Erlinda wrote:
If NEXT knew what this model is doing they wouldn't sign her. I could ask my friend that works there and see how they feel about this.

Edit: just because some models do this that doesn't mean it's allowed and agencies don't care.. Many of the model that are find out could lose their agency and not be able to sign with another.

Would you like to make a bet on that too? The contract she signed does not exclude her from modelling outside of the agency's knowledge on her own period and does not mean she cannot sign a release allowing a photographer that works with her from using the images accordingly. Again ..you are dead wrong.

DarrylPascoePhotography wrote:

Would you like to make a bet on that too? The contract she signed does not exclude her from modelling outside of the agency's knowledge period and does not mean she cannot sign a release allowing a photographer that works with her from using the images accordingly. Again ..you are dead wrong.

I am talking about if you get her through the agency and she signs something she WOULD get in trouble.. I am not talking about when you get her on her own..... WE established that this whole fucking thread is when you get a model through her god damn agency! UGH I'm so tired of repeating myself. maaaaan

Will Snizek wrote:

An agency has no rights to your photos if there's no contract between you and the agency regardless of what deal they have with the model, but They can come after you if the images are used to promote a business or business service/product, but so could the model.

I do not believe the bolded part is true.  If there is no contract between me and the agency, how could they possibly have any standing to "come after" me?  The model could sue for using her likeness for commercial purposes without a release, and the agency may sue on the model's behalf, but in the circumstances presented in the OP, the agency itself has no right to prohibit any usage of the image.  As I said earlier, I'm sure there are conventions and traditions and industry "rules," and I'm not doubting that those matter in terms of relationships and reputation, but those are not the same things as laws.  If you can't explain where the legal standing comes from in the specific circumstances you're describing, then claiming they'll sue you or "come after" you is simply fear mongering.

Will Snizek wrote:
Even the photo of a privately owned building can get you in the same sort of trouble.

That's a very different thing than the circumstances described in the OP.  The OP described images of a person shot without a release, but with the model's consent (presumably anyway - there was nothing in the OP about the model refusing to pose).

Erlinda wrote:
Agencies can sue you if you get a girl from them and then sell that photo of the model.

Again, you've omitted critical information.  That may or may not be true, depending on what paperwork is signed in the process.

Erlinda wrote:
What I don't know is how they go about it. Ohhhhh brother

And that is precisely the problem - you're proclaiming that something works one way always, when you don't actually understand how it works or what factors may change how it works.

Erlinda wrote:
I am talking about if you get her through the agency and she signs something she WOULD get in trouble.. I am not talking about when you get her on her own..... WE established that this whole fucking thread is when you get a model through her god damn agency! UGH I'm so tired of repeating myself. maaaaan

If you are only talking about getting models by contacting their agency then......say specifically that in the post and make sure it is written in context and another thing.....why in the hell would you have posted this.....

Erlinda wrote:
Working with real proper agency models you would need to go through their agency. I thought most people would get that... Didn't think I had to go into such detail and people would be that slow, but of course it is MM after all.

You wrote this….it is not true, I DO NOT NEED TO GO THROUGH THE AGENCY IN ORDER TO WORK WITH AN AGENCY MODEL…. do I need to keep reminding you of your own posts?

Erlinda wrote:
If NEXT knew what this model is doing they wouldn't sign her. I could ask my friend that works there and see how they feel about this.
Edit: just because some models do this that doesn't mean it's allowed and agencies don't care.. Many of the model that are find out could lose their agency and not be able to sign with another.

You wrote this….it is not true, UNLESS THEIR CONTRACT STATES DIFFERENT (AND IVE NEVER HEARD OF ONE THAT COULD STOP HER) A MODEL WITH AN AGENCY CAN MODEL ON THEIR OWN FOR A PHOTOGRAPHER IF THEY WISH AND SIGN A RELEASE ALLOWING THAT PHOTOGRAPHER TO DO WHATEVER WITH THE IMAGES THEY TAKE…… do I need to keep reminding you of your own posts?

Why do you not understand that what you mean and what you are typing are two different things? do you not see it?




Are you high on something seriously? lol If so I want some cause its making you forget things....like stuff you have posted 20 minutes ago.

