huremics wrote:
But in a paid shoot the model release form gives the photographer all rights to the images. So in a typical TF shoot, I take it the photographer is usually still getting those same rights? By your answer, I assume the answer is Yes.

Are your images worth less than cash?

Why would you feel the need to voluntarily limit your right to use your own images that you had paid a model to pose for?

The currency of payment is irrelevant - in fact most model releases don't even specify a sum, rather merely the phrase "valuable consideration".  That means, whatever the model has accepted as payment - ie. in the case of TF, images.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

huremics wrote:
But in a paid shoot the model release form gives the photographer all rights to the images. So in a typical TF shoot, I take it the photographer is usually still getting those same rights? By your answer, I assume the answer is Yes.

I can pay a model in cash $250.00
OR
I can pay a model in prints that are valued at 250.00 each.

Many of the models I work with are happy with the prints.
Yes for any photos for modeling projects I ALWAYS get a model release.

huremics wrote:
When folks do TFP or TFCD shoots, do they use a llama release form? I know such forms are standard in paid shoots, and I have a template that I use.

In TF shoots, since there's no money being exchanged, how do folks here approach image rights, usage, and release forms?

Thanks.

When the llama pays my for my services with a release, she gets the same usage rights as if she had paid with cash, but usually, llamas who pay with the release get more images.

That Italian Guy wrote:
Models are paid in TF shoots... with images

Therefore, proceed exactly as you would if you were paying cash.






Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Yep - more importantly from the photographer's perspective - since the model is being supplied with prints - is a Usage Agreement which dictates what use the model (and in the case of a TFP 'trade' shoot, the photographer also) can put them and for how long.

The 'Release' is merely the model recognising and accepting that the photographer is to be identified as the intellectual author and sole copyright holder (in some places where applicable it is also where the Model gives 'permission' for her likeness to be used - though it can be argued that by posing for photos in the first place that would be implied anyway - in any case this is not applicable in the UK and some other EU countries) - plus that the model is of legal age and that no coercion was used during the shooting.

huremics wrote:
When folks do TFP or TFCD shoots, do they use a model release form? I know such forms are standard in paid shoots, and I have a template that I use.

In TF shoots, since there's no money being exchanged, how do folks here approach image rights, usage, and release forms?

Thanks.

I've been shooting agency models on and off since 1990. I have never ever ever seen or used a model release in TF work.

The closest I have ever come, is e-mail confirmation to the agent, what is being provided for the model, that is all.

Also even with paid shoots with model agencies, I can't speak for my agent, but I personally have never seen or used any model signatures, again just work orders or written e-mail confirmations have always sufficed as a record of what is happening. The only time things get complicated, is with advertising campaigns or album covers.

People simply don't have time to get anal about TF or editorial work. It's why photographer's agents usually leave most of the magazine marketing to the photographer, there's simply not that much money involved for people to be worrying about it, agents would be going bust if involved in every last TF and editorial project.

Work is work, whether it is paid or not, as far as those involved are concerned, treat it like a job.

Rollo David Snook wrote:
Also even with paid shoots with model agencies, I can't speak for my agent, but I personally have never seen or used any model signatures, again just work orders or written e-mail confirmations have always sufficed as a record of what is happening.

When dealing with an [model's appointed] "agent" you are dealing in every legal sense with the model directly. This is true, as a matter of the law of agency, no matter the kind of agent or the kind of business being conducted [e.g. a freight agent; a theatrical agent; a sales agent; a real estate agent; ect.]. The agent's signature IS the legal equivalent of the principal's signature, the "principal" being the person who authorised and appointed the agent. In the case of a model agent then that "principal" is the model.

So it is entirely reasonable, and quite legally correct, that where there is an agent / agency involved you will never actually see the model's personal and actual signature on anything.

Where there is NO agent involved than only the model's own personal and actual signature will suffice for purposes of a release or other legally binding agreement [e.g. on a contract or license].

Studio36

GNapp Studios wrote:
A model release gives the photographer the right to use the pictures for commercial purposes.

Commercialisation and commercial use are NOT the same thing.

