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 llama 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
Mark Laubenheimer wrote: you should read the previous responses.
AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: his post was tl;dr anyways
My response wouldn't have changed much, even if I had read the other posts first. I'm not a labile kinda feller, who just repeats what I feel the standing consensus is. However, I would have noted that my thoughts on the situation would not & did not apply to every situation I have or would consider. I shoot an unbelievable amount simply for promotional & networking value, but I'm careful about how I release the images is all. I shoot at least one event as a freebie per month, be it a social event arranged by the city here to promote itself (with my name adjoined to theirs in one logo or on each image somewhere difficult to crop-out yet unobtrusive to the image itself)...
...an event to promote a good community-oriented cause...
...a promo for some type of semi-established entertainer(s)...
....or something else I deem to be of good promotional and/or networking value. That I can slap my name onto - always. To create photos and release them to be a nice guy to the model and/or publisher and/or whomever else? My mama taught me that overly nice guys finish dead-last
Mark Laubenheimer wrote: you should read the previous responses.
My response wouldn't have changed much, even if I had read the other posts first. I'm not a labile kinda feller, who just repeats what I feel the standing consensus is. However, I would have noted that my thoughts on the situation would not & did not apply to every situation I have or would consider. I shoot an unbelievable amount simply for promotional & networking value, but I'm careful about how I release the images is all. I shoot at least one event as a freebie per month, be it a social event arranged by the city here to promote itself (with my name adjoined to theirs in one logo or on each image somewhere difficult to crop-out yet unobtrusive to the image itself)...
...an event to promote a good community-oriented cause...
...a promo for some type of semi-established entertainer(s)...
....or something else I deem to be of good promotional and/or networking value. That I can slap my name onto - always. To create photos and release them to be a nice guy to the model and/or publisher and/or whomever else? My mama taught me that overly nice guys finish dead-last
I value your opinion and here is why: I didn't feel the need to mention this in the forum, especially after all the rudeness, but here is my side of it: I have been working TF A LOT over the past couple of years and giving models more than most photographers would...to the extent I'm more worried about being taken advantage of than I am about "being nice" at this point. I've been generous to this day with models to the point that they just expect it. So when people tell me "it's not all about the photographer/money" it's frustrating to listen to that when I'm pretty much broke.
Long story short, I allowed more usage of my work than I should have in the past. Right now I'm trying to start a business and it's scary as hell. Luckily I have some support from my family, but at some point the freebies have got to stop. Money may not be everything if you're only doing photography as a hobby, but that's an expensive hobby. I don't "have it like that". I didn't go to college at thirty-something to learn a "hobby". I have a six month old child to think about, and sorry but she comes before any model.
I shot some for my sister for that contest I wasn't going to make any money with the images anyways and where just going to sit in the HardDrive. So why not.
My main question is what did the contract say when the model paid for the shoot? A lot of clients who pay get some sort of rights of use.
You got paid, she got images. Is she not allowed to use and promote herself with those images? If so what was the point in paying you for them? Were they specifically for a boyfriends birthday etc?
What did the contracts say, and are you going to be misrepresenting that contract if you say no?
I styled a shoot for MAXIM MEXICO, the whole thing was on a trade, I got about 5 good paying clients from the deal, and more then paid for my time on that shoot. Was it worth it to do that one? Yes. Yes it was.
Michael Pandolfo wrote: 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?
The shoot was from a year ago, and I was still in school. The shoot went well and I still have the photos on my website actually, so I do value them. To answer your other question: I gave her the same usage rights I would any other paying client: she can use them for promotional purposes like the web and to make prints (may not be entered into contests or profit from without my consent). As far as what I charged her; At the time I didn't really know that I was cheating myself. I was just trying to start getting paid for my work since I was mostly working TF so I decided to run a promotion for something I enjoyed and knew I was good at. My instructors and the few paying clients I've had since then, have taught me that my work is worth more.
I didn't just yesterday decide that my work is worth something. It's a constant struggle trying to start a business and I don't need a rep for being overly generous. I have a family. I discussed this matter with my husband and he naturally agrees. He was the one who suggested I ask "you all" because I was feeling uncomfortable about signing the release even before he read it. It's really not all about the money for me. I'm just tired of being taken advantage of. I've been more than generous with my time and work...doesn't pay the bills. That's a problem in my household.