David Kirk wrote:
So, if I find a model on MM who is signed with an agency, I shoot with her and have her sign a release form then the agency can sue me?  For what exactly?

They can't.
But the model could get in trouble for doing that.

Erlinda needed to be clearer.

And at least in Canada as far as I know, if you get a model through an agency on trade, then it is implied as Elinda said, and you have agreed to the rules of the game, simply by choosing to play the game.

If you contact a model through MM, FB etc. and make arrangements, then she/he should then direct you to their agency (if signed) to book. If they trade without the agency, then they should NOT sign a release. But if they do, YOU are in the clear.

BTHPhoto wrote:

Is it accurate to say that the point you wanted to make in the OP is this?

There is a higher probability that an agency will sue on behalf of an agency-represented model than there is that an unrepresented model will sue on his/her own behalf if a photographer uses the model's likeness for commercial purposes without obtaining a release. 

Because I think that is absolutely true without giving the false impression that legal rights automatically exist in the agency world that don't exist elsewhere.

+1

DarrylPascoePhotography wrote:

Erlinda wrote:
I am talking about if you get her through the agency and she signs something she WOULD get in trouble.. I am not talking about when you get her on her own..... WE established that this whole fucking thread is when you get a model through her god damn agency! UGH I'm so tired of repeating myself. maaaaan

If you are only talking about getting models by contacting their agency then......say specifically that in the post and make sure it is written in context and another thing.....why in the hell would you have posted this.....


You wrote this….it is not true, I DO NOT NEED TO GO THROUGH THE AGENCY IN ORDER TO WORK WITH AN AGENCY MODEL…. do I need to keep reminding you of your own posts?


You wrote this….it is not true, UNLESS THEIR CONTRACT STATES DIFFERENT (AND IVE NEVER HEARD OF ONE THAT COULD STOP HER) A MODEL WITH AN AGENCY CAN MODEL ON THEIR OWN FOR A PHOTOGRAPHER IF THEY WISH AND SIGN A RELEASE ALLOWING THAT PHOTOGRAPHER TO DO WHATEVER WITH THE IMAGES THEY TAKE…… do I need to keep reminding you of your own posts?

Why do you not understand that what you mean and what you are typing are two different things? do you not see it?




Are you high on something seriously? lol If so I want some cause its making you forget things....like stuff you have posted 20 minutes ago.

I feel like I am saying everything correctly... I don't know how else I can word it for you to understand my english.

Alright let me try ONE more time.

If you book a model that is signed by an agency through their agent and they sign a model release their agent will be PISSED and most likely not want them to be a part of the agency anymore. And the agency wont want you to work with their models again.

If the model is booked through MM (not from their agency) than you have no issues. The model might get in trouble depending on the agency and what they've signed.

I wish I was smoking something would make this thread less painful to read

Caitin   wrote:

Maybe its getting hard for seasoned pros to compete with the growing number of hobbyists these days. It might be frustrating but it seems to be going that direction.
The price of awesome cameras and glass are within range of people to afford them for there hobby. Software for the pros is now all avail for 50.00 a month. There is everything you ever needed or want to know about photography on the internet for free. Anyone with that much passion for photography can become a pro very fast.
I just read a statistic not to long ago that 90% of the images on the internet have been posted in the last 2 years.
Just like the internet changed the music business it is changing the photography business.
You have to do what the music business did. Adapt, make new plans, new ways to make money from your talents in a market you can not control.
I didn't even get into what cell phones have done.

Talking about software it can be completely free if your using something like Gimp.  I use Photoshop and Gimp, but find Gimp to be superior in many ways especially with batch processing of images.  If you are doing this as a primary means of income, you are right...you just need to adapt.  There are plenty of pro and amateur photographers who aren't highly skilled.  If you are a lifetime student kind of person, there will always be money to be made.

DarrylPascoePhotography wrote:

It may not be an uncommon thing for you and the photographers you work with, however it is very uncommon. Not many photographers imo would give full rights,  the rights to submit the photos to wherever, make alterations etc without permission and the RAW files at all. What others do doesn't bother me at all in that regard all the power to you and them just to say its not uncommon I believe you are mistaken in.

