JAE Photography PA wrote:
I'm more then willing to remove images from a TFP shoot. If the model is paid (such as in this case) I would need to be reimbursed what I paid the model and be paid for the time I put into the shoot.

This befuddles me.....I value my time almost more than I value $$. Sometimes more.

SuperWink wrote:

To be honest I'm not sure how I would have monetized the situation anyway. Which begs the question: Why buy a commercial release from a model at a group shoot anyway?

It seems as if the only way to make money for shooting models is for a client anyway, right?  Unless of course the model makes it super huge like a Cameron Diaz type years later, then you sell the images to a mag/site interested in old pictures "before she was famous" or something.

Yes, let the client pay. If you are just building your port, TF is the way to go.

SuperWink wrote:
Okay, this is a tricky one.  So.  A model I shot 8 months ago at a group shoot just had a youtube video she starred in go viral.  Awesome!  She's great in it, too.

Now, I've got a cache of nudes featuring her and another model which I have commercial releases for.  My question is this: is this the sort of opportunity you get a release for in the first place, and you then attempt to capitalize on? Or would it be weird to try to turn her flash in the pan success into more eyeballs on my website?

I wouldn't take them down. At the time of the shoot, you paid upfront to use her image in the future and she should have known that anything can happen from there on. Is she going to approach every photog (who paid for a CR) from that shoot and request the same thing? Is it guaranteed they will remove their images?

To me, a viral video on YouTube is just that - viral. It's not a guarantee for anything but 15 minutes of fame until the next thing comes along. How many people even remember the name of the "History of Dancing" guy? Or the Numa Numa guy? All I hear is "Where are they now?"

Considering the way a lot of net forums work (that don't see much nudity on a regular basis), they'll actively seek-out nude pics of her, it will blow-up like "EHMEGERD SHEZ NEKKID!!!" and then will pass with time. If she's uber-lucky, your model will get noticed by a business that can catapult her beyond YouTube.

Cherrystone wrote:

Classy? Could you define that?

Do you mean classy like the models who put on their port they don't shoot nudes 'cause they're classy?

Or is this a different kinda classy?

Are you in the business world? 'Cause if you are, you're gonna crumble if you cave to buyers or sellers remorse all the time......just saying.

All I am saying is that it isn't wrong to show some compassion to a fellow human being once in a while. If that makes me a lousy business man, great! I can live with that.

Rick OBanion Photo wrote:
She had a price when you did the shoot. Now figure out yours to sell the rights back.
If she sold you a car then wanted you to give it back to her for free what would you say?

I was thinking of the car analogy myself.

I really don't understand this debate.  It was a business arrangement, right?  Money and paperwork were involved?  What's with all this "Be a nice guy" stuff?

This is the reason I don't model nude.  I personally like nudes, but I don't pose for anything I (or my grandkids) might have an issue with later, and therefore everything I've done up to now can be displayed anywhere and exist forever as far as I'm concerned.  And this is why we require models to be 18 to sign their own releases.  She's supposed to be a big girl who understands the ramifications of a contract.

I think the idea of a buyback at a reasonable price is way more than fair; gracious, even.  Too bad if a model doesn't take advantage of that.

If the roles were reversed, if I had paid a photog to shoot me and later he said that he no longer wanted to be associated with those images (hmmm, why?  Improved skills? Religious conversion? Angry wife?) and wanted them out of my port I'd probably offer a buyback deal as well. 

Sure, not likely to ever happen, but still.  Is there any photographer who wouldn't understand this concept?  That a model might not doesn't make this an invalid idea.

SuperWink wrote:
Okay, this is a tricky one.  So.  A model I shot 8 months ago at a group shoot just had a youtube video she starred in go viral.  Awesome!  She's great in it, too.

Now, I've got a cache of nudes featuring her and another model which I have commercial releases for.  My question is this: is this the sort of opportunity you get a release for in the first place, and you then attempt to capitalize on? Or would it be weird to try to turn her flash in the pan success into more eyeballs on my website?