Plus, sorry to keep repeating myself...but if I don't value my work then nobody else will and why should they? It's a lesson I'm learning the hard way.
Pretty Deadly Stylz wrote: My main question is what did the contract say when the model paid for the shoot? A lot of clients who pay get some sort of rights of use.
You got paid, she got images. Is she not allowed to use and promote herself with those images? If so what was the point in paying you for them? Were they specifically for a boyfriends birthday etc?
What did the contracts say, and are you going to be misrepresenting that contract if you say no?
I styled a shoot for MAXIM MEXICO, the whole thing was on a trade, I got about 5 good paying clients from the deal, and more then paid for my time on that shoot. Was it worth it to do that one? Yes. Yes it was.
The contract said that she could use them to make prints and for promotional purposes (i.e. web portfolio), but that she could not enter the photos into contest or for financial gain without my expressed written consent. So, it's pretty clear and luckily she did the right thing by asking me this time. I allowed her to enter a photo into a different contest before, after I noticed she already had done it without asking. She seems nice so I just brought it to her attention, but said it was ok.
Honestly, I don't know that it would have been worth it. Yes, it might have been great to be published in Maxim, but I couldn't justify the risk. The release just sounded pretty scary to me since I'm trying to start a business. I really don't want a rep for giving things away all the time. I can't afford to. There are so many ways I could have looked at this, but I had to go with my gut. I'm glad your experience was a good one.
It's important to note that these policies are only for Hometown Hotties and other amateur features, most of which are either online, or print fillers.
Maxim does not require a broad license when you are hired by them to do a pictorial. The licenses are issue(s) specific and with a limited term for exclusivity.
Tiffany, I think you are doing the right thing but for different reasons. There's a line in the sand drawn between photographers who participate in features like Hometown Hotties (only using the example because it's the topic here), and those that get hired by publishers for photo-shoots. Not only will you not benefit from it, but you will also wind up on the wrong side of that line. I've seen countless photographers submit books filled with submitted published images hoping to get hired by a publisher, but I can't remember one being chosen.
Being published, even again and again does not make you more viable to publishers (other than as a content farm). Having a stable business with professional practices with consistent results does. Think of it from their standpoint: Nearly everyone gets great pictures from time to time. But when a publisher invests tens of thousands of dollars into a shoot, they need to know you produce that quality every time. There's no room for do-overs.
I would suggest that you look up the price for the license to run the image once in maxim (based on their circulation and size of the image on an interior page). You can use fotoquote to get an idea. It's probably around $300 (rough guesstimate).
I would then consider charging the model for this fee or working out a trade (in writing, regardless of whether it gets selected or not). When you give the image for submission, give it at a size that would not look good blown up to a cover shot - only appropriate for a 1/3 of a page print. This would limit Maxim's potential usage.
Worst case scenario for you is that you get around $300 in cash or trade and maxim prints your photo once or twice and you get a nice tearsheet for an image that would have been not been doing much to you other than being on your web site or mm page.
Pretty Deadly Stylz wrote: My main question is what did the contract say when the model paid for the shoot? A lot of clients who pay get some sort of rights of use.
You got paid, she got images. Is she not allowed to use and promote herself with those images? If so what was the point in paying you for them? Were they specifically for a boyfriends birthday etc?
What did the contracts say, and are you going to be misrepresenting that contract if you say no?
I styled a shoot for MAXIM MEXICO, the whole thing was on a trade, I got about 5 good paying clients from the deal, and more then paid for my time on that shoot. Was it worth it to do that one? Yes. Yes it was.
It's common for most commercial photographers to have the usage rights spelled out when being hired. SIP is when models pay for images, it's for their books and to advance their careers. Not as a tool to get around the photographers getting their due license fees from a publisher.
Sounds like Tiffany was well advised, or did her research when creating her agreements.
Words of unsolicited advice to:
Photographers - It matters not if you are being paid, or shooting for trade: Create your license (your usage terms) in writing and keep a record of sending them with all pics. Be it email, FTP, whatever.
Models - Be very careful when you submit images for publication. Most agreements you sign (Hometown Hotties included) have an indemnification clause wherein you indemnify the publisher against infringement claims against them if the copyright holder comes after them. That means you will be liable for attorney fees even if it doesn't get to court. This can get to being a LOT of money quickly.
LaurensAntoine 4 FHM wrote: It's important to note that these policies are only for Hometown Hotties and other amateur features, most of which are either online, or print fillers.
