and if she does not win it is because you did not allow her to use a better photo and says a lot of bad things about you. Or she wins with the bad photo and tells everyone you do not need pro photos of quality. Or she does not enter and blames you for her lost opportunity.
Other than a few $$ I donot see any downside to just signing the release and that is what I would do.
The photos are far from snapshots and I am offended by this, since I actually do value my work. If I didn't value my work, then why charge anybody, ever?
did you charge the model for those images in the first place?
no? I'm shocked!!!!!!!! don't you value your work? Aren't you in that new Bruce Willis flick "COPYRIGHT AND DIE HARD MUTHAFUKAH!" ?
please, spare us the histrionics. either help the model out or don't. it's totally your call. Some of us will think you are an @$$ if you don't while others will support you. What else is new on the internet? not everyone agrees. But leave the 'copyright-rape' and "I value my work" lines at the door. generalities don't impress when you have specifics.
CaliModels
Posts: 2,259
Los Angeles, California, US
The Magazine wants free content. They are popular enough that people submit photos for self promotion. It's flattering. From the publishing standpoint, it's easier if all rights are transferred. Whether for pay, credit or nothing. Otherwise, they would need to keep asking photographers and/or models for permission to do anything. It's a hassle and costs money. Also, remember they post photos on the web. Royalty Free issue.
did you charge the model for those images in the first place?
no? I'm shocked!!!!!!!! don't you value your work? Aren't you in that new Bruce Willis flick "COPYRIGHT AND DIE HARD MUTHAFUKAH!" ?
please, spare us the histrionics. either help the model out or don't. it's totally your call. Some of us will think you are an @$$ if you don't while others will support you. What else is new on the internet? not everyone agrees. But leave the 'copyright-rape' and "I value my work" lines at the door. generalities don't impress when you have specifics.
Yes, I did charge her. I was running a promotion at the time so she paid very little. I asked for opinions, and I'm getting them, so thanks. Again, I've made my decision and the model is fine. I respect the opinions of those who may not agree with me as long as they do so tactfully! I'm not trying to impress anybody with this post, I was simply seeking advice. I guess some people just don't know where to draw the line.
PhotographybyT wrote: A few years back, I actually took some photos for a model who wanted to submit to Maxim's Hometown Hotties. At that time, I believe that Maxim didn't want any editing or much editing at all, so I didn't edit except for RAW conversion, color, contrast, etc.
We picked 3 for her to use, I signed their release, and from the rest of the set I used for my own portfolio. I figured since they were low resolution files, they really couldn't do too much with them except post her on their site for a particular month in a particular area, which they did.
Thank you. Everyone, this is an example of someone being helpful in a forum.
CaliModels wrote: The Magazine wants free content. They are popular enough that people submit photos for self promotion. It's flattering. From the publishing standpoint, it's easier if all rights are transferred. Whether for pay, credit or nothing. Otherwise, they would need to keep asking photographers and/or models for permission to do anything. It's a hassle and costs money. Also, remember they post photos on the web. Royalty Free issue.
Tiffany Katz wrote: A model I've worked with wants to use some photos from our shoot to submit to Maxim's Hometown Hotties Competition. I'm flattered, but after reading the release I'm not sure I'm ok with it. It basically says that if the photos are used I will not be credited or paid for anything and they can do anything with the photos whenever they want.
I'd love to be published in a magazine like this, but was wondering if any of you have ever been published in Maxim? The model needs the signed release by this weekend so I'm making my decision today. Really just looking for a few opinions from experienced, published photographers first...
I admit I haven't read the responses before posting my reply, but to me the answer could only be one - based on principal alone. You would basically get nothing at all for it, and furthermore the model would share with others that you're willing to give away your images for free. Free, because you got nothing mention-worthy in exchange. The consideration here is not so much the benefit/lack of benefit to you, but as well the potential harm you can do to your name. Yes, being able to say you were published in a magazine like Maxim is fairly hefty. Anyone can say it though, really. Sure, perhaps you could prove it by showing your original image with-EXIF or whatnot. Trust me, sometimes it takes some bickering to ensure you're credit-lines/etc are printed with your work (although sometimes such as with Maxim it will never happen) - but if more of us did so, we may not find our work being devalued by publishers so hastily
Thank you very much. You pretty much hit on something that is more important to me than anything...and that's reputation. I am just starting my business and I've made similar mistakes where I let someone use my photos on their website without crediting me or paying me. I've had to learn things the hard way. I guarantee, I am seeing no benefit from that to this day...just more people trying to get something for nothing. My instructors were always telling us that if you don't value your work, then nobody else will.
