Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
Erlinda wrote:
You have a lot of faith in people..... But money can make anyone get amnesia lol Haha! That's true, but from my experience, the people that I work with on this basis do things like this.
Generally speaking, I wouldn't sign a commercial release for a first shoot with someone.
Exceptions being mainly when I was willing to pay.
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
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 I get what you are saying but what happens when the models signs a release, thinking the photographer wont make much money out of it and out of nowhere he ends up making A LOT of money.
Is it fair for the model to get photos when the photographer gets photo AND potentially lots of money?
Photographer
nyk fury
Posts: 2976
Port Townsend, Washington, US
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 yeah, but how likely is that? how many pages of the hypothetical book would your images occupy? somehow i doubt any single model's images would add up to thousands of dollars in the photography book publishing market. now the gallery thing, i can begin to see that being a little bit more realistic, though thousands or millions of bucks? i have had the feeling that i should split it in some way with the models. however, so far, the only ones which have sold have been the works with paid models in them.
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22232
Stamford, Connecticut, US
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.* ^^^A real world perspective that is right on the money (pardon the pun).
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
Erlinda wrote:
Yeah but is that fair? Not getting a cut on thousands of dollars (just speculating) What's fair is what you agree to, IMHO. Arguments, particularly after-the-fact arguments about fairness are completely pointless.
The reality is that for almost all models the pictures are not worth the paper they're printed on in cash, and will never be. Unless and until either the photographer or the model has some measure of notoriety, Gallery showings and coffee table books are beneficial to the photographer in pretty much the same way as a new designer dress is to a model--They look nice and are a boost to the ego, but are generally no more than an expensive ego trip.
When I first started shooting models, I offered a share income arrangement to any model who would agree to shoot with me on an ongoing basis, i.e. a minimum of three shoots within three months. None would do so on the very sound logic that there was no way to know if my pictures would ever sell. Their time as beginning models was far too valuable to them to make such a commitment with a total unknown. That was fair. Equally fair was my decision to stop making that offer and for the very same reasons.
We must all make our own business decisions based on the facts as we know them and as we project them. Let's make some assumptions. If you are reasonably certain that your pictures will be included in a coffee table book worth, let's say, $100,000 in retail sales, then you first have to take into account the fact that the publisher wholesales those books to the stores at no more than 40% of the jacket price or $40,000 out of which the publisher pays the printer, shipper, etc. about half, which leaves $20,000 for his profit and to pay the photographer. Being generous, that comes to maybe 20% of that $20,000 or $4,000 for the photographer. Out of that the photographer has to pay his bills and compensate both himself and his models. Bills come first--they have to be paid off before we can figure profits. For the sake of simplicity let's include in expenses nothing more than studio rental at $25.00 per hour (60 hours @ $25.00 per hour =$1500) and the photographer's agent ($4,000 @ 10%=$400) which leaves $2100 available for distribution.
Let's say that there were twenty models involved in the project and each one participated in one three hour shoot. That's one unit per model. Being conservative, let's figure that the photographer spends the same amount of time doing the shoot as the model does. He gets one unit for that and (again conservatively) figuring that he spend an equal amount of time editing the pictures and writing the text accompanying them, he gets another unit for his additional work, or two units per three hour shoot.
OK! Now we have twenty models with one unit each for a total of twenty units and one photographer with a total of forty units. That's a total of sixty units sharing that $2,100 which means that each unit is worth one-sixtieth of $2,100 or $35.00 for the entire gig. (Remember this is the compensation you wanted instead of pictures.) On an hourly basis, that works out to $11.66 per hour.
And as you say, this is all speculation. It's far more likely that the project would never recover expenses, in which case the model would have nothing but the experience--no pictures, no money, but an invaluable experience that she wouldn't be obliged to share with anyone if she chose not to.
If that were to become the standard rate for models, we'd see a lot more photographers willing to pay models' rates and a lot more models delighted to shoot trade.
All IMHO as always, of course.
Clothing Designer
GRMACK
Posts: 5436
Bakersfield, California, US
If you've been paid for or compensated for the gig, time to move on. Of course, if there was some "Usage agreement" initially then that's another matter, but many may avoid agreeing to those too. Some may do it under "Nice guy" or to avoid the IRS too, and/or seeking to dodge an income bullet.
Same could be said for a builder who remodels your house and you sell it for millions more too. Should he also get a cut of the action as well as the interior designer that helped boost the sale into the millions? I recall when some of the Palos Verdes homes on the hills near the ocean in LA sold for a measly $49K and now are in the tens of millions. Should the real estate people and builders be coming back now to their doorsteps and want another few million dollars since the owners are cashing in big time? (edit: Time for builder's and designers to come up with a future sales agreement in the contract's fine print.)