Maxim does not require a broad license when you are hired by them to do a pictorial. The licenses are issue(s) specific and with a limited term for exclusivity.
Tiffany, I think you are doing the right thing but for different reasons. There's a line in the sand drawn between photographers who participate in features like Hometown Hotties (only using the example because it's the topic here), and those that get hired by publishers for photo-shoots. Not only will you not benefit from it, but you will also wind up on the wrong side of that line. I've seen countless photographers submit books filled with submitted published images hoping to get hired by a publisher, but I can't remember one being chosen.
Being published, even again and again does not make you more viable to publishers (other than as a content farm). Having a stable business with professional practices with consistent results does. Think of it from their standpoint: Nearly everyone gets great pictures from time to time. But when a publisher invests tens of thousands of dollars into a shoot, they need to know you produce that quality every time. There's no room for do-overs.
Thank you very much for your professional input on this topic! I've tried looking at this from every angle, but I had to do what I felt would be best in the long run since I'm trying to make photography a career. I have considered doing shoots specifially for magazine submissions such as yours, but I would prefer to send them in myself. Thank you for confirming my doubts.
And those sons of bitches at Maxim published my photos on their website and then they had THE AUDACITY to publish one of them in their print magazine!!! And I got nothing for it!
Oh, except the bragging rights to say I was published in Maxim.
Sometimes, you can stand in your own way of success. So what if you don't get credit or compensation for a picture. How does that devalue your effort?
Tiffany Katz wrote: The shoot was from a year ago, and I was still in school. The shoot went well and I still have the photos on my website actually, so I do value them. To answer your other question: I gave her the same usage rights I would any other paying client: she can use them for promotional purposes like the web and to make prints (may not be entered into contests or profit from without my consent). As far as what I charged her; At the time I didn't really know that I was cheating myself. I was just trying to start getting paid for my work since I was mostly working TF so I decided to run a promotion for something I enjoyed and knew I was good at. My instructors and the few paying clients I've had since then, have taught me that my work is worth more.
I didn't just yesterday decide that my work is worth something. It's a constant struggle trying to start a business and I don't need a rep for being overly generous. I have a family. I discussed this matter with my husband and he naturally agrees. He was the one who suggested I ask "you all" because I was feeling uncomfortable about signing the release even before he read it. It's really not all about the money for me. I'm just tired of being taken advantage of. I've been more than generous with my time and work...doesn't pay the bills. That's a problem in my household.
Plus, sorry to keep repeating myself...but if I don't value my work then nobody else will and why should they? It's a lesson I'm learning the hard way.
Well, knowing the history and your feelings certainly helps explain the aversion to allowing this. I'm thinking "Geez, it's just a contest submission..." and you're thinking, "OK, this is the last straw. Everyone wants to use my work and I get nothing in return. Happy models don't pay the bills."
I get it. Really I do. And it's something all photographers go through. And for any photographer who plans on photography as a career/business, yes, there does need to be a point where the "freebies" are held to a minimum. You sound financially stressed and NEED the money to start coming in...and that's a very difficult way to approach photography.
Personally (and this isn't a critique because I purposefully didn't look at your portfolio), if your work is good enough that the images produced are constantly being used for commercial purposes (and I don't know that I call this a commercial purpose because the model isn't making any money from a contest submission), you should charge more upfront and figure in usage.
I know you feel like you're being taken advantage of...but I don't think this is the incident which you should put your foot down and take a stand. However, it should make you re-evaluate your shoot and business guidelines.
Well, knowing the history and your feelings certainly helps explain the aversion to allowing this. I'm thinking "Geez, it's just a contest submission..." and you're thinking, "OK, this is the last straw. Everyone wants to use my work and I get nothing in return. Happy models don't pay the bills."
I get it. Really I do. And it's something all photographers go through. And for any photographer who plans on photography as a career/business, yes, there does need to be a point where the "freebies" are held to a minimum. You sound financially stressed and NEED the money to start coming in...and that's a very difficult way to approach photography.
Personally (and this isn't a critique because I purposefully didn't look at your portfolio), if your work is good enough that the images produced are constantly being used for commercial purposes (and I don't know that I call this a commercial purpose because the model isn't making any money from a contest submission), you should charge more upfront and figure in usage.