+1

Erlinda wrote:
I feel like I am saying everything correctly... I don't know how else I can word it for you to understand my english.

Alright let me try ONE more time.

If you book a model that is signed by an agency through their agent and they sign a model release their agent will be PISSED and most likely not want them to be a part of the agency anymore.

If the model is booked through MM (not from their agency) than you have no issues. The model might get in trouble depending on the agency and what they've signed.

I wish I was smoking something would make this thread less painful to read

You were not originally saying everything correctly if what you meant is what you wrote here.

This was not painful to read because you actually wrote what you meant and it made sense (to a point) and I agree with this (in most instances). What you wrote before...was not this.

However that being said even what you have written here is not 100 percent the truth in all cases but at least  it was clear what you were stating exactly.

Erlinda wrote:

I feel like I am saying everything correctly... I don't know how else I can word it for you to understand my english.

Alright let me try ONE more time.

If you book a model that is signed by an agency through their agent and they sign a model release their agent will be PISSED and most likely not want them to be a part of the agency anymore. And the agency wont want you to work with their models again.

If the model is booked through MM (not from their agency) than you have no issues. The model might get in trouble depending on the agency and what they've signed.

I wish I was smoking something would make this thread less painful to read

So, if I hire a model through an agency (which means I am paying the agency who then pays the model) what is the appropriate paperwork that I would need to use this image commercially and who signs it?

DarrylPascoePhotography wrote:

Erlinda wrote:
I am talking about if you get her through the agency and she signs something she WOULD get in trouble.. I am not talking about when you get her on her own..... WE established that this whole fucking thread is when you get a model through her god damn agency! UGH I'm so tired of repeating myself. maaaaan

If you are only talking about getting models by contacting their agency then......say specifically that in the post and make sure it is written in context and another thing.....why in the hell would you have posted this.....

Erlinda wrote:
Working with real proper agency models you would need to go through their agency. I thought most people would get that... Didn't think I had to go into such detail and people would be that slow, but of course it is MM after all.

You wrote this….it is not true, I DO NOT NEED TO GO THROUGH THE AGENCY IN ORDER TO WORK WITH AN AGENCY MODEL…. do I need to keep reminding you of your own posts?


You wrote this….it is not true, UNLESS THEIR CONTRACT STATES DIFFERENT (AND IVE NEVER HEARD OF ONE THAT COULD STOP HER) A MODEL WITH AN AGENCY CAN MODEL ON THEIR OWN FOR A PHOTOGRAPHER IF THEY WISH AND SIGN A RELEASE ALLOWING THAT PHOTOGRAPHER TO DO WHATEVER WITH THE IMAGES THEY TAKE…… do I need to keep reminding you of your own posts?

Why do you not understand that what you mean and what you are typing are two different things? do you not see it?




Are you high on something seriously? lol If so I want some cause its making you forget things....like stuff you have posted 20 minutes ago.

It is rare to get agency models without going through the agent.. It's uncommon but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen...

The reason I said you can't get agency models unless you go through the agency is because more then 90% of the time you can't, agents tell their models do not go on MM or other modelling websites and even have them close their accounts. They also say don't test with photographers they don't approve of etc etc.

Just because you got lucky doesn't mean every photographer on here will... Even if her contract says NON exclusive when she is testing with a photographer her agent got her to test with SHE would get in very big trouble signing a release.

Now if she is testing with photographers her agency doesn't know of and she is just doing her own thing find. As long as her contract allows that she wont have issues.. But I haven't heard of an agency who had no problem with their models shooting with photographers they don't know of or heard about.

David Kirk wrote:
Why would a sane professional photographer think it is nuts for a hobbyist to do as they please.  Do you really expect that hobbyists should operate in a manner similar to those who are doing photography as an occupation?

Jealousy???, on the part of the pro???

David Kirk wrote:
So, if I hire a model through an agency (which means I am paying the agency who then pays the model) what is the appropriate paperwork that I would need to use this image commercially and who signs it?

When I mean booked I mean booking a model for testing... When you hire a model from an agency everything goes through the agency (the hours the model has to work, the location, what's the usage for, how long the usage will be needed for, how much the model is getting paid etc) All that through the agency.