"Did" run a promotion charging very little. This wasn't recent. She obviously valued the work more than I did at the time. I'm still trying to build my confidence as a photographer and ruining my reputation by continuing to give things away isn't going to help me be a successful one. I'd like to make it a career, not a hobby. I went to school for this and I hate school. Also, I have a little one to take care of so...sorry, but I can't afford to give things away anymore.
CaliModels wrote: The Magazine wants free content. They are popular enough that people submit photos for self promotion. It's flattering. From the publishing standpoint, it's easier if all rights are transferred. Whether for pay, credit or nothing. Otherwise, they would need to keep asking photographers and/or models for permission to do anything. It's a hassle and costs money. Also, remember they post photos on the web. Royalty Free issue.
Thank you for reply. I understand this completely, but I don't really agree with the extent to which they want to use and redistribute the photos. I just feel there are better ways to get published than this particular submission at this point.
Which would be great marketing to a glamour client base if a person had a few of those. I think a lot of people on here forget that potential clients aren't other photographers.
I agree this would be great, but someone brought up the point that if they own the copyright, then I can't even claim the image as mine anymore. It just sux since I'm trying to start a business.
not worth it, if you value your work. sounds like highway robbery to me.
i guess it means that you will be giving away usage rights for an indefinite amount of time without any compensation.
Exactly. I'm surprised there are so many professional photographers that seem to be ok with that.
Tiffany Katz wrote: Thank you very much. You pretty much hit on something that is more important to me than anything...and that's reputation. I am just starting my business and I've made similar mistakes where I let someone use my photos on their website without crediting me or paying me. I've had to learn things the hard way. I guarantee, I am seeing no benefit from that to this day...just more people trying to get something for nothing. My instructors were always telling us that if you don't value your work, then nobody else will.
You're welcome. I feel reputation is very important, especially before the point one is making a living through their photography alone *or by way of their photography + their secondary income (the 2nd income not paying for the photography until it starts generating revenue reliably & consistently). I've been shooting about 2&1/2 years now roughly, and my photography-biz still showed in-the-red at the end of my last fiscal year. But not nearly as much as the first one, and in my 2nd year I bought a used D3 & a used D700! Although not nearly surviving by way of my shooting alone or with my other income, I'm most certainly headed in that direction
Tiffany Katz wrote: The photos are far from snapshots and I am offended by this, since I actually do value my work. If I didn't value my work, then why charge anybody, ever?
My comment about snapshots had nothing to do with your work because, obviously, I haven't seen the images you produced so I wouldn't be critiquing them.
My comment was that Maxim doesn't want highly produced images of models professionally-shot for this contest. It's a contest so they can review what the model looks like...not how wonderful the photographer is.
Most Hometown Hotties submitters are the models themselves and going to submit snapshots. I'm sorry that term offends you but that's the reality of the majority of submissions. And Maxim wants it that way. Just like an Agency wants Polaroids and not heavily retouched images of the model.
If the agreement doesn't suit you, inform the model that Maxim's terms aren't agreeable and she can do what the contest was meant to be in the first place and submit snapshots taken by a friend or family member.
We're not talking about submitting your photography to Maxim for publication. This is a contest. If this were their submission terms for photography images submitted, no it wouldn't be acceptable. But that's not the case here. This has nothing to do with their terms of being published.
Jersey Shore wrote: not worth it, if you value your work. sounds like highway robbery to me.
i guess it means that you will be giving away usage rights for an indefinite amount of time without any compensation.
Tiffany Katz wrote: Exactly. I'm surprised there are so many professional photographers that seem to be ok with that.
If that was the case, then why charge the model so little? What usage rights did you provide her?
It just seems like you had no problem "under-valuing" your work when you produced it. But then when you found out it was going to be submitted to a contest in a popular magazine, all of a sudden you're being "copyright-raped."
Maybe I'm a cynic, but if you valued your work you would charge accordingly. This just looks like you saw $ when the word Maxim was mentioned and all of a sudden you have an issue with the usage and not being credited properly.
I'm just curious why that wasn't your stance from the very beginning?