Hmm... I wonder if the late Edward Weston's nude models grand-kids could come back now and demand to be paid since the estate has made millions off his B&W nude works since in auction, and their late grandmother made squat then posing for ol' Ed?
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
nyk fury wrote:
yeah, but how likely is that? how many pages of the hypothetical book would your images occupy? somehow i doubt any single model's images would add up to thousands of dollars in the photography book publishing market. now the gallery thing, i can begin to see that being a little bit more realistic, though thousands or millions of bucks? i have had the feeling that i should split it in some way with the models. however, so far, the only ones which have sold have been the works with paid models in them. It doesn't add up but it does contribute to making that photographer money.
You are nice enough to think of the models in the photos but you are the minority 
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22232
Stamford, Connecticut, US
Erlinda wrote:
Haha! That's true, but from my experience, the people that I work with on this basis do things like this.
Generally speaking, I wouldn't sign a commercial release for a first shoot with someone.
Exceptions being mainly when I was willing to pay. But this is again, how testing has always been in the real world. If Kickham and I are local, and we're going after the same type of clients, and we share a similar aesthetic, then we're going to shoot together a lot. Sometimes for free, if we have nothing else to do. Why? Because it's good marketing. Not only in the creation of the images, but because our work now had double the exposure by being in two books that the same people will be looking at.
Over time a relationship develops. You wind up testing with friends over and over. These are the people you hang with as well as shoot with. Why screw them over?
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
But this is again, how testing has always been in the real world. If Kickham and I are local, and we're going after the same type of clients, and we share a similar aesthetic, then we're going to shoot together a lot. Sometimes for free, if we have nothing else to do. Why? Because it's good marketing. Not only in the creation of the images, but because our work now had double the exposure by being in two books that the same people will be looking at.
Over time a relationship develops. You wind up testing with friends over and over. These are the people you hang with as well as shoot with. Why screw them over? Why does the quote have my name? I didn't make that statement LOL
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4861
Asheville, North Carolina, US
I try to throw the models an extra if something good happens but I won't sign anything of that nature. As far as what is signed, they're paid some small amount at the time of the session and the work is mine to use and profit from any way I wish.
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 13564
Washington, Utah, US
Erlinda wrote:
I get what you are saying but what happens when the models signs a release, thinking the photographer wont make much money out of it and out of nowhere he ends up making A LOT of money.
Is it fair for the model to get photos when the photographer gets photo AND potentially lots of money? First, making a lot of money off a TF shoot is very unlikely. I think for shoots that have a lot of money at stake, most photographers are going to invest in a good, paid model.
Second, - Speculation works both ways. Sure, I could possibly make some money from selling images off a TF shoot. I could also spend a lot of time editing, matting and framing images, that sit in a local gallery and never sell.
Artist/Painter
sdgillis
Posts: 2464
Portland, Oregon, US
I thought the whole idea was to make something of the work you were doing. TF is just another way of making something from nothing.. a start.....
If I sell a painting of a model we did TF, and I make a few hundred after all the expenses. Then I hire the model again this time for pay. That is how the model gets paid. Fairly simple idea and keeps the cycle going.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
@ Erlinda Here's another one classed as an iconic British image shot in Blackpool by Bert Hardy who was then [1951] editor of Picture Post. No release at all to my knowledge. I believe this also made Athena's poster roster. Title: "Blackpool Belles" ![https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01839/Hardy_1839781c.jpg]() Studio36
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
Erlinda wrote:
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 So as a model, would you be happier if I'd paid you a fixed sum in cash for your time instead?
What's the difference? Photos worth £250 or £250 in cash?
Very few (if any) photographers can ever shoot an image of a non-celebrity model and know in advance that it's going top make them a single penny, let alone "thousands/millions" - it's all a gamble. At least the model paid in images or cash for her time has a guaranteed return on her labour; that's not really the case for the photographer.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
That Italian Guy wrote:
So as a model, would you be happier if I'd paid you a fixed sum in cash for your time instead?
What's the difference? Photos worth £250 or £250 in cash?
Very few (if any) photographers can ever shoot an image of a non-celebrity model and know in advance that it's going top make them a single penny, let alone "thousands/millions" - it's all a gamble. At least the model paid in images or cash for her time has a guaranteed return on her labour; that's not really the case for the photographer.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com For a trade shoot, we have the same guarantee of getting photos, assuming the photographer follows through in sending them.