And if that seems unethical, why have photographers pay an extra few dollars for a commercial release?  At some point it feels like I'm just taking photos of some girl who will eventually be embarrased to have those photos surface.  Which is not anything I ever wanted.

I don't know. If you need more details, I'll give them, but not concerning the specific video or model.

Kinda bummed out.
Matt

Personally, I would grant her request and ask that she re-pay the fee you paid for the rights, but even if she declined I would take the photos down.  Many are going to tell you that you bought the rights, that she was an adult and knew what the release meant and that you can do what you want.

While that certainly is your prerogative, you have to do as your conscience dictates.  We are in a people business.

John Jebbia wrote:

So you tell me.. What did the OP buy? The right to use her likeness, or the right to hang out with a pretty girl for the day?

Ding. Ding. Ding.

That is a great question. I'm surprised that so many photographers, knowing the OP paid the model FOR a commercial release, have the attitude to just piss it away because of...Karma?

How about the Karma of a model who was paid in good faith by the OP, now wants to alter the agreement after-the-fact, because she is receiving some level of attention? I'd say the answer is either "I'm sorry..." or "I'll provide you with an invoice for a buyout of the rights to those images."

I wonder how many photographers would have the same attitude if the "person" asking them to remove the photos was a commercial entity and not a pretty girl?

SuperWink wrote:
She says that she has two mm account.  One nude, one non nudes.  And she wants any nude photos put up credited only with the name used on her nude account.
Meanwhile that isn't the name on the release, and this was never mentioned.

Why wouldn't you just change the credit to her nude MM name?
I have two account as well and ask people when they credit me, to not use my real name but to call me Nicole.

So, with only reading that, I can see where she's coming from.

Photographers have posted my nude photos under my real name and I've had to ask them to change it to the name I use for my nude photos.

Marin Photography wrote:

In my opinion yes! I would say that because I would take them down. The next time I would do a better job of screening who I hire. That's me, not you, not the op.

Then, I have to ask the question John posed, "What exactly are you paying for?" If you're so quick to remove images that you paid for, then it's not the images that hold value in that model/photographer dynamic.

By doing that (and thinking others are assholes if they don't relinquish their rights at the drop of a hat) you're saying that you believe the time spent with the model playing photographer, and the act of pressing the shutter, is more valuable than the images produced.

SuperWink wrote:
To be honest I'm not sure how I would have monetized the situation anyway. Which begs the question: Why buy a commercial release from a model at a group shoot anyway?

It seems as if the only way to make money for shooting models is for a client anyway, right?  Unless of course the model makes it super huge like a Cameron Diaz type years later, then you sell the images to a mag/site interested in old pictures "before she was famous" or something.

The point of buying a commercial release at a group shoot is so you can SELL the photos.

Sell them for stock.
Sell them to a publication.
Sell them to a news outlet when she get famous.
Sell them to Tachen.
Sell them at gallery shows.

Not take them down and lose your investment.

Death of Field wrote:
The point of buying a commercial release at a group shoot is so you can SELL the photos.

Sell them for stock.
Sell them to a publication.
Sell them to a news outlet when she get famous.
Sell them to Tachen.
Sell them at gallery shows.

Not take them down and lose your investment.

True, but there is no harm in negotiating for an amacable solution to the problem either. If nobody is too stubborn, everyone could come out of this "smelling like a rose". Working in an enlightened manner is something that anyone is capable of doing . It's even EASIER than fighting.
-Don

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:

Then, I have to ask the question John posed, "What exactly are you paying for?" If you're so quick to remove images that you paid for, then it's not the images that hold value in that model/photographer dynamic.

By doing that (and thinking others are assholes if they don't relinquish their rights at the drop of a hat) you're saying that you believe the time spent with the model playing photographer, and the act of pressing the shutter, is more valuable than the images produced.