This sounds basically like the "model asks me to take down pictures she doesn't want people to see anymore" posts that pop up on and off. Mostly because it comes down to good will to me. Except in this case the image is liked so much they want to take it beyond it's original purpose.
Granted Maxim is taking advantage of copyright issues, but they weren't asking for professional images. They were asking for quick shots and the rights to those. You as a team can decide to enter shots above the caliber of the others, but your compensation would be the same.
You may not get direct references to it, but you can get the good word of mouth from the model and next time add a clause about buying out the rights if they want to enter them in a contest like this.
I value my work greatly, but I value the relationships with people I make along the way more. I have learned it's a very small world and things like this get around and do pay you back.
You will lose exactly zero dollars and zero cents by letting her use the pictures. You will also not be signing copyright over to them.
If that bothers you, then by all means feel free to message the model and tell her you were just kidding about her being able to use the pictures for self promotion.
Now if you've already had this image published elsewhere, then it's a different game, otherwise..... jeez
Besides, the models who make the finals are brought to Vegas to shoot for the magazine with Maxim's photographers, they won't be using yours for anything other than a thumbnail in the print issue... if that.... during the preliminary rounds.
Tiffany Katz wrote: "Did" run a promotion charging very little. This wasn't recent. She obviously valued the work more than I did at the time. I'm still trying to build my confidence as a photographer and ruining my reputation by continuing to give things away isn't going to help me be a successful one. I'd like to make it a career, not a hobby. I went to school for this and I hate school. Also, I have a little one to take care of so...sorry, but I can't afford to give things away anymore.
I am confused here. Did you charge her for the photos? If so, what else had you planned on using them for?
If it were me, I would sign the license without hesitation. I would do it for the model, which would be enough benefit for me to be happy. I don't have to make money on everything I do. Extending my goodwill has non-economic value that pays off in the end. If you look at everything just in immediate dollars, you will cut off your own nose to spite your face.
"Did" run a promotion charging very little. This wasn't recent. She obviously valued the work more than I did at the time. I'm still trying to build my confidence as a photographer and ruining my reputation by continuing to give things away isn't going to help me be a successful one. I'd like to make it a career, not a hobby. I went to school for this and I hate school. Also, I have a little one to take care of so...sorry, but I can't afford to give things away anymore.
I have two kids to feed, a mortgage to pay and car payments. I had the same when I became a pro a few years back. I charge when I charge and I don't when I don't. It has nothing to do with being a career, not a hobby. These things are irrelevant and so are the empty phrases. Your work is valuable to the person who buys it. MAXIM doesn't value your work (or anyone elses in that competition so dont worry). So your business decision is either sell that work to someone else or not. Can't sell it to someone else? Then its useless for feeding baby or paying mortgage or paying back school loans. This myth about 'not giving things away' will make your business is unhealthy. If you wish to make this a career you will have to learn to avoid generalities like that. You don't give away that which is of value to someone or could reasonably be expected to be of value someday before your copyright runs out.
I'll give you an example. last weekend I spent all my energy shooting Fashion Week. It was fall/winter collections and most of it was drab and boring black/grey combinations but every once in a while they had a collection with a Burundi theme or Southern Japanese or something energetic. The cool stuff was from designers who were not my clients but I shot it anyways. Why? because it was good marketing, good community relations and its still fun for me. If one of the models asks me for an image from a collection they walked I'm going to give it to them low-res for sure. I know the only potential customers for the unbooked images are models (and for the younger models, their moms. gotta luv moms). Some of my colleagues have websites trying to sell the equivalent images (not quite because they dont have the front row centre angle I got). They tell me they will be lucky to break even for the three days. Me? my time there was paid. Maybe one of the other images I give will lead to something, maybe not. Some of the designers had crazy surprises so maybe I got shit that everyone else missed? or maybe the dude from the paper with 20+ years of photojournalist experience got everything I got but better? who knows? I just know the images are going nowhere sitting on the hard drive and triple-backed up for all eventualities. The bottom line is the difference between not doing something for free at all and not giving some extras away. Someone wants me to shoot their B/D party at a club? no, free booze is not enough. pay me for the night. Someone at the party wants to make a shot I took their FB cover and the client doesnt care? I'm gonna charge them what for it? 20 bux? No I'll give them FB ready copy (once I figure out the latest upload algorithm) and maybe it will lead to another gig. Or not. Thats the difference.
| 
| 
| edu