I know you feel like you're being taken advantage of...but I don't think this is the incident which you should put your foot down and take a stand. However, it should make you re-evaluate your shoot and business guidelines.
come on, help the girl out... if you dont what have you gained? nothing. if you do and the photo is printed, what have you gained? A LOT! you have a girl who can tell the world that YOUR picture got her in Maxim... plus you have bragging rights... and some tear sheets...
You are then in a position to say that I got one girl in Maxim, maybe i can get YOU in Maxim....
My two cents which is worth less than that with inflation.
I always hate these "value of the photograph" conversations. Don't get me wrong, I understand the point I've worked with Getty before (not as a shooter but as a systems architect) so please don't even begin that discussion. However the picture you shoot with her unless you are printing it in calendars or something, is worth nothing to you sitting on your hard drive with only you seeing it.
The value of the image conversation is really about its potential value rather than its actual value and my grandmother always said if something has potential that just means its not worth shit now.
The other side of the conversation of potential value is there is potential value in having your photograph in Maxim, you aren't credited but you can use it. If you shoot lots of paid boudoir shoots it can increase your value in that arena. There is also potential value in you doing the model a solid and having her tell other people that you are a great guy to work with.
I also like the idea that the picture gets seen but millions of peeps.
The contract said that she could use them to make prints and for promotional purposes (i.e. web portfolio), but that she could not enter the photos into contest or for financial gain without my expressed written consent. So, it's pretty clear and luckily she did the right thing by asking me this time. I allowed her to enter a photo into a different contest before, after I noticed she already had done it without asking. She seems nice so I just brought it to her attention, but said it was ok.
Honestly, I don't know that it would have been worth it. Yes, it might have been great to be published in Maxim, but I couldn't justify the risk. The release just sounded pretty scary to me since I'm trying to start a business. I really don't want a rep for giving things away all the time. I can't afford to. There are so many ways I could have looked at this, but I had to go with my gut. I'm glad your experience was a good one.
With the backgroun you brought up I can see your POV and do not think your are being unreasonable in your thinking.
Where I differ is it is fine to change things going forward but this shoot was a year ago and you already let this model use a photo in a contest without your prior approval and in her mind I think this set a precident that you really did not mean what you stated in the license (unless you made it clear that it was a one time exception and what the cost would be for a broader license in the future).
You had two choices, one to sign, one not to and I do not think either was right or wrong which way you decided. Out of 100 photographers the decision would have been pretty evenly split with lots of different reasons for the decision.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,231
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
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 have been in this discussion before. More than once. The Maxim HTH competition is firmly attached to a rights grab. Plain and simple.
It would be a completely different matter if Maxim wanted a license to exploit the work ONLY for purposes of the competition and something related to it, but, that is NOT what they want or what they are asking for. Among other things they are asking for the right to use the work for actual commercial use [in advertising, and a lot more, such as to SELL them for mobile phone wallpaper] not related to the competition; and the right to sub-license the work to third parties for actual commercial use [and more] not related to the competition.
And as for being "published" in Maxim the HTH competition is run on-line. I'm not sure even the winners, much less anyone else who enters, actually have their photos "published" in the print versions.
studio36uk wrote: I have been in this discussion before. More than once. The Maxim HTH competition is firmly attached to a rights grab. Plain and simple.
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, but, I have let them use images many times anyhow. I know exactly what I am doing when I permit it and do it without regret.
I don't do it for Maxim, I don't do it to get published, I do it for the model. I have enough images that, to me, the value of helping out the model is greater than what I lose granting a ridiculous license for a handful of pictures.
Jhono Bashian wrote: they only expect snapshots or mobile pics...
O RLY?
Did the rules change in the last 2 years? Do you work for Maxim?
When I was paying attention, most of the semifinalist's had pro looking images to show.
Only the top 10 get to go out to wherever it is and have a "professional" shoot with the Maxim staff. But it was hardly necessary. Most girls who would get to that point already work with perfectly capable photographers who create the Maxim look just fine.
Oh, and the contest is basically a scam. Any internet based voting contest is. The free publicity they get from hundreds of hopeful girls spamming Facebook and every other social media is well worth wasting 10 pages of their print on it.
