Lohkee wrote:
My business model is very simple. You either pay me for my time, or you sign a full commercial release (which really equates to me rolling the dice and shooting on spec).
If you don't pay me, or sign the release, then why would I want to do the shoot at all as it equates to nothing more than you getting a free product and me doing a lot of work for nothing of value in terms of paying the bills. Nope. Not going to play that game.

Notice how the goal posts have moved over time, Lokhee?. It used to be shooting agency girls on tests where in the day models were generally expected to pay photographers. All well and good. Everyone knew how the game was played.

Then it became, before what is now Internet La-La Land, Time for Prints [TFP] where the aspiring or starting out model, who didn't yet have an agent [or had an agent but no money], gave up some of their time and got prints [photographs] instead of having to pay for the service in building a basic portfolio. Now it seems like TFP has morphed into something that sounds much more like "the photographer's time for the model's prints" [or in a digital context for a CD or DVD of images]. Even more lately [last few years] the models seem to want shared rights in the on-going commercial value of the work, either the right to market the images themselves or by dipping their paws into the photographer's marketing. And there are "photographers" [in quotes on purpose - and I know you get why] agreeing to it.

A lot of us [and I might include you from your comment above] don't quite see it that way. Personally I don't "need" more images. I've had a camera in my hands on and off since the 1960's. I've got 10's of thousands of images already. I just don't bother shooting anything unless I can [or at least try to] sell it.

Studio36

Gianna Virginia wrote:
No images, no money.

If you aren't getting anything out of it don't do it. It's not good business. Simples!

Studio36

K I C K H A M wrote:

If a photographer gets a JOB from a photo he or she took of me, I wouldn't expect them to give me a cut. We are talking about direct sales.

I'm also a photographer and I operate the same way on both sides.

That doesn't answer my question. Models and photographers make money in different ways. The photographer makes money selling prints and getting bookings. A model makes money on bookings. I don't see how it is relevant whether it is direct sales or a booking.

JonPhoto wrote:
That doesn't answer my question. Models and photographers make money in different ways. The photographer makes money selling prints and getting bookings. A model makes money on bookings. I don't see how it is relevant whether it is direct sales or a booking.

Because on a direct sale, you know who the participant was in the sold photo.

I have worked with HUNDREDS of photographers. There is no way to know whose photo booked me a job, or if I booked based on my polaroids, or any other number of reasons.

If I know a photographer's work will be so profitable to me, I will pay them for their time.

K I C K H A M wrote:
Because on a direct sale, you know who the participant was in the sold photo.

I have worked with HUNDREDS of photographers. There is no way to know whose photo booked me a job, or if I booked based on my polaroids, or any other number of reasons.

If I know a photographer's work will be so profitable to me, I will pay them for their time.

What if you get a job based on a specific picture in your portfolio? Do you owe the photographer now? Your contention has been you actually know the print is a direct sale.

We are talking a hypothetical here about a tfp shoot. Someone walks in the gallery, sees the model in the print and wants to shoot with the model based on that print. You get the gig based on that print. You know the reason you got the gig. Do you owe the photographer a cut of the gig because that print directly led you to get the job?

JonPhoto wrote:

What if you get a job based on a specific picture in your portfolio? Do you owe the photographer now? Your contention has been you actually know the print is a direct sale.

We are talking a hypothetical here about a tfp shoot. Someone walks in the gallery, sees the model in the print and wants to shoot with the model based on that print. You get the gig based on that print. You know the reason you got the gig. Do you owe the photographer a cut of the gig because that print directly led you to get the job?

Hell. Yes.

It's almost like a referral fee.

If the job is crap pay, but I accept, I'd at LEAST bring them a gift or buy them lunch.

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

Well, A BIG company pays a model, lets say $5000 for a shoot. They use the best image for an ad. Now remember, it's already a big company, so that one shot isn't "making" the company. The year they use the models image, they make $100 million dollars. Does anyone here think the model should get more money for that shot? or a percentage?

If TFP/CD was your pay, just substitute that.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

Admirable, and I'll assume sustainable. Can I ask if you sign agreements to this effect? I ask because I do something similar to this but will not sign agreements stating the same.

No, I don't. I like to surprise them.

K I C K H A M wrote:

Hell. Yes.

It's almost like a referral fee.

If the job is crap pay, but I accept, I'd at LEAST bring them a gift or buy them lunch.

