Drew Tommons wrote:
a fairly well known case.  It seems that the model was happy with his fee for the job....then, sometime later he wasn't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … oster.html

For that matter, the baby aside, ISTR that Adam Perry himself tried to sue Spencer Rowell as well and lost.

Studio36

The F-Stop wrote:
Lets go to the contract agreement.. AKA model release.
There has to be some stipulation for compensation or you're an idiot.

Well to some photographers the prints are compensation and the money they make for selling the prints is the compensation for the photographer.

That Italian Guy wrote:
In a trade (TF) shoot the compensation for the model is the images received.

The model may subsequently make as much money as she likes booking work as a result of having those images in her portfolio without paying a cent to the photographer.

Why should it be any different the other way around? Aren't photographers allowed to profit from their photos? They took them; they own the copyright. If they have a model release (where needed) then that should be the end of the story.





Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Well, as a photographer I agree with you but as a model I would be pissed off if you made thousands/millions off photos my likeliness is in and all I get are the photos that I can't even sell lol

Evie Wolfe wrote:
Since no models have posted...

This has happened to me - I saw no problem with it, but the images were extremely useful and helped book me work. I might have felt differently had the images not been of such quality, but I can't be sure. The photographer contacted me a few months after to give me a framed print of the best shot, which I thought was very kind, but did not expect.

Would you really have been happy if those photos got him thousands of dollars while you get a few hundred bucks?

studio36uk wrote:

For that matter, the baby aside, Perry sued as well and lost.

Studio36

No surprise there LOL

Erlinda wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
For that matter, the baby aside, Perry sued as well and lost.

Studio36

No surprise there LOL

It is entirely possible that there wasn't even a "release" on that image. I have read the background on it but that was years ago so I don't recall all the details. For the kinds of usage involved one would not have been required.

Studio36

Danielle Reid wrote:
As long as I'm able to submit those photos for publication and/or sell prints (signed 8x10s, Posters, etc.) then fine I'll sign that release. But if he's just giving me photos only for me to post online in hopes that MAYBE I'll get an actual paying job then yeah, I'll be pissed.

But I'm a noob...

Danielle Reid

Nah, I don't see a legit photographer giving you rights to sell his photos to your fans even if he gets to sell them as well....

In most cases the releases models sign state that the photographer would be allowed to sell and use their likeliness as the please etc etc... Not in those exact words but you get the point.

Once you sign that it's over for you. All you get are the photos and the photographer is running to the bank laughing his ass off while he is selling your photos

(I'm talking about photographers that make money off their work not hobbyist that sell photos on stock websites) LMAO

studio36uk wrote:

Erlinda wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
For that matter, the baby aside, Perry sued as well and lost.

Studio36

No surprise there LOL

It is entirely possible that there wasn't even a "release" on that image. I have read the background on it but that was years ago so I don't recall all the details. For the kinds of usage involved one would not have been required.

Studio36

It was such a long time ago anyways... Not to mention the model got paid and the photographer could of honestly not known that the photo would of been as popular as it was so I'm not surprised he lost.

The F-Stop wrote:
Lets go to the contract agreement.. AKA model release.
There has to be some stipulation for compensation or you're an idiot.

I'm with you, this is in fact part of my standard agreement.

denis071 wrote:
it depends of the model release (if you have signed it). if the MR say that photographer can use the photos for his own commercial/art purposes and you got only a copy of photos or have been paid for posing and doesn't say anything that you get a cut from the commerical deal of photographer, you can't do anything.

read before you sign anything.

Yeah but is that fair? Not getting a cut on thousands of dollars (just speculating)

Erlinda wrote:

Well, as a photographer I agree with you but as a model I would be pissed off if you made thousands/millions off photos my likeliness is in and all I get are the photos that I can't even sell lol

Well, to your model self, too bad.  Become a photographer - which you did! 

Of course the odds of that actually happening are statistically zero.  I've shot trade for art pieces that have sold and one series is currently hanging in the Ukrainian National Museum.  In all cases the models were simply happy to be a part of the project.  Did I profit? Yes.  Can I retire off the profits? No.

This site has a very confused sense of reality when it comes to such things...

Trade no longer means what it once did, nor is it practiced in the way it once was.  Actually, that's not true at all, in the real world it still is done the way it always was, every day.  But on the interwebs, where everyone has an inflated sense of self, it's gotten kind of convoluted.

Evie Wolfe wrote:
Since no models have posted...

This has happened to me - I saw no problem with it, but the images were extremely useful and helped book me work. I might have felt differently had the images not been of such quality, but I can't be sure. The photographer contacted me a few months after to give me a framed print of the best shot, which I thought was very kind, but did not expect.

Erlinda wrote:
Would you really have been happy if those photos got him thousands of dollars while you get a few hundred bucks?

A model is not my business partner, she is a contractor that I'm hiring for a gig.  In the case of a trade shoot, I'm paying her with images that she would otherwise have had to pay quite a bit for.  If I'm paying, for an art piece, it's a nominal sum.

