I had a model that demanded that she is entitled to some of the profit from me selling any prints of a photoshoot that we did .The shoot was TFCD and she didn't discuss anything about how the photos were to be used .No contracts were signed between us stating what we could do with the photos .From what I understand, I don't have to give her any money from anything that I sell unless we both have an agreement .Need opinions ..
Your reply to the model will depend entirely not only on how much you still value the work relationship but also whether you see it happening in the future.
KevinH wrote: I had a model that demanded that she is entitled to some of the profit from me selling any prints of a photoshoot that we did .The shoot was TFCD and she didn't discuss anything about how the photos were to be used .No contracts were signed between us stating what we could do with the photos .From what I understand, I don't have to give her any money from anything that I sell unless we both have an agreement .Need opinions ..
Unfortunately for her... no contract detailing terms of use means free use. This also means that she is able to take the photos from the CD, edit them on her own, and do as she pleases.
It sounds like a lose-lose situation.
I agree, your response will solely depend on how you value your client relationship.
Model is right. You said there is no contract signed. I assumed you did not get a model release either. Well, unless you want to be sued by the model, I suggest you don't sell any images to a third party.
The copyright belongs to me and she cannot alter or sell any of the photos because of that .A model release isn't required as long as I don't use the images to promote or advertise something .
§ 106 . Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
KevinH wrote: The copyright belongs to me and she cannot alter or sell any of the photos because of that .A model release isn't required as long as I don't use the images to promote or advertise something .
I'm confused. Who are you trying to sell prints to?
me voy wrote: Model is right. You said there is no contract signed. I assumed you did not get a model release either. Well, unless you want to be sued by the model, I suggest you don't sell any images to a third party.
Danielle Hieronimi wrote: Unfortunately for her... no contract detailing terms of use means free use. This also means that she is able to take the photos from the CD, edit them on her own, and do as she pleases.
It sounds like a lose-lose situation.
I agree, your response will solely depend on how you value your client relationship.
Umm no. No contract means the model gets nothing and in fact can not use them for portfolio use. All rights to the copyright holder.
Now without a release her likeness cannot be used in some commercial useages, but that can differ by state/area. In some place a release may only be needed if the likeness is shown to promote a product or service. A court could rule that the image(s) is just promoting how beautiful she is and its not commercial use.
Granted I am not a lawyer but my point is in these cases it often comes down to local law, case law, and what a judge or jury believe. Photographer should always get a release as well as grant a model rights to use the image for self promotion (portfolio use) at a minimum. This doesn't mean a mod could sell posters mind you.
P.S. in almost all states limits edition art prints are allowed as well
Unfortunately for her... no contract detailing terms of use means free use. This also means that she is able to take the photos from the CD, edit them on her own, and do as she pleases.
It sounds like a lose-lose situation.
I agree, your response will solely depend on how you value your client relationship.
Danielle that's not how it works. A model doesn't have the right to edit or change images a photographer gives her. Although many do. Their are copyright issues. For the amateur world it may not be a big deal but may be for pro shoots. OP, you may well be within your rights to sell your work without giving your model anything but is that something you want to known for. If the plan is to market your work then either pay your models or be upfront with them for what you plan too do.
I'm going to stay out of the legal side (I'll wait for Studio36 or EI) but I will say that, like the model, I'd be way pissed off to do a test shoot (if I were the model) with nothing signed and have the photographer sell prints. That's dirty pool.
Be up front about your intentions.
And brush up on copyright and usage rules and regs.
I'd give her a percentage even if it wasn't in writing.
It was a TF shoot - you donated your time, she donated hers, ergo, you were partners in the effort. Now you want to cut her out of any profits using her image? How much would you be making if she hadn't been there?
If it had been a shoot in which I paid the model for her time, then unless an agreement to profits had been made, I am not obligated to pay her further. She's gotten her payment as she wanted already.
I wouldn't say that a percentage would be 50% or anything close - you've likely done a lot of post production work, marketing, etc., but 5 or 10% minimum doesn't sound out of line.
Rather than getting to a point to call in predatory bottom-feeding lawyers, think about it. What would you think would be right in accordance with your own sense of honor and fairness?
'Course, this is just my opinion and I hold my self-esteem to my own standards.
R80 wrote: I'd give her a percentage even if it wasn't in writing.
It was a TF shoot - you donated your time, she donated hers, ergo, you were partners in the effort. Now you want to cut her out of any profits using her image? How much would you be making if she hadn't been there?
If it had been a shoot in which I paid the model for her time, then unless an agreement to profits had been made, I am not obligated to pay her further. She's gotten her payment as she wanted already.
I wouldn't say that a percentage would be 50% or anything close - you've likely done a lot of post production work, marketing, etc., but 5 or 10% minimum doesn't sound out of line.