Don't Speculate -- the following is from the www.maxim.com website:
**********
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE COPYRIGHT RELEASE
The attached form must be completed and executed if you do not own the full copyrights or other intellectual property rights to the Submitted Assets (as that term is defined in the Pre-Publication Affidavit of Eligibility and Release) you are delivering to us, including without limitation any photographic images, film, paper documents, videotapes or any other type of media – for example, if they were aken by a modeling agency or professional photographer(s)/videographer(s) – and the photographer(s)/videographer(s) or other owners has (have) not otherwise granted you the right to publish the Submitted Assets in the manner set forth in the Rules and License Agreement. The photographer(s)/videographer(s), who holds the copyright in the Submitted Assets, must grant Alpha Media Group Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively, “AMG”) permission to use the Submitted Assets. If applicable, this Copyright Release must be signed by the copyright holder before you submit the Submitted Assets.
Please be aware that AMG cannot accept photos in which you do not have the requisite rights. AMG will not print the copyright notices, will not credit any copyright owner, and will not make any payment whatsoever for any of the Submitted Assets.
Please have the owner of the images’ copyright sign this Copyright Release, and retain the release in your files. If you are selected as a Semi-Finalist, you will need to send the original of the form, along with other materials, to AMG in accordance with instructions to be provided.
AMG cannot accept telephone inquiries. If you have any questions about the Official Rules or any of the forms, you may e-mail hometownhotties@maxim.com. AMG will make every effort to respond to all inquiries as soon as possible. Please include your Entrant ID number
Copyright Holder warrants and represents that s/he owns the copyright in certain photographs and/or videotapes depicting the Entrant described in Attachment A hereto, together with any other materials of any type that may be submitted subsequently (collectively, the “Submitted Assets”). By signing this release, the Copyright Holder hereby grants to Alpha Media Group Inc., its subsidiaries (hereinafter, “AMG”) and its Affiliates (as defined below) the rights and permissions specified below in the Submitted Assets:
For good consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, Copyright Holder hereby grants to AMG and its affiliated domestic and foreign publishing companies and licensees (“Affiliate(s)”) the irrevocable right and permission to use, re-use, publish, re-publish and otherwise reproduce and display collectively “Publish(ed)”) the Submitted Assets for use by AMG as permitted herein. Such right and permission shall include the right to adapt, crop, revise and edit any of the Submitted Assets, and to Publish and distribute the Submitted Assets throughout the world and in perpetuity, in whole or in part and in conjunction with other photographs, in any and all media now known or hereafter devised, in connection with the following:
(a) the United States edition of MAXIM Magazine (“MAXIM Magazine”) and supplements packaged and sold in conjunction therewith;
(b) domestic and foreign Affiliate publications; (
c) AMG’s websites and respective Affiliate websites as well as on other media platforms, including but not limited to WAP, mobile and wireless media platforms, that permit the Submitted Assets to be uploaded or downloaded;
(d) collections of MAXIM Magazine and Affiliate materials not distributed for sale;
(e) television broadcast, including, but not limited to, the right to license or distribute the Submitted Assets and Biographical Materials via broadcast or cable outlets;
(f) home video and/or film use, including, but not limited to, the right to
manufacture copies of the Submitted Assets and Biographical Materials in all video and DVD formats for rental or sale to consumers for viewing;
(g) video on demand, including, but not limited to, offering the Submitted Assets and the Biographical Materials for exhibition to consumers on a pay-perview basis;
(h) Internet use, including, but not limited to, offering the Submitted Assets and Biographical Material for exhibition to consumers via the Internet;
(i) advertising, promoting and publicizing, in any and all media, the publications and materials referenced herein (including, but not limited to, the Competition and any subsequent AMG or Affiliate-sponsored contests);
(j) on cell phones and other media platforms that permit the Submitted Assets to be uploaded and/or downloaded, and
(k) other commercial purposes (including, but not limited to, calendars, posters, or usage by third parties).
Copyright Holder further understands and agrees that the foregoing grant to AMG and Affiliates includes the right to edit and crop the Submitted Assets, including the deletion of any copyright notice, and understands that s/he will not be given credit for the Submitted Assets. Copyright Holder waives in favor of AMG and anyone authorized by them, any and all moral rights that s/he may have in any of the Submitted Assets. Copyright Holder acknowledges that AMG is not and will not be responsible for any payment to Copyright Holder.
Since the so-called "good consideration" does *not* seem to be forthcoming from Maxim to the copyright holder ("receipt and sufficiency" of which, i.e., nothing, is acknowledged ahead of time, I wonder if the above copyright release is legally enforceable....