Now, if the photographer is shooting, say, website content and this is what he does day in and day out, he should be hiring models at a standard, fixed rate.  If he's shooting catalog work, it's much the same.  In these cases, you pay to produce the shoot and get reimbursed for your expenses.

Erlinda wrote:
Hello ladies, just thought of an interesting topic. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

So lets say a photographer is looking to test (TF) with you for a gallery opening where his/her photos will be seen and most likely sold.

Or

A photographer wants to test (TF) with you for a coffee book table he/she wants to published (which he/she will try to sale).

Would you be comfortable with getting prints for these projects while in the future they will be getting paid for selling your pictures?

I mean it's no different than when you TF with a photographer and they give you a release that states you give them the right to sale your likeliness etc.

So, would you be okay with it? or would you think it's unfair?

In most cases I would say no.

Erlinda wrote:

Well, as a photographer I agree with you but as a model I would be pissed off if you made thousands/millions off photos my likeliness is in and all I get are the photos that I can't even sell lol

Making thousands, much less millions is pretty much a fantasy, but lets keep it in the thousands.

If a picture is getting thousand dollars, either the photographer or model, or both are out of this world.

If that is the case, both are benefitting. For the model, if their pic is worth a thousand dollars, then they are in high demand and can book more gigs. Does the model owe the photographer for any gigs she may get using the pictures? This goes both ways.

Erlinda wrote:

Nah, I don't see a legit photographer giving you rights to sell his photos to your fans even if he gets to sell them as well....

In most cases the releases models sign state that the photographer would be allowed to sell and use their likeliness as the please etc etc... Not in those exact words but you get the point.

Once you sign that it's over for you. All you get are the photos and the photographer is running to the bank laughing his ass off while he is selling your photos

(I'm talking about photographers that make money off their work not hobbyist that sell photos on stock websites) LMAO

My response still stands.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Well, to your model self, too bad. Become a photographer - which you did! 

Of course the odds of that actually happening are statistically zero.  I've shot trade for art pieces that have sold and one series is currently hanging in the Ukrainian National Museum.  In all cases the models were simply happy to be a part of the project.  Did I profit? Yes.  Can I retire off the profits? No.

This site has a very confused sense of reality when it comes to such things...

Trade no longer means what it once did, nor is it practiced in the way it once was.  Actually, that's not true at all, in the real world it still is done the way it always was, every day.  But on the interwebs, where everyone has an inflated sense of self, it's gotten kind of convoluted.

I'm a smart cookie

Though some photographers don't make millions from the photos to retire they make good enough money to buy themselves a few toys they can create art with.

A lot of photographers I know and met have gone this root and made booked etc from TF models and sold them to make good money. Not enough to retire but enough to be in the bank for the future. And some photographers do one book after another or calendar after another or prints or shirts list goes on. That adds up.

JadeDRed wrote:

In most cases I would say no.

In most cases good pros wouldn't work with you if you don't

JonPhoto wrote:

Making thousands, much less millions is pretty much a fantasy, but lets keep it in the thousands.

If a picture is getting thousand dollars, either the photographer or model, or both are out of this world.

If that is the case, both are benefitting. For the model, if their pic is worth a thousand dollars, then they are in high demand and can book more gigs. Does the model owe the photographer for any gigs she may get using the pictures? This goes both ways.

Ummmmmm in most cases models aren't even notices because so many of them in the books etc and most times photographers do not advertise the models name etc. So how are people to know who the model is or where she's from. Many photographer go to different countries and cities to find girls to shoot for their project. It's not just girls around their area.

Danielle Reid wrote:

My response still stands.

Would you work with a photographer that is working on a project like that and you get photos that good upgrade your portfolio but knowing the chance he could make a lot of money off your photos?

Erlinda wrote:
Though some photographers don't make millions from the photos to retire they make good enough money to buy themselves a few toys they can create art with.

A lot of photographers I know and met have gone this root and made booked etc from TF models and sold them to make good money. Not enough to retire but enough to be in the bank for the future. And some photographers do one book after another or calendar after another or prints or shirts list goes on. That adds up.

Yes, and I'm one of them.  However, what I (and you) make has nothing to do with the market forces that drive the compensation I'm willing to pay a model. 

You could work sales at an Apple Store, and you'd get paid commensurate with the going rate for sales staff.  Maybe better.  But what Apple earns in profits for the year, has very little to do with what you'd be paid.

The very notion that models can/do earn a living based on being hired by photographers is pretty ludicrous, just as photographers earning a living by charging models (not agencies, but models directly) is.  In both cases you are talking about bottom feeders.

The whole notion of "testing" is a result of both groups understanding that they need a third party to pay them to do stuff in order to make any real money, and that to get those third parties to pay them to do stuff, requires the necessary sales and marketing tools.  In our industry, those tool are, to a great extent, the images we create.

That Italian Guy wrote:
In a trade (TF) shoot the compensation for the model is the images received.

The model may subsequently make as much money as she likes booking work as a result of having those images in her portfolio without paying a cent to the photographer.

Why should it be any different the other way around? Aren't photographers allowed to profit from their photos? They took them; they own the copyright. If they have a model release (where needed) then that should be the end of the story.






Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I agree with this, but playing devil's advocate.  Does the photographer not also book work because they have the photo of the model in their portfolio?  Both might get 3 new jobs out of the photo being in their respective portfolios.  Add to that the photographer makes additional income from print sales or even stock photo licensing -- There is an imbalance.

Back to reality - it all comes down to whatever is agreed as part of the trade in the first place.  Ideally, the model is made aware that there is an intent to sell prints or books rather than say it's just for your portfolio.

And that is my $0.02
Scott

Erlinda wrote:
Nah, I don't see a legit photographer giving you rights to sell his photos to your fans even if he gets to sell them as well....

In most cases the releases models sign state that the photographer would be allowed to sell and use their likeliness as the please etc etc... Not in those exact words but you get the point.

Once you sign that it's over for you. All you get are the photos and the photographer is running to the bank laughing his ass off while he is selling your photos

(I'm talking about photographers that make money off their work not hobbyist that sell photos on stock websites) LMAO

I can see that you and I view this differently.  And "yes," I run a 5,000 square foot studio and "yes" I make a living with my camera and "yes" I am a professional photographer.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

I can see that you and I view this differently.  And "yes," I run a 5,000 square foot studio and "yes" I make a living with my camera and "yes" I am a professional photographer.

Well, it could be because of the market you are in or the location of where you are that helps you run your business like that. But it most BIG markets it's not the case.

I'm glad you are a professional photographer

Erlinda wrote:
Would you work with a photographer that is working on a project like that and you get photos that good upgrade your portfolio but knowing the chance he could make a lot of money off your photos?

You didn't say anything in your OP about "photos that could upgrade your portfolio". You asked if a photographer and a model worked together on a TF shoot and the photographer ran off and made money with said photos, would the model be okay with it.

My response: No. Photos are great, but they do not mean I'll gain work because of them. Also, what "I" think helps my port could be crap to a hiring photographer.

Edit: All the TF releases I've signed stated "for non-commercial use, portfolio use only". That translated both ways. Maybe I'm just working with lame hobbist

Erlinda wrote:

In most cases good pros wouldn't work with you if you don't

Most good pros who want to work with me, pay me. The sort of people I work with who sell in galleries and books aren't usually pros. And they still usually pay me.

Besides your talking about a very specific situation, most photographers don't even work like that.

Danielle Reid wrote:

You didn't say anything in your OP about "photos that could upgrade your portfolio". You asked if a photographer and a model worked together on a TF shoot and the photographer ran off and made money with said photos, would the model be okay with it.

My response: No. Photos are great, but they do not mean I'll gain work because of them. Also, what "I" think helps my port could be crap to a hiring photographer.

Well, I didn't think I'd have to... For someone to do TF I'd think they would only do it if it benefits their portfolio.

Azimuth Arts wrote:

I agree with this, but playing devil's advocate.  Does the photographer not also book work because they have the photo of the model in their portfolio?  Both might get 3 new jobs out of the photo being in their respective portfolios.  Add to that the photographer makes additional income from print sales or even stock photo licensing -- There is an imbalance.

Back to reality - it all comes down to whatever is agreed as part of the trade in the first place.  Ideally, the model is made aware that there is an intent to sell prints or books rather than say it's just for your portfolio.

And that is my $0.02
Scott

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Erlinda wrote:

Well, I didn't think I'd have to... For someone to do TF I'd think they would only do it if it benefits their portfolio.

You do know people shoot for the hell of it too, right? Also, not all TF shoots result in AWESOME PHOTOS! either. Sometimes, things go wrong and the photos turn out eh.

Danielle Reid wrote:

You do know people shoot for the hell of it too, right? Also, not all TF shoots result in AWESOME PHOTOS! either. Sometimes, things go wrong and the photos turn out eh.

Well thats a shame.... Even the hell of it photoshoots can bring the best photos for a model/photographer and could also make money.... It happens

K I C K H A M wrote:
It depends on who the photographer is.

There are very few times that I will sign a commercial release for a trade shoot. In general, I do trade shoots where we both get to use the photos for promotion and book work from them, but don't sell them.

There are always exceptions, though. I have signed commercial releases for trade when I knew the photos would be much more to me than a little money or when a commercial release was the substitute for "payment" for the photographer.

Also, I tend to work with cool people on trade stuff, and they don't tend to screw me over. If they make a couple hundred on a print or two, I'm not worried, but I know if they sell the gallery-sized and make a few grand on it, I will be sent *something.*

You have a lot of faith in people..... But money can make anyone get amnesia lol

Erlinda wrote:

Well to some photographers the prints are compensation and the money they make for selling the prints is the compensation for the photographer.

I worked with someone who sells prints (and work with her on a pretty regular basis). They are always trade shoots, unless she can get a client who pays.

For one of the shoots, she sold really cool items with the photos.

The next time we shot together she showed up with two pendants of the best photo from the previous shoot that were absolutely BEAUTIFUL.

I'm totally ok with her selling the prints, but it was so nice for her to send something physical my way.