Rather than getting to a point to call in predatory bottom-feeding lawyers, think about it. What would you think would be right in accordance with your own sense of honor and fairness?
'Course, this is just my opinion and I hold my self-esteem to my own standards.
We never discussed any of that ..she demanded that she get some of the profits .
Nikki Magnusson wrote: then you should also get a percentage..
of any future work..
she may get from clients viewing your photos in her port..
sharing is caring..lol..
I always give the models that shoot with me the rights to do just about anything with the pics .I don't think that it's a big issue if they try to make money from the photos .But when they demand that they get some of the money from the prints that I sell...that's another issue!
Danielle that's not how it works. A model doesn't have the right to edit or change images a photographer gives her. Although many do. Their are copyright issues. For the amateur world it may not be a big deal but may be for pro shoots. OP, you may well be within your rights to sell your work without giving your model anything but is that something you want to known for. If the plan is to market your work then either pay your models or be upfront with them for what you plan too do.
I understand... for the most part. I just assumed that with TFCD she was given free use, because from my little experience, photographers have outlined that I get free use of the images when I get the CD.
Umm no. No contract means the model gets nothing and in fact can not use them for portfolio use. All rights to the copyright holder.
Now without a release her likeness cannot be used in some commercial useages, but that can differ by state/area. In some place a release may only be needed if the likeness is shown to promote a product or service. A court could rule that the image(s) is just promoting how beautiful she is and its not commercial use.
Granted I am not a lawyer but my point is in these cases it often comes down to local law, case law, and what a judge or jury believe. Photographer should always get a release as well as grant a model rights to use the image for self promotion (portfolio use) at a minimum. This doesn't mean a mod could sell posters mind you.
P.S. in almost all states limits edition art prints are allowed as well
Can you explain how a sold print is not covered under commercial use?
I understand... for the most part. I just assumed that with TFCD she was given free use, because from my little experience, photographers have outlined that I get free use of the images when I get the CD.
You must always get a model release and you should be up front about what you are planning as much as you can be, although it can change down the road. Unless it's prohibited in writing.
I state in no uncertain terms that I do not shoot for free. But I will take the models time and service as payment knowing that later I can recoup my investment of money and time. I let them know it will be used in my art and other projects down the road and I have the sign a release. I state this on my page as well.
I do not shoot unless I believe I can make the money back in the future. My last TF shoot cost me $600 for everything but the model.
You mistake was not discussing and not getting a model release.
OP, if the model can be recognized in the pictures then you need a model release to sell the images even if it is for fine art. Seems to me like the model understands more about the industry than you do.
me voy wrote: OP, if the model can be recognized in the pictures then you need a model release to sell the images even if it is for fine art. Seems to me like the model understands more about the industry than you do.
NewBoldPhoto
Posts: 4,641
PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US
me voy wrote: OP, if the model can be recognized in the pictures then you need a model release to sell the images even if it is for fine art. Seems to me like the model understands more about the industry than you do.
me voy wrote: OP, if the model can be recognized in the pictures then you need a model release to sell the images even if it is for fine art. Seems to me like the model understands more about the industry than you do.
A model release isn't required even if they can be recognized ..It all depends on how the image isto be used .I can't use the image to sell,promote or advertise a product or idea.Thats normally when a written release is required .
KevinH wrote: A model release isn't required even if they can be recognized ..It all depends on how the image isto be used .I can't use the image to sell,promote or advertise a product or idea.Thats normally when a written release is required .
Exactly. Keep in mind that an image we would consider glamour falls into this category. Sure a jury is likely to side with a model on something like a swimsuit cal if it goes that far, but even then it's all down to the lawyers. If if the model was aware of the purpose prior then forget about it as any jury would rule (most likely) in favor of the photographer.
I understand... for the most part. I just assumed that with TFCD she was given free use, because from my little experience, photographers have outlined that I get free use of the images when I get the CD.
Of course I'm not privy to what the photographers you work with grant you in terms of usage. They may be giving you free and/or unlimited usage. Who knows, there are a lot of different photographers out there with all levels of experience and reasons for their photography.
But more typically, they might very well be granting you wide self-promotional usage, which includes your posting on sites like MM or even facebook or your blog.
But, they may very well not be supporting if you for instance, gave one of the images to your friend who owned a clothing boutique, for use in their new advertising campaign.
Or maybe they'd be fine with it - who knows. There's a lot of amateur photographers doing a lot of things in different ways, because it suits them.
Sabine wrote: I always wondered about this. Especially, when a model sells prints.
A model can't sell any of the prints unless the copyright holder grants them permision to do so ..
§ 106 . Exclusive rights in copyrighted works 38
Subject to sections 107 through 122,
the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
| 
| 
| edu