Fair enough but I don't think it is necessary. TFP is used by both parties to enhance getting jobs or making jobs. I'm going to be like Dr Sheldon Cooper and say that makes for obligations in gift giving. Unless were are talking a major contract or something breakthrough I don't see the need for either party to do this in a tfp basis if it wasn't covered in the original terms.

JonPhoto wrote:

Fair enough but I don't think it is necessary. TFP is used by both parties to enhance getting jobs or making jobs. I'm going to be like Dr Sheldon Cooper and say that makes for obligations in gift giving. Unless were are talking a major contract or something breakthrough I don't see the need for either party to do this in a tfp basis if it wasn't covered in the original terms.

That's fair. Then again, in my original terms, usually a commercial release is not signed and the photos are used for promotional purposes for the both of us.

Sometimes the photographer doesn't really need that, whereas models ALWAYS have to be updating. In those cases, when I find the photographer's work to be HIGHLY likely to profit me (financially), I will certainly sign a commercial release.

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.


+1
Quite right.
Yes sir!





Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

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?

This presumes that there is little or no work or risk on the photographer's part to turning photos from a TF shoot into cash.

There is no guarantee that the photographer will make money.  They will need to spend additional time and money to create a chance that the photos may make some money and suffer whatever financial consequences result in the case that they do not make money.

If a model is wanting to share in that time, energy, additional money (and risk in that it may never be made back never mind any profit) then a separate business agreement should be involved to determine how to share in the profits (or losses) of such a joint endeavour.  It has nothing to do with the TFP shoot itself regardless of whether or not there is intent to sell the images at the time of the shoot.

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?

Yeah, so if a model poses for me without paying me for the shoot, and then because of my photography he/she becomes a super model, then I should totally get a % of that person's earnings.

All makes sense to me.

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?

How about those times when a photographer PAYS a model, intending to make money, and doesn't?  Should they get a refund?  A partial refund?

I think it's very nice to send something to the model when an image does unusually well, and if that ever happens, I intend to.   But if you do 50, or 500, trade shoots, most of which provide the model more benefit than the photographer, it seems a bit unreasonable to feel guilty when one pays off.

AlexaRose wrote:
So, this is just my bit of thinking, but don't models do this line of work because they love it? I told a photographer when he asked me if I'd ever want any of the pictures we did "if I fall in love with one, I'll come to the gallery and buy it." I thought it was an enormous kindness when he told me we would do TF shoots if the incidence should arise.

I understand that modeling is a job and therefore money matters, but isn't there some degree of pride in knowing that someone felt like a picture of you was worth paying a large sum for, even if you "only" get paid in a print of that picture?

Maybe it's just me, but I do modeling for my love of art, not money.

There is a degree of pride, and of course it's all what's agreed to, but people who make their living doing what they love won't necessarily agree to everything.

The photographer probably loves what they do as well, I know photographers that like doing commercial photography. However, loving something doesn't always mean doing it without pay.

AlexaRose wrote:
So, this is just my bit of thinking, but don't models do this line of work because they love it? I told a photographer when he asked me if I'd ever want any of the pictures we did "if I fall in love with one, I'll come to the gallery and buy it." I thought it was an enormous kindness when he told me we would do TF shoots if the incidence should arise.

I understand that modeling is a job and therefore money matters, but isn't there some degree of pride in knowing that someone felt like a picture of you was worth paying a large sum for, even if you "only" get paid in a print of that picture?

Maybe it's just me, but I do modeling for my love of art, not money.

I had a photograph sell for $400 in a gallery. Do you think I am going to pay that for a photograph of myself that I can't even display in my home? Yeah, maybe eventually the photographer, who is a friend, will give me a smaller print. I will keep it tucked away until my children are older and hopefully more open minded. Until then I will shoot with almost anyone except for my "friend" who can't be bothered to give me the promised print.

I do take enormous pride and satisfaction in my photographs being shown and bought. That is a great motivation to do what I do. It's not the ONLY motivation though.

K I C K H A M wrote:

There is a degree of pride, and of course it's all what's agreed to, but people who make their living doing what they love won't necessarily agree to everything.

The photographer probably loves what they do as well, I know photographers that like doing commercial photography. However, loving something doesn't always mean doing it without pay.