Are you saying that photos from trade shoots only benefit the models? Not trying to be condescending, just a bit confused by your logic.
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
K I C K H A M wrote:
For a trade shoot, we have the same guarantee of getting photos, assuming the photographer follows through in sending them.
Are you saying that photos from trade shoots only benefit the models? Not trying to be condescending, just a bit confused by your logic. Sometimes it can beneficial to the model only... Sometimes the photos the photographer takes aren't as good as the stuff in their portfolio so they don't use them but still give them to the model.
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
studio36uk wrote:
@ Erlinda
Here's another one classed as an iconic British image shot in Blackpool by Bert Hardy who was then [1951] editor of Picture Post. No release at all to my knowledge. I believe this also made Athena's poster roster. Title: "Blackpool Belles"
![https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01839/Hardy_1839781c.jpg]()
Studio36 What I would give to have been born in those days... Look how pretty they are dressed 
Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
Erlinda wrote:
Sometimes it can beneficial to the model only... Sometimes the photos the photographer takes aren't as good as the stuff in their portfolio so they don't use them but still give them to the model. There are also a lot of times that models can't use the photos in their books for the same reason, which is what I was meaning by us having the same level of guarantee.
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
That Italian Guy wrote:
So as a model, would you be happier if I'd paid you a fixed sum in cash for your time instead?
What's the difference? Photos worth £250 or £250 in cash?
Very few (if any) photographers can ever shoot an image of a non-celebrity model and know in advance that it's going top make them a single penny, let alone "thousands/millions" - it's all a gamble. At least the model paid in images or cash for her time has a guaranteed return on her labour; that's not really the case for the photographer.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com As a model I would want to get paid but fuck would it suck if a photographer made big bucks from my sweet ass LMAO
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
K I C K H A M wrote:
There are also a lot of times that models can't use the photos in their books for the same reason, which is what I was meaning by us having the same level of guarantee. That is a lot rare to happen to the model since most of them do TF with photographers that have better work than they do.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
K I C K H A M wrote:
Are you saying that photos from trade shoots only benefit the models? Not trying to be condescending, just a bit confused by your logic. Are you saying that receiving photos from a trade shoot that will book you paid work is NOT fair compensation for your time? 
If so, don't shoot trade.
Photographers typically invest at least twice as much time per trade shoot as the model ever does - a 3 hour shoot where the photographer delivers 9 retouched images to the model will probably end up being more like 10 or 20 hours' work for the photographer.
And, more importantly, the photos belong to the photographer, who may have invested 10 or 20 years, tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of profitless test shoots with various models, learning his craft to produce those photos of an 18 year old model who has been modelling for 3 months and spent $10 on busfare to get to that 3 hour shoot.
Are you suggesting that such a model should receive 50% of all potential profits from the photos in addition to the photos themselves, which will enhance her book and bring her possibly thousands of dollars worth of paid work anyway?
Erlinda wrote:
Sometimes it can beneficial to the model only... Sometimes the photos the photographer takes aren't as good as the stuff in their portfolio so they don't use them but still give them to the model. +1
Shoots like that are just added to the photographer's already considerable CODB.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
Erlinda wrote:
That is a lot rare to happen to the model since most of them do TF with photographers that have better work than they do. That's a very subjective, and not necessarily true, statement.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
Erlinda wrote:
As a model I would want to get paid but fuck would it suck if a photographer made big bucks from my sweet ass LMAO You have to let me photograph your sweet ass first! 
We can discuss profit sharing later....
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
K I C K H A M wrote:
That's a very subjective, and not necessarily true, statement. If it's not true then the photographer is going to be even less likely to make any money from the images!
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
That Italian Guy wrote:
K I C K H A M wrote:
Are you saying that photos from trade shoots only benefit the models? Not trying to be condescending, just a bit confused by your logic. Are you saying that receiving photos from a trade shoot that will book you paid work is NOT fair compensation for your time?
If so, don't shoot trade.
Photographers typically invest at least twice as much time per trade shoot as the model ever does - a 3 hour shoot where the photographer delivers 9 retouched images to the model will probably end up being more like 10 or 20 hours' work for the photographer.
And, more importantly, the photos belong to the photographer, who may have invested 10 or 20 years, tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of profitless test shoots with various models, learning his craft to produce those photos of an 18 year old model who has been modelling for 3 months and spent $10 on busfare to get to that 3 hour shoot.