You are taking what I did say out of context. I did say that though you are in the "right" doesn't mean you have to be an a$$hole about it. All this chest pounding around here about what you would do and legally can do yadda yadda...I get it. I am saying once again you can - negotiate, recover some of your losses or exercise some compassion and that, that isn't wrong either. I don't think that's unreasonable.

NicoleNudes wrote:

Why wouldn't you just change the credit to her nude MM name?
I have two account as well and ask people when they credit me, to not use my real name but to call me Nicole.

So, with only reading that, I can see where she's coming from.

Photographers have posted my nude photos under my real name and I've had to ask them to change it to the name I use for my nude photos.

Yep. This.

Don Garrett wrote:

True, but there is no harm in negotiation for an amacable solution to the problem either. If nobody is too stubborn, everyone could come out of this "smelling like a rose". Working in an enlightened manner is something that anyone is capable of doing . It's even EASIER than fighting.
-Don

Don explains my position better than I do.....

NicoleNudes wrote:
Why wouldn't you just change the credit to her nude MM name?
I have two account as well and ask people when they credit me, to not use my real name but to call me Nicole.

So, with only reading that, I can see where she's coming from.

Photographers have posted my nude photos under my real name and I've had to ask them to change it to the name I use for my nude photos.

That!^^^

From what I can see in this thread already there are plenty of reasons for models to not model nude and not sign those releases; probably why there is always a thread with a complaint about both around here. Those couple of hundred dollars are just not worth the headache at the end of the day.

Miroslava Svoboda wrote:

That!^^^

From what I can see in this thread already there are plenty of reasons for models to not model nude and not sign those releases; probably why there is always a thread with a complaint about both around here. Those couple of hundred dollars are just not worth the headache at the end of the day.

Just as many reasons to never pay a model if she is going to come back and ask you not to use the pictures.
She didn't ask the photographer to change the name, she asked him to remove the images.

SuperWink wrote:
llama is begging me to remove photos

SuperWink, I'm only going to focus on what you have told us, and not all the other random speculation in this thread that goes off on several different presumptions and tangents.

YOU have told us this:

1. Your photo shoot was only 8 months ago, so this is recent.

2. It was a group shoot, therefore other people have nude photos of her too, and she was obviously there for the money and not as a favor to any particular photographer. She was obviously willing and fully in control of what she was doing.

3. You paid for a commercial llama release in a strongly commercial situation, open to the public.

4. She has two MM accounts and continues to promote herself as a nude llama.

5. She wants credit for her nude photos under her current nude portfolio name.

---

What we don't know:

1. Was the video that went viral a sexy llamaing video?

2. Why is she asking you to remove or rename your photos?



My answer at this point would be: It depends.

If she is continuing to build her career as a llama and wants to try to SEO for herself so her own promotion comes up on top, then no. You can do anything you want with the photos.

If she used you and others to make money and to promote herself, which helped get her exposure that led to the making of the video that went viral, then no. You and others helped launch her as a llama now gaining celebrity, so you have a rightful vested interest in her success. You funded her and gave her exposure.

If she's doing this to monopolize her celebrity or for her own selfish reasons, to try to market herself as a famous llama of some sort without other competing photos, then no. They are your photos to do with as you wish.

If she is negotiating with Playboy or Hustler, or some other large business and they want to lock up the market by eliminating the "little people" then HELL NO.

---

On the other hand, if she has decided to discontinue llamaing and wants to move on to a non-modeling life for some personal reasons such as getting married, raising children, building a career that would frown upon her past history as a nude llama, etc., then I personally would accommodate her request and bury the photos.

If she wants to disassociate her real name from her llamaing life for reasons of personal safety or privacy, or because she wants to market her stage name, then I would accommodate her request and use her nude llama stage name.

---

In any case, you can accommodate wishes without agreeing to crimp yourself with anything in writing or what might be construed by a lawyer as an addendum or further verbal contract. The photos are yours to do with as you wish. You are not taking advantage of her in any way. The agreement that stands, regarding you and her future success as a llama, a nude llama, an actress, a Playboy llama, or any other kind of celebrity is your commercial llama release.