To me, a flow of assets one-way (only to Maxim) is not "good" consideration -- or anything but "no-good" (non-contractural) consideration.
I shot a young woman about a year ago. A month later, she asked if she could submit some of them to Maxim. Once I read their terms, I told the young woman that the only way I'd sign their release would be for her to pay me $1,000.00 per shot she wanted to submit.
Her response... "It's just a couple of pictures." I said "No."
Ed Woodson Photography wrote: I shot a young woman about a year ago. A month later, she asked if she could submit some of them to Maxim. Once I read their terms, I told the young woman that the only way I'd sign their release would be for her to pay me $1,000.00 per shot she wanted to submit.
Her response... "It's just a couple of pictures." I said "No."
Gems of Nature in N Atl wrote: lol didnt get $1,000 a pic and pissed of a model in the most gossipy (if thats a word) town in the South.... your brave.
You're correct, Savannah is about the most "gossipy" town in the world.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,231
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
GPS Studio Services wrote:
studio36uk wrote: I have been in this discussion before. More than once. The Maxim HTH competition is firmly attached to a rights grab. Plain and simple.
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, but, I have let them use images many times anyhow. I know exactly what I am doing when I permit it and do it without regret.
I don't do it for Maxim, I don't do it to get published, I do it for the model. I have enough images that, to me, the value of helping out the model is greater than what I lose granting a ridiculous license for a handful of pictures.
Or do I disagree with you, but that is not the motivation, or the expectation, of many here. One needs to do these things with their eyes wide open, fully understanding the implications of Maxim's license agreement, and with the expectation of zero return, even as a credit.
The particularly worse sin, in my eyes, is that Maxim then puts their own name on the images. To me that's a rights grab too far, and it is something that, at least outside the US, is quite objectionable on moral rights questions.
studio36uk wrote: Or do I disagree with you, but that is not the motivation, or the expectation, of many here. One needs to do these things with their eyes wide open, fully understanding the implications of Maxim's license agreement, and with the expectation of zero return, even as a credit.
The even worse sin, in my eyes, is that Maxim then puts their own name on the images. To me that's a rights grab too far, and it is something that, at least outside the US, is quite objectionable on moral rights questions.
Studio36
I'm not sure if Maxim has ever claimed any moral obligation.
But I know what you meant.
They're a dying rag. What used to be the male equivalent to Glamour or Vanity Fair, is now a 46 page whim with 8 pages of a TV actress in her underwear and 10 tips to avoid a hangover.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,231
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Good Egg Productions wrote: I'm not sure if Maxim has ever claimed any moral obligation.
But I know what you meant.
They're a dying rag. What used to be the male equivalent to Glamour or Vanity Fair, is now a 46 page whim with 8 pages of a TV actress in her underwear and 10 tips to avoid a hangover.
It is not moral obligation but a question of moral rights of authorship - the right of the creator to be identified as the author of a work; and the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work. These rights are enshrined in law throughout Europe and can not be signed away. If Maxim can't, or won't, credit the true author, they certainly should not be turning around and putting their own name on the work**, in actuality implying that they are [somehow] the author... and, in some countries, doing so makes them the presumptive copyright owner.
** This is the very same issue brought up in connection with many websites that do something similar with contributed content, often contributed without any compensation at all. Another recent example discussed here is Photo-Vogue with the same objections to doing so on my part.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,231
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Tiffany Katz wrote:
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.
Exactly. I'm surprised there are so many professional photographers that seem to be ok with that.
That is not the way to use the words "professional" and "photographers" in the same sentence. With minimal exceptions, perhaps with other forms of benefit from doing so in mind, the genuine professionals are not OK with it as a general rule. Especially as to the breath of the rights that the likes of Maxim demand.
Gems of Nature in N Atl wrote: come on, help the girl out... if you dont what have you gained? nothing. if you do and the photo is printed, what have you gained? A LOT! you have a girl who can tell the world that YOUR picture got her in Maxim... plus you have bragging rights... and some tear sheets...
You are then in a position to say that I got one girl in Maxim, maybe i can get YOU in Maxim....
That idea seemed great to me as well until I read the release.
Tiffany Katz wrote: I value your opinion and here is why: I didn't feel the need to mention this in the forum, especially after all the rudeness, but here is my side of it: I have been working TF A LOT over the past couple of years and giving models more than most photographers would...to the extent I'm more worried about being taken advantage of than I am about "being nice" at this point. I've been generous to this day with models to the point that they just expect it. So when people tell me "it's not all about the photographer/money" it's frustrating to listen to that when I'm pretty much broke.