When you go through the agency YOU are always in contact with the models agent NEVER them directly.

David Kirk wrote:

Not all hobbyists want to become pros and therefore many are completely unconcerned with how the "industry" works.  They just want to have some fun and shoot some photos.  They don't need to be worried about what affect that may or may not have on others who are doing so for their occupation.

And some used to make a living through photography, and now do it for fun. So they should also care what the industry does?

Erlinda wrote:

When I mean booked I mean booking a model for testing... When you hire a model from an agency everything goes through the agency (the hours the model has to work, the location, what's the usage for, how long the usage will be needed for, how much the model is getting paid etc) All that through the agency.

When you go through the agency YOU are always in contact with the models agent NEVER them directly.

Okay, but you didn't answer my question.  When I HIRE the model through the agency and want to use the images commecially, what paperwork is required and who signs it?

Herman Surkis wrote:

Jealousy???, on the part of the pro???

Really Herman? That's what you think of me. Ouch

I can tell you why a pro would be upset/annoyed because costumers will think that those Hobbyist are pros and when that costumer encounters a real pro "they ask if they can shoot something for free for them"

David Kirk wrote:

Okay, but you didn't answer my question.  When I HIRE the model through the agency and want to use the images commecially, what paperwork is required and who signs it?

Model

Erlinda wrote:
Really Herman? That's what you think of me. Ouch

I can tell you why a pro would be upset/annoyed because costumers will think that those Hobbyist are pros and when that costumer encounters a real pro "they ask if they can shoot something for free for them"

If the pro cannot differentiate their product and service from that of the hobbyist who is offering it for free AND articulate that differentiation and therefore justify their price then the problem is not with the hobbyist.

David Kirk wrote:
If the pro cannot differentiate their product and service from that of the hobbyist who is offering it for free AND articulate that differentiation and therefore justify their price then the problem is not with the hobbyist.

Not exactly..... Some people will go for the best even if they have no chance... The way most people think is I wont know till I ask.

I know I did when I modelled lol

Erlinda wrote:

Blow me.... I don't care what people think about my attitude.

This is not something a hot babe should be saying around a bunch of old farts.
Just the momentary fantasy could be bad for the heart.

Erlinda wrote:
Have you ever received an email asking you if so and so company can use your photo on their site? They said you'll get full credit on it and possible "paid" work later on. Yeeeaaaahh, you know what I'm talking about.

I would love to do this in exchange for getting to use their facility as a shoot location, but you know darn well that whoever makes the promise will soon leave the company or will be overidden by someone else.

Erlinda wrote:

I feel like I am saying everything correctly... I don't know how else I can word it for you to understand my english.

Alright let me try ONE more time.

If you book a model that is signed by an agency through their agent and they sign a model release their agent will be PISSED and most likely not want them to be a part of the agency anymore. And the agency wont want you to work with their models again.

If the model is booked through MM (not from their agency) than you have no issues. The model might get in trouble depending on the agency and what they've signed.

I wish I was smoking something would make this thread less painful to read

I think that is what I just said 2 posts earlier.

One of the fun things about commenting before you get to the end, is that five people may have already said what you want to say.

Erlinda wrote:

Really Herman? That's what you think of me. Ouch

I can tell you why a pro would be upset/annoyed because costumers will think that those Hobbyist are pros and when that costumer encounters a real pro "they ask if they can shoot something for free for them"

Actually I was answering your generic question and not pointing at you.

And there are any number of threads pointing out that if you (generic you) are threatened by the hobbyist, then either up your game or get out of the game.

And I would not pick on you, since I keep remembering what you look like and then forget what I was trying to say. ;>)

Erlinda wrote:
Do you have any examples of a real life situation where someone took a free job and got something amazing out of it? Yes it does happen but it's VERY rare to the point that it never really happens anymore because people are tricked to believe something amazing will come their way if they do it for free... Those days are dead.

Shot a benefit dinner for free = Dinner with the Mayor.

Test shoot for free with a models idea = small publication.

Test shoot idea for free, just a campy dumb 3 shot idea. = hundreds of dollars in print/gallery sales & thousands of dollars in commissions & several tear sheets.