The phrase "commercial purposes" as you seem to use it really has no meaning at all in this context. The photographer could, for example, license [for money] image(s) to a publication for editorial use and that is a commercial purpose in so much as it is commercialisation, but it is NOT a commercial use and likely would not even require a release at all.

GNapp Studios wrote:
A smart model wouldn't give up that right without paid compensation.

Compensation [in contracts = consideration] need not involve payment, at least not in actual money. A model could agree to accept a bushel of corn or a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts in exchange for their time and that would still amount, in contract law, to consideration. People are free to negotiate for anything they want in any amount or form.

GNapp Studios wrote:
By not signing a model release, the model protects his/her rights that the pictures won't appear in a magazine or billboard without the model being compensated.

That is not actually true, because that is not what defines commercial use.

Studio36

GNapp Studios wrote:
A model release gives the photographer the right to use the pictures for commercial purposes.

A smart model wouldn't give up that right without paid compensation.

By not signing a model release, the model protects his/her rights that the pictures won't appear in a magazine or billboard without the model being compensated.

Nope - not even close...
In many countries - by simply turning up for an arranged photoshoot, the model has already giver her 'permission' to use the images in any way the photographer wishes (there is no 'right' as such) - in the UK and some other EU countries, the absence of a model release actually makes the photographer's position stronger, not weaker.

Which is why (as I and others mentioned earlier) you need not only a Model Release, but a Usage Agreement.

huremics wrote:
When folks do TFP or TFCD shoots, do they use a model release form? I know such forms are standard in paid shoots, and I have a template that I use.

In TF shoots, since there's no money being exchanged, how do folks here approach image rights, usage, and release forms?

Thanks.

I use a release for every shoot. 

With the exception of private boudoir shoots where I use a restrictive usage contract.  Basically promising that their photos will not be shown anywhere by me.  But they pay well for those.

RKD Photographic wrote:
in the UK and some other EU countries, the absence of a model release actually makes the photographer's position stronger, not weaker.

This is very true because a release, when used in those places, can be seen to LIMIT the permissions granted by the model to ONLY those set out in the terms of the written release, while at the same time, if not carefully drafted, open the photographer up to other kinds of claims.

Studio36

huremics wrote:
But in a paid shoot the model release form gives the photographer all rights to the images. So in a typical TF shoot, I take it the photographer is usually still getting those same rights? By your answer, I assume the answer is Yes.

There are many forms of model releases - no such thing as a "standard" release.  I carry two myself.

Rollo David Snook wrote:

I've been shooting agency models on and off since 1990. I have never ever ever seen or used a model release in TF work.

The closest I have ever come, is e-mail confirmation to the agent, what is being provided for the model, that is all.

Also even with paid shoots with model agencies, I can't speak for my agent, but I personally have never seen or used any model signatures, again just work orders or written e-mail confirmations have always sufficed as a record of what is happening. The only time things get complicated, is with advertising campaigns or album covers.

People simply don't have time to get anal about TF or editorial work. It's why photographer's agents usually leave most of the magazine marketing to the photographer, there's simply not that much money involved for people to be worrying about it, agents would be going bust if involved in every last TF and editorial project.

Work is work, whether it is paid or not, as far as those involved are concerned, treat it like a job.

The agency agreement is a form of release, but I also know there is a big difference in the US from the UK regarding the legal issues.

ontherocks wrote:
although to date i haven't found any way to leverage the photos beyond self-promotion...

Easy - in the Release, have a paragraph that sates something along the lines of: I understand that I have no rights to the Images, express or implied and that I may not use the Images for any purposes whatsoever, other than where specified in a separate usage agreement.

This effectively gives the model no rights to the images other than those specified in the Usage Agreement.

Then insert a clause in the Usage Agreement that specifies exactly what usage can be assigned to each party and for how long - if you require more than self-promotional use, say so. Something like: ...Photographer agrees that while he may use the Photos for purposes related to the promotion of Photographer's photography business, Photographer will, in addition have the right to sell or otherwise transfer publication rights to any of the Photos with the mutual consent of Model...

As long as the model agrees-to and signs the document, you are covered.