It sounds to me like she launched her career as a nude llama. That was her decision, not yours. If she is a rising star, enjoy the ride with her. Why not?

If she becomes rich and famous, then I hope you can sell your original photos of her in her "early years" for a lot of money. That's how that works.


It sounds to me like she's not at all "embarrassed" by nude photos of her on the web. She is still promoting herself as a nude llama. It sounds more to me like she wants to promote herself for her own benefit, and cut you out. It sounds like she wants to reap the rewards of her success and not acknowledge who helped get her there.



Beyond this, I can not speculate. My answer is based on what you have told us so far.

Marin Photography wrote:

Don explains my position better than I do.....

Just ignore my one, (I think), spelling/grammar error, and we can all sing Cumbaya together !
-Don

Don Garrett wrote:
True, but there is no harm in negotiating for an amacable solution to the problem either. If nobody is too stubborn, everyone could come out of this "smelling like a rose". Working in an enlightened manner is something that anyone is capable of doing . It's even EASIER than fighting.
-Don

+1

Dont lose faith in the power of negotiation!
Nothing needs to be a do-or-dont ultimatum. There are quiet many possibilities between Yes and No. Be creative so that it works for all involved.

Rick OBanion Photo wrote:
Just as many reasons to never pay a model if she is going to come back and ask you not to use the pictures.
She didn't ask the photographer to change the name, she asked him to remove the images.

I actually agree with that, I'm not a fan of money exchange between models and photographers. Also, we are not clear on whether she asked them to be removed or credited differently.

Marin Photography wrote:
If you are bummed out it's because you are considering taking them down, being the nice guy that you are.

You don't have to be nice if you don't want to....just saying... 

I would say it is the classy thing to do if you do. Just my opinion...

I agree.  There is more to life than money, even in this bastion of capitalism called America.  Good Karma is hard to come by. 

Just because you can cash in by creating stress doesn't mean you should.  The definition of classy.

Miroslava Svoboda wrote:
... I'm not a fan of money exchange between models and photographers ...

Huh?

Would you use the same logic - you as a client - with your manucurist and hairdresser - that is, if they are professionals and that's what they do for a living?

Ezhini wrote:

Huh?

Would you use the same logic - you as a client - with your manucurist and hairdresser - that is, if they are professionals and that's what they do for a living?

I guess I'll have to elaborate. If it's an ad, a commercial, a campaign with a client and a budget I have no problem with a money exchange.
Other than that, and this of course is just my personal opinion and preference, it's about getting the right people together to achieve a common goal that everyone benefits from. I hope that makes sense.

SuperWink wrote:
She says that she has two mm account.  One nude, one non nudes.  And she wants any nude photos put up credited only with the name used on her nude account.
Meanwhile that isn't the name on the release, and this was never mentioned.

Aside from any obligations, moral, courteous or otherwise that have been discussed, I would perhaps have to question the ability to enforce the release given the statement given that it might not legally identify her within it.

Just a (non legally schooled) thought...

Cherrystone wrote:

This befuddles me.....I value my time almost more than I value $$. Sometimes more.

I have a ton of images, so losing 1-2 (if they are even in more port) isn't a huge deal.  I mostly use TF to try new ideas/lighting schemes.  If I lose the images I am losing time, yes.  But I am also learning something new from that shoot so I don't consider it wasted.  Sometimes I value what I learn and get to try out more then the end product.

The Original Sin  wrote:
Speaking only for MYSELF as a model:

IMHO opinion, she's being a childish little brat.  She was perfectly happy to take money for the work back then, and now wants a "do-over" because maybe, just maybe, she might have to own up to her own choices.

To hell with her- she can either buy you out or go crying to her mommy.  And I'm sorry, but she should be buying you out, at the very least, at a price that will cover the initial cost of shooting with her, and a similar session with the model of your choice, complete with costs for rates, HMUA, and studio rental if you so desire.