+1

K I C K H A M wrote:
There is a degree of pride, and of course it's all what's agreed to, but people who make their living doing what they love won't necessarily agree to everything.

The photographer probably loves what they do as well, I know photographers that like doing commercial photography. However, loving something doesn't always mean doing it without pay.

Of course not! I love paid shoots as much as the next model.

But wasn't the original question whether or not we as models would be okay with/consider it fair if a photographer made a lot of money from one of our TF pictures? To that my answer is, of course! I would be delighted AND I would have my own print of a picture that I probably wouldn't be able to afford otherwise, double win! Photographers have to get the money to pay models from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't do it. If we all started begrudging each other what we've earned, we would get absolutely no where.

Isis22 wrote:
I had a photograph sell for $400 in a gallery. Do you think I am going to pay that for a photograph of myself that I can't even display in my home? Yeah, maybe eventually the photographer, who is a friend, will give me a smaller print. I will keep it tucked away until my children are older and hopefully more open minded. Until then I will shoot with almost anyone except for my "friend" who can't be bothered to give me the promised print.

I do take enormous pride and satisfaction in my photographs being shown and bought. That is a great motivation to do what I do. It's not the ONLY motivation though.

I had told him I would buy a picture from the gallery with the mindset that it would be a few hundred dollars. If I REALLY want a picture, then I think that is fair, particularly because I've already been paid for the work. I'm really not discussing photographers who don't give promised prints because I've never had that problem. There is nothing "fair" about wanting more than is what you agreed to.

Art of the nude wrote:
But if you do 50, or 500, trade shoots, most of which provide the model more benefit than the photographer, it seems a bit unreasonable to feel guilty when one pays off.

This is a much more realistic representation of trade than a photographer going off and making thousands off a single TF shoot as many here keep speculating.

AlexaRose wrote:

Of course not! I love paid shoots as much as the next model.

But wasn't the original question whether or not we as models would be okay with/consider it fair if a photographer made a lot of money from one of our TF pictures? To that my answer is, of course! I would be delighted AND I would have my own print of a picture that I probably wouldn't be able to afford otherwise, double win! Photographers have to get the money to pay models from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't do it. If we all started begrudging each other what we've earned, we would get absolutely no where.

I think is also depends how the photographers you are working with are making their money. Since I don't do nudes, I rather rarely work with people who only make money on print sales. Usually they are making money on commissions, models paying (which is quite rare is you shoot mostly nudes), etc. In those cases, having the prints in both of our books is what helps us make money.

I don't begrudge a photographer for making money off of our photos, if that's what was agreed to, but in *most* cases, when doing a TF for promotional uses where the photos will help both of us, I will not sign a commercial release.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

This is a much more realistic representation of trade than a photographer going off and making thousands off a single TF shoot as many here keep speculating.

That's kind of the basis for the thread, though, is it not?

It's clearly a hypothetical situation.

K I C K H A M wrote:
I think is also depends how the photographers you are working with are making their money. Since I don't do nudes, I rather rarely work with people who only make money on print sales. Usually they are making money on commissions, models paying (which is quite rare is you shoot mostly nudes), etc. In those cases, having the prints in both of our books is what helps us make money.

I don't begrudge a photographer for making money off of our photos, if that's what was agreed to, but in *most* cases, when doing a TF for promotional uses where the photos will help both of us, I will not sign a commercial release.

^ Very solid point. My mind was completely on art nudes, etc. Anywho, I think what's agreed to is the best measure of what's right. Keep to your word, etc.

AlexaRose wrote:

^ Very solid point. My mind was completely on art nudes, etc. Anywho, I think what's agreed to is the best measure of what's right. Keep to your word, etc.

I completely agree.

K I C K H A M wrote:

That's kind of the basis for the thread, though, is it not?

It's clearly a hypothetical situation.

I certainly do not think the point of the tread is to assume a single extreme possibility while ignoring other extremes or what is likely.   Many here are assuming one extreme on the bell curve, while ignoring the other extreme or the much more likely middle of the bell curve.

Sure, it's possible (but unlikely) a photographer could make a a grand or more off a TF shoot, but it's also possible he could invest a grand or more and see no return at all.   More likely is the exact scenario Art of the Nude made.

By focusing on one unlikely extreme, while ignoring the other extreme or the more likely middle ground, people are creating a biased scenario.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

I certainly do not think the point of the tread is to assume a single extreme possibility while ignoring other extremes or what is likely.   Many here are assuming one extreme on the bell curve, while ignoring the other extreme or the much more likely middle of the bell curve.