RKD Photographic wrote:
Easy - in the Release, have a paragraph that sates something along the lines of: I understand that I have no rights to the Images, express or implied and that I may not use the Images for any purposes whatsoever, other than where specified in a separate usage agreement.

This effectively gives the model no rights to the images other than those specified in the Usage Agreement.

Yup.

RKD Photographic wrote:
Then insert a clause in the Usage Agreement that specifies exactly what usage can be assigned to each party and for how long - if you require more than self-promotional use, say so.

Something like: ...Photographer agrees that while he may use the Photos for purposes related to the promotion of Photographer's photography business, Photographer will, in addition have the right to sell or otherwise transfer publication rights to any of the Photos with the mutual consent of Model...

NO! THAT is NOT good practice. Licensing only flows ONE way! Whatever rights are NOT granted to the licensee [the model or any other] are automatically retained by, and reserved to, the copyright proprietor [photographer.]

You should NEVER have to go back to the model. Ever! [Except maybe in France and / or Quebec [Canada] as a function of French law, and the law in Quebec as far as it follows French law]

Studio36

RKD Photographic wrote:
with the mutual consent of Model

Only on the Internet do people come up with this

OP just use a canned release or have a local attorney prepare one for you.  If you are working with an agency the contract will cover everything for a creative or commercial project.  If its just portfolio work or tests I would not worry, nobody wants to buy model test shots

GQ The Couture Model wrote:
Even with releases on these shoots the model can still get burned by the photographer.

Even with usage agreements the photographer can get burned by the model.
Releases don't do anything for models..at all...ever.

GQ The Couture Model wrote:
This cuts both ways but photographers love to pin everything on the model.

Probably because the pics belong to the photographer.

Rollo David Snook wrote:

I've been shooting agency models on and off since 1990. I have never ever ever seen or used a model release in TF work.

The closest I have ever come, is e-mail confirmation to the agent, what is being provided for the model, that is all.

Also even with paid shoots with model agencies, I can't speak for my agent, but I personally have never seen or used any model signatures, again just work orders or written e-mail confirmations have always sufficed as a record of what is happening. The only time things get complicated, is with advertising campaigns or album covers.

People simply don't have time to get anal about TF or editorial work. It's why photographer's agents usually leave most of the magazine marketing to the photographer, there's simply not that much money involved for people to be worrying about it, agents would be going bust if involved in every last TF and editorial project.

Work is work, whether it is paid or not, as far as those involved are concerned, treat it like a job.

I come from that world too - starting early 90s. As you said, agency girls are just not signing releases for tests. Period.
I really just don't like using the term TF* because it has absolutely no standard meaning. However, if I was to use it, it may very well be that I'm specifically using it because I'm not trying to structure the agreement as a test. Meaning I probably want commercial usage and therefore would want released images.

GQ The Couture Model wrote:
Thanks to the terms of the usage agreement the photographer holds all the cards even when the model lives up to their terms to the deal.

I can hand you the pics from a shoot..with no agreement and I still hold all the cards. If there is something in the agreement you don't like, get it changed or shoot with someone who will give you want you want.
It all depends on where you live cause it varies state by state and province by province.

RKD Photographic wrote:
...Photographer agrees that while he may use the Photos for purposes related to the promotion of Photographer's photography business, Photographer will, in addition have the right to sell or otherwise transfer publication rights to any of the Photos with the mutual consent of Model...

studio36uk wrote:
NO! THAT is NOT good practice. Licensing only flows ONE way! Whatever rights are NOT granted to the licensee [the model or any other] are automatically retained by, and reserved to, the copyright proprietor [photographer.]

You should NEVER have to go back to the model. Ever! [Except maybe in France and / or Quebec [Canada] as a function of French law, and the law in Quebec as far as it follows French law]

Studio36

Interesting: my intention was that during the initial stages of the shoot - additional outlets for the work might be identified and so - in discussion with the model, these additional uses would be specified.

If you think it's a no-no, then I'll defer to the voice of experience and stick to my existing document which doesn't contain that final caveat: ...Photographer agrees that while he may use the Photos for purposes related to the promotion of Photographer's photography business, Photographer will, in addition have the right to sell or otherwise transfer publication rights to any of the Photos...