Are you suggesting that such a model should receive 50% of all potential profits from the photos in addition to the photos themselves, which will enhance her book and bring her possibly thousands of dollars worth of paid work anyway?
+1
Shoots like that are just added to the photographer's already considerable CODB.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com I'm not sure precisely why you think I'm saying any of that.
The photographer owns the photos, yes, but that doesn't mean they can sell anything they shoot without a commercial release (in the states, at least).
I'm not at all stating that models should get 50% of the profits. Did you read anything I wrote before?
This is not a one-size-fits-all scenario.
The photos that will *potentially* book me work may be worth trade, and in *most* cases that means I won't sign a commercial release.
For a photographer who may not directly benefit from my photos, I may be willing to sign a commercial release rather than paying for the photos.
Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
That Italian Guy wrote:
If it's not true then the photographer is going to be even less likely to make any money from the images!
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com Honestly, there was one trade shoot that I signed a commercial release for NOT because it was worth it, but because the way the shoot was going, I knew there was no way in hell they would sell and it wasn't worth looking like a "diva" when presented a commercial release that wasn't agreed to.
Photographer
Julian W I L D E
Posts: 1831
Portland, Oregon, US
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.
Precisely. ;-)
Just my $0.02
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
Julian W I L D E
Posts: 1831
Portland, Oregon, US
K I C K H A M wrote:
Honestly, there was one trade shoot that I signed a commercial release for NOT because it was worth it, but because the way the shoot was going, I knew there was no way in hell they would sell and it wasn't worth looking like a "diva" when presented a commercial release that wasn't agreed to. )))
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
K I C K H A M wrote:
The photos that will *potentially* book me work may be worth trade, and in *most* cases that means I won't sign a commercial release. Then you should be PAYING the photographer!
You can't have your cake and eat it.
Your attitude seems to be that you want to get photos worth a lot of money to you from a trade shoot while at the same time NOT allowing the photographer who shot those photos to make a penny from them!
Thank God that in the UK we don't need a release to use photos for commercial purposes. Your entitled attitude is almost unbelievable. Why on earth would any photographer agree to such terms?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
Rockabella
Posts: 588
Bargara, Queensland, Australia
I've seen some model releases which entitle the model to a certain % of money from the profit of prints. I would think that's the best way to go about it.
Sure, the photographer is taking the photo.. But you're also helping in the production of the piece. It only seems fair, although I don't think a lot of models care. Personally, I don't care.
I also believe it should work the other way around as well; as in a model should compensate a photographer a % of profit off of a print. I'm not speaking for TF shoots, because obviously a model can't sell those for print unless otherwise agreed.
Just my opinion on it.
Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
To Stefano:
I did re-read one of your posts. Assuming the model already agreed to a commercial release and then decides to say "Hey!!! Where's my cut?!" I agree, it's silly. She was paid in images FOR a commercial release.
Now, if any of my photos (as a photographer) were bought, I would try to share the cut with the models. Not 50% most likely, but something like 20%. That is my personal opinion, though, and no judgement on people who work differently than I do.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
s c i a t h wrote:
I've seen some model releases which entitle the model to a certain % of money from the profit of prints. I would think that's the best way to go about it. Such arrangements are a nightmare to police and are almost unworkable in practice.
Take your payment for the shoot, sign a release and be done with it. As was pointed out earlier, if you end up booking $100k of work as a result of one of those photos passing over the right desk, I don't expect you're going to be offering the photographer a percentage of that are you?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
That Italian Guy wrote:
Then you should be PAYING the photographer!
You can't have your cake and eat it.
Your attitude seems to be that you want to get photos worth a lot of money to you from a trade shoot while at the same time NOT allowing the photographer who shot those photos to make a penny from them!
Thank God that in the UK we don't need a release to use photos for commercial purposes. Your entitled attitude is almost unbelievable. Why on earth would any photographer agree to such terms?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com Because I work with photographers who get paid by models and get commissioned work off of their photos? Making money the same way off of their photos as I do?
And as far as "who would agree to such terms?" you can ask the photographers that I've worked with. As a photographer, those are generally the terms I use as well.
Now, as I stated many times earlier, there are always exceptions to this. Without crossing into critique I think I can say that you would be one of those exceptions. However, not every test shoot is the same, and I do not agree to a commercial release for every one (my agency would probably take issue with that, anyway).
Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
That Italian Guy wrote:
Such arrangements are a nightmare to police and are almost unworkable in practice.