A silly (free) night at the studio was just printed right next to a clients commission in a major print newspaper.

So ya, some of those "free jobs" I have taken on have resulted in major publications, sales, commissions, connections...and it all keeps rolling forward...

Next month is an interview for a TV program with a segment on Boudoir Photography...I'm pretty sure something amazing will come out of that as well.

Death of Field wrote:

Shot a benefit dinner for free = Dinner with the Mayor.

Test shoot for free with a models idea = small publication.

Test shoot idea for free, just a campy dumb 3 shot idea. = hundreds of dollars in print/gallery sales & thousands of dollars in commissions & several tear sheets.

A silly (free) night at the studio was just printed right next to a clients commission in a major print newspaper.

So ya, some of those "free jobs" I have taken on have resulted in major publications, sales, commissions, connections...and it all keeps rolling forward...

Next month is an interview for a TV program with a segment on Boudoir Photography...I'm pretty sure something amazing will come out of that as well.

Good Luck

Herman Surkis wrote:

Actually I was answering your generic question and not pointing at you.

And there are any number of threads pointing out that if you (generic you) are threatened by the hobbyist, then either up your game or get out of the game.

And I would not pick on you, since I keep remembering what you look like and then forget what I was trying to say. ;>)

ahahahahahaha

Erlinda wrote:
Am I right or am I right!

Alright kids. Enjoy your weekend! xox

You're always right.


At least, that is what you told me I need to say, unless I want you to sick your flying monkeys on me

Erlinda wrote:

OMG, NOOOO way they have Hasslbal and Leaf Cameras... Why didn't you say so... They are TOTALLY amazing now!

I'm a model turned photographer what does that have to do with anything?

You stated these are professional photographers in your first few post now you are saying it's their hobby.. Make up your mind woman.

I shoot with many photographers. Young, old, new, seasoned, Pro, Hobbyist and even guys with 79.00 point and shoots. Never are 2 exactly the same. You learn a lot working across the entire spectrum.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:

That's totally ignorant. You have no clue what you are talking about. Releases are what allow you to sell to a publisher.

And FYI I do publish my own work and everything I shoot has commercial intent behind it. I do not shoot unless I can monetize the content down the line, use it in a book, or some other way I see fit.

I'm not interested in being just a for hire photographer shooting what others want me to shoot. Which is all my shoots require a release so that I can publish or monetize the content later.

My business model is not that of a the normal for hire photographer.

So you have proved that you need a release because you publish your content.
But a release is not needed for a photographer to take photos and even sell them. Who he sells them to needs a release if there intent is to publish them and they will decide what kind of release they need.
I am done signing blanket releases. Period. I will sign a release for a intended purpose only. And only if I am paid for it.
The way it works on my commercial side is a photographer shoots me. He sets it in his book. when something comes up that he can use me for he shoots me for that. Never a release is even brought up. A week or 2 later i get a release from the publisher in the mail with a check attached. The release has the exact intended use in it and dates it expires. I can cash the check if I sign and send it back to them.

Yosh Studio wrote:
....can not believe this grappling match is sill going on....

Ugh tell me about it.... I've said the same thing about 500 different ways. But they don't have me beat

DougBPhoto wrote:

You're always right.


At least, that is what you told me I need to say, unless I want you to sick your flying monkeys on me

ahahahahaha Good answer

Will Snizek wrote:

Talking about software it can be completely free if your using something like Gimp.  I use Photoshop and Gimp, but find Gimp to be superior in many ways especially with batch processing of images.  If you are doing this as a primary means of income, you are right...you just need to adapt.  There are plenty of pro and amateur photographers who aren't highly skilled.  If you are a lifetime student kind of person, there will always be money to be made.

I have used Gimp and I just couldn't get comfortable with the tools and layout. I learned on paintshop pro but knew I needed pixel level to really meet my ever growing desire for level of quality. So I landed on photoshop cs6 and I wonder why I didn't do it years ago. Lightroom is for sure a need for Raws. I have tried others but go back to Lightroom. I have used it for quite some time. The new release 4.3 has been great with 64 bit.
I have been working on my carving skills as of late. I guess I am one of those lifetime students. Photography in front and behind the camera is a lifestyle that I love.