That's the trouble with internet-modelling - you have to be seen to try and please all parties - if I'd left that out to begin with every model on here would be jumping down my throat: "What about MY rights!!!???"

Well...in the nicest possible way - you don't have any - aside from those the Photographer chooses to give you.

RKD Photographic wrote:
That's the trouble with internet-modelling - you have to be seen to try and please all parties - if I'd left that out to begin with every model on here would be jumping down my throat: "What about MY rights!!!???"

Well...in the nicest possible way - you don't have any - aside from those the Photographer chooses to give you.

Let's be clear here, the difference you are illustrating is one where most of us seem to agree [though there are also others here who will not agree] - - -  that any release obtained from the model is a completely different matter from any usage license granted to the model:

1) In the RELEASE, if you use one, the model can agree that they do NOT obtain from that document any rights to use the images [express or implied] EXCEPT those that may arise from a separate written license agreement;

COMMENT:
Here, the model release, the whole purpose of it, is so the model grants YOU all the rights YOU need but these are based on what rights the law actually provides that the model holds. Of course where the model has very few or no rights in law to grant [based on privacy; publicity; image; or personality], or, conversely no rights that they can withhold, then, as the situation is here in the UK you may be better off without a release for reasons previously discussed. The rights you obtain as a function of a model release, if you are using releases, should of necessity be as broad and far reaching as possible. In places where the model holds substantial rights the entire economic value of your copyright hinges on the breath of rights you obtain from the model in the release.

As you might suspect I am not a great fan of forms of model release where the model only grants to the photographer the right to use images for "self-promotional" purposes. Whatever the hell that expression is supposed to mean. Like the word "pornographic" the phrase "self-promotion" seems to mean different things to different people. Using imprecise or ambiguous releasing language, just as will be the case of using imprecise or ambiguous language in any other legal document, is always going to be the first step on the road to legal hell. LOL

and

2) In the case where you intend to grant some usage rights to the model, you must use a form of LICENSE agreement to grant those usage rights as agreed to the model. These rights are those YOU hold based on the copyright.

COMMENT:
And, here, in the license, you grant to the MODEL all the rights that THEY need, BUT, that does NOT mean that you necessarily grant them the same or all of the rights that YOU as the copyright proprietor hold. You may choose not, for instance, to grant the model the right to sub-license the work - such as by submission to a publication or a contest where rights must necessarily move as a sub-license by that action; to trade in the work for any commercial purpose - such as, and we see it here on this forum sometimes as a complaint, selling prints, posters, ect; you may prohibit the model from creating a derivative work; or, to allow a third party use except where that third party use is directly under the model's control**. And so forth...

Here in the license, you might also require the model to credit you as a function of your assertion of your moral rights, and, if, for instance, you have placed a copyright notice or other identifying information on the images require the model not to remove or otherwise to obscure that, or crop it off. You might also, as a further example, only grant in a license to the model the right to use a small number of specifically identified images even though many more might have actually been shot.

So when the model gets to the point of asking "What about MY rights!!!???"
the answer, and it is the whole answer, is that their rights are those that are set out and embodied within the license. No more no less.

Studio36

** NOTE: Where I suggest that the model might not be licensed to permit a third party use except where that third party use is under the model's direct control I usually give as an example posting images to the Internet. If a model posts an image to, say, their profile here on MM, they must be in a position to grant a sub-license to MM, but they can also remove the images and revoke the rights granted to the website. That IS a use by a third-party [Internet brands who own this site, in this example] but where the use remains under the model's direct control. Where, by contrast, the model submits an image to a site and thereafter has no control and can not remove it themselves or demand it's removal, something like, perhaps, Maxim's Hometown Hotties, then that is, for purposes of the license, use by a third party [Maxim] outside of the model's direct control.

That Italian Guy wrote:
Models are paid in TF shoots... with images

Therefore, proceed exactly as you would if you were paying cash.






Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Not all photographers offer money and images as you do. Some offer images only as do I.