Take your payment for the shoot, sign a release and be done with it. As was pointed out earlier, if you end up booking $100k of work as a result of one of those photos passing over the right desk, I don't expect you're going to be offering the photographer a percentage of that are you?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com I'd definitely hire the photographer for a future shoot if I knew the results were that beneficial to me.
Also, one of the photographers I work with on a regular basis has models sign a commercial release but gives them a little cut if the photos sell. Most of his selling photos are nudes in galleries, so that has never been the case for *me.* It's also not in writing because, as you point out, it gets tricky. But it's a good thought, and one he finds to be fair.
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
K I C K H A M wrote:
Because I work with photographers who get paid by models and get commissioned work off of their photos? Making money the same way off of their photos as I do?
And you can ask the photographers that I've worked with. As a photographer, those are generally the terms I use as well.
Now, as I stated many times earlier, there are always exceptions to this. Without crossing into critique I think I can say that you would be one of those exceptions. However, not every test shoot is the same, and I do not agree to a commercial release for every one (my agency would probably take issue with that, anyway). Oh yeah! 
There's a really polluted mindset developed by the whole Internet modeling thing and it stretches from models to photographers to other team members.
That is that testing/TFing for images is somehow working for free. IMAGES HAVE VALUE. It is not free work! It's meant to build one's marketing collateral, which otherwise one would have to pay commercial rates for (or at least a reduced testing rate).
At the street level (agencies, etc), that is well understood and accepted.
In fact, specific images can easily be worth more to a model, than a meager hourly she might otherwise book. Of course those images have to be at a level of competency. Which on the Internet, they often aren't.
Photographer
eybdoog
Posts: 2647
New York, New York, US
I didn't read through half of this thread for time's sake, but I will chime in that honestly I think the question is irrelevant. If you are a photographer, you put your terms out there, and you find models that are willing to work under those terms. There is no guarantee that you as said photographer are going to make thousands/millions or whatever off of said photographs. Models also completely have the right to decline any terms that are provided in an offer if they don't think it meets their own. By photographing the model and investing time and $$ into the shoot, you are technically losing money if this is a job for you. Furthermore, making prints is an expense as well which is also valued at a monetary value of each individual photographers choosing.
so in reality you are simply asking for opinions on this subject. There is no right or wrong answer, and these forums are certainly not the end all be all of how things "actually" work. As photographers and models, you always have a window of setting terms and negotiations. If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't, and the rest is irrelevant if anyone cares. just my .02 cents. good luck
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
Erlinda wrote:
Yeah but is that fair? Not getting a cut on thousands of dollars (just speculating) The majority of my shoots do not generate revenue in galleries, the very few (about 12 right now) that do generate a lot (but still not thousands) generate a few hundred a year. In the end the model is taking a gamble.
My full day fee without a release is $3500.
If the model wants me to shoot them and is willing to sign a release it is $700.
If i am interested in trade, very rarely and usually only with people I have worked with before, then they are getting a $700-$3500 service for no monetary output on their part.
The model is gambling that them not paying $3500 is going to result in me making less than $3500 from their images in the fine art market AND them not profiting from the images in the form of future paid bookings (through their agency or this site) from my images in their portfolio.
Photographer
R80
Posts: 2660
Marceline, Missouri, US
I wonder if the rare model that makes it big ever pays a commission to the photographers that helped create her initial portfolio?
Or, if Joe the cement company owner sells cement to a guy that builds a high-rise, is he entitled to part of the future rental fees?
I've never heard of Ruebens, LaTrec, Arp, Michaelangelo, etc. paying more to their models after the fact. Who knows, maybe they did. Yeah, sure they did.
Model
K I C K H A M
Posts: 14689
Los Angeles, California, US
R80 wrote:
I wonder if the rare model that makes it big ever pays a commission to the photographers that helped create her initial portfolio?
Or, if Joe the cement company owner sells cement to a guy that builds a high-rise, is he entitled to part of the future rental fees?
I've never heard of Ruebens, LaTrec, Arp, Michaelangelo, etc. paying more to their models after the fact. Who knows, maybe they did. Yeah, sure they did. You're talking about people who've been paid in cash, which is not what this thread is about.
Photographer
theBeachStrober
Posts: 885
Robertsdale, Alabama, US
Erlinda wrote:
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. Ummmm, you are speculating the photographer is making thousands/millions from the shoot. If that is the case, either the photographer or model/ or both are in high demand.
If it's the photographer, then the model can brag she was in an awesome shot and can use it in her portfolio to book jobs since this was a TFP. She is using the photographer for her career. So, should the model then pay the photographer for launching her career every time she gets a booking?
|