Long story short, I allowed more usage of my work than I should have in the past. Right now I'm trying to start a business and it's scary as hell. Luckily I have some support from my family, but at some point the freebies have got to stop. Money may not be everything if you're only doing photography as a hobby, but that's an expensive hobby. I don't "have it like that". I didn't go to college at thirty-something to learn a "hobby". I have a six month old child to think about, and sorry but she comes before any model.
I was finally able to stop going to food banks at the end of the summer last year (2012); I started shooting in November 2010. From a fairly early time (5/6 months later), I dramatically reduced the number of images I would provide when conducting test-shoots for models/others to test how people would receive how I posed/captured/etc them. I took the time over the winter (and last winter), to read what experienced shooters would say in forums - and what a select number of established & experienced shooters I network with directly would advise me on for guidance. I'm now 36 years old. and this is my 4th career-move (part-time). I nearly died at my last job in 2006, as the Service Mgr of the largest-volume Ducati Motorcycle dealership in Canada (at that time). I've been burnt a few times along the way and learnt a few hard lessons, but overall I've found personally that sticking to my guns in spite of what the majority of the MM fora has to say is slowly but surely leading me in the correfct direction. My often-used disclaimer:
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.
==>
studio36uk wrote: I have been in this discussion before. More than once. The Maxim HTH competition is firmly attached to a rights grab. Plain and simple.
It would be a completely different matter if Maxim wanted a license to exploit the work ONLY for purposes of the competition and something related to it, but, that is NOT what they want or what they are asking for. Among other things they are asking for the right to use the work for actual commercial use [in advertising, and a lot more, such as to SELL them for mobile phone wallpaper] not related to the competition; and the right to sub-license the work to third parties for actual commercial use [and more] not related to the competition.
And as for being "published" in Maxim the HTH competition is run on-line. I'm not sure even the winners, much less anyone else who enters, actually have their photos "published" in the print versions.
Maxim can fuck off!
Studio36
studio36uk wrote: ...but that is not the motivation, or the expectation, of many here. One needs to do these things with their eyes wide open, fully understanding the implications of Maxim's license agreement, and with the expectation of zero return, even as a credit.
The particularly worse sin, in my eyes, is that Maxim then puts their own name on the images. To me that's a rights grab too far, and it is something that, at least outside the US, is quite objectionable on moral rights questions.
studio36uk wrote: It is not moral obligation but a question of moral rights of authorship - the right of the creator to be identified as the author of a work; and the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work. These rights are enshrined in law throughout Europe and can not be signed away.
Only marginally helpful here, as OP is in the U.S., where moral rights to photographs are only recognized under very specific circumstances under VARA.
But I am ecstatic to see this topic pop up, as I'm usually the only voice on the matter.
BTW, also, OP, if this is really a rights grab, you'd be unable to recreate the image with the same model, since the new copyright owner could sue for infringement. You could, though, reassert your claim to copyright after 35 years, iirc.
studio36uk wrote: It is not moral obligation but a question of moral rights of authorship - the right of the creator to be identified as the author of a work; and the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work. These rights are enshrined in law throughout Europe and can not be signed away.
Only marginally helpful here, as OP is in the U.S., where moral rights to photographs are only recognized under very specific circumstances under VARA.
But I am ecstatic to see this topic pop up, as I'm usually the only voice on the matter.
BTW, also, OP, if this is really a rights grab, you'd be unable to recreate the image with the same model, since the new copyright owner could sue for infringement. You could, though, reassert your claim to copyright after 35 years, iirc.
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...
It looks like one way or another you're not getting a photo credit in Maxim.
My guess is that they have to promise nothing so that they don't have to deal with complaints that the photo credit wasn't big enough etc. maybe look through an issue and see if you can find uncredited photos.
If you don't submit a photo at all, you'll have even less to show than if they ran a photo without the credit.
You're not going to get a job from someone seeing you're name in a photo credit in maxim. It's just a resume credit and if you ever needed to prove to a doubter, you show the tear sheet next to the RAW.
You're not going to find a way to negotiate pay I this case, so the only element of opportunity for you here is a resume credit and to piss off the model who's going to have less reason to shoot with you in the future since she'll be getting photos that she's unable to use.
| 
| 
| edu