She chose to shoot nudes and get paid for it.
She knows she chose to do that.
She wants someone else to take responsibility for her choice.

People like that make me want to kick them in the taco.

This.

Death of Field wrote:

This.

*snuggles*

Marin Photography wrote:

There is more to life than making a few bucks....isn't there?

Really? Do you grow your own food? Do you drill and process your own fuel? The model received payment for a commercial release. Now she wants the images removed... What part of this seems right to you?

Click Hamilton wrote:

SuperWink, I'm only going to focus on what you have told us, and not all the other random speculation in this thread that goes off on several different presumptions and tangents.

YOU have told us this:

1. Your photo shoot was only 8 months ago, so this is recent.

2. It was a group shoot, therefore other people have nude photos of her too, and she was obviously there for the money and not as a favor to any particular photographer. She was obviously willing and fully in control of what she was doing.

3. You paid for a commercial model release in a strongly commercial situation, open to the public.

4. She has two MM accounts and continues to promote herself as a nude model.

5. She wants credit for her nude photos under her current nude portfolio name.

---

What we don't know:

1. Was the video that went viral a sexy modeling video?

2. Why is she asking you to remove or rename your photos?



My answer at this point would be: It depends.

If she is continuing to build her career as a model and wants to try to SEO for herself so her own promotion comes up on top, then no. You can do anything you want with the photos.

If she used you and others to make money and to promote herself, which helped get her exposure that led to the making of the video that went viral, then no. You and others helped launch her as a model now gaining celebrity, so you have a rightful vested interest in her success. You funded her and gave her exposure.

If she's doing this to monopolize her celebrity or for her own selfish reasons, to try to market herself as a famous model of some sort without other competing photos, then no. They are your photos to do with as you wish.

If she is negotiating with Playboy or Hustler, or some other large business and they want to lock up the market by eliminating the "little people" then HELL NO.

---

On the other hand, if she has decided to discontinue modeling and wants to move on to a non-modeling life for some personal reasons such as getting married, raising children, building a career that would frown upon her past history as a nude model, etc., then I personally would accommodate her request and bury the photos.

If she wants to disassociate her real name from her modeling life for reasons of personal safety or privacy, or because she wants to market her stage name, then I would accommodate her request and use her nude model stage name.

---

In any case, you can accommodate wishes without agreeing to crimp yourself with anything in writing or what might be construed by a lawyer as an addendum or further verbal contract. The photos are yours to do with as you wish. You are not taking advantage of her in any way. The agreement that stands, regarding you and her future success as a model, a nude model, an actress, a Playboy model, or any other kind of celebrity is your commercial model release.

It sounds to me like she launched her career as a nude model. That was her decision, not yours. If she is a rising star, enjoy the ride with her. Why not?

If she becomes rich and famous, then I hope you can sell your original photos of her in her "early years" for a lot of money. That's how that works.


It sounds to me like she's not at all "embarrassed" by nude photos of her on the web. She is still promoting herself as a nude model. It sounds more to me like she wants to promote herself for her own benefit, and cut you out. It sounds like she wants to reap the rewards of her success and not acknowledge who helped get her there.



Beyond this, I can not speculate. My answer is based on what you have told us so far.

Exactly

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:

Really? Do you grow your own food? Do you drill and process your own fuel? The model received payment for a commercial release. Now she wants the images removed... What part of this seems right to you?

He might be busy in the horsebarn at the moment, so an answer could be delayed.

Rick OBanion Photo wrote:
She didn't ask the photographer to change the name, she asked him to remove the images.

From what I gather from the OP, she asked him to remove the images because they had her real name attached to them, not because she just wanted them taken down.

I don't think it's an absurd request.

If I were the OP, I would ask the model if he could reupload the video and credit her using her nude name. If that's the only problem, the solution is easy.

If she wants it taken down just because, well then yeah, tough luck.