Sure, it's possible (but unlikely) a photographer could make a a grand or more off a TF shoot, but it's also possible he could invest a grand or more and see no return at all.   More likely is the exact scenario Art of the Nude made.

By focusing on one unlikely extreme, while ignoring the other extreme or the more likely middle ground, people are creating a biased scenario.

I don't know about others, but I'm not ignoring anything. This thread is about the cases where pieces go onto make money, therefore those are the relevant cases. lots of trade shoots return nothing monetarily. This isn't about those.

K I C K H A M wrote:
[

I don't know about others, but I'm not ignoring anything. This thread is about the cases where pieces go onto make money, therefore those are the relevant cases. lots of trade shoots return nothing monetarily. This isn't about those.

Doing a trade shoot with the hopes of putting some art prints up for sale, does not mean that photographer will net thousands of dollars which is what many are fixated on.  It doesn't mean he will make anything.   A photographer who does a shoot and puts up some framed art for sale on commission, could easily loose money.

A photographer shooting on speculation is taking a risk and that risk goes both ways.  Yes he could make money, but he could also give the model images of value and loose money. 

Many are forming their opinion of fairness based on the opinion the photographer stands to make a great deal of money.  Making an assumption based on one possible extreme, is a very biased assumption that is not at all realistic of most TF shoots.

You think it's unfair for a photographer to possibly make a profit on one particular shoot,  but don't seem to think it unfair, he could also see a loss much of the time.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Doing a trade shoot with the hopes of putting some art prints up for sale, does not mean that photographer will net thousands of dollars which is what many are fixated on.  It doesn't mean he will make anything.   A photographer who does a shoot and puts up some framed art for sale on commission, could easily loose money.

A photographer shooting on speculation is taking a risk and that risk goes both ways.  Yes he could make money, but he could also give the model images of value and loose money. 

Many are forming their opinion of fairness based on the opinion the photographer stands to make a great deal of money.  Making an assumption based on one possible extreme, is a very biased assumption that is not at all realistic of most TF shoots.

You think it's unfair for a photographer to possibly make a profit on one particular shoot,  but don't seem to think it unfair, he could also see a loss much of the time.

The only reason I'm fixating on the prints that make a lot of money is because those are the only ones I would expect anything out of.

So far as fairness, I always believe that what is fair is what is agreed to. And when I work for trade, in MOST cases, I won't sign a commercial release.

What about when people try to not pay a photographer for something used for commercial purposes? People freak out on a consistent basis about that.

Sometimes it's for a film, which I saw in the forums yesterday, and often times the people making films take a loss. Still, in most cases, when people do work with the intention of making money from it, it is most often seen as the right thing to pay (unless you're waiving your fee in exchange for a release).

I understand why, however, people do trade for these projects even when they intend to make money because it's so wishy washy whether you'll come out ahead or not.

My stance is simple. If you do trade with someone *because* you have no guarantee of profit, and then you make a decent profit, give some cut to the model.

Again, this does not include times when you are waiving fees in lieu of release forms, which is what I consider the case when you are no longer using the photos for self-promotional purposes.

K I C K H A M wrote:
The only reason I'm fixating on the prints that make a lot of money is because those are the only ones I would expect anything out of.

So far as fairness, I always believe that what is fair is what is agreed to. And when I work for trade, in MOST cases, I won't sign a commercial release.

I've been reading through this thread and I'll admit, I'm a bit confused - You keep referring to a "commercial release", but in relation to an "editorial usage" such as a print in a gallery. I'm pretty sure, even in CA, a release is not required at all to hang an image in an art gallery (1st amendment trumps local "right of publicity" laws).

I'm just trying to clarify what you are saying.

TrianglePhoto wrote:

I've been reading through this thread and I'll admit, I'm a bit confused - You keep referring to a "commercial release", but in relation to an "editorial usage" such as a print in a gallery. I'm pretty sure, even in CA, a release is not required at all to hang an image in an art gallery (1st amendment trumps local "right of publicity" laws).

I'm just trying to clarify what you are saying.

In general, the releases I am presented and sign for trade shoots are for self promotional uses only.

So far as galleries go, I HAVE stated before that I don't have much experience there. I don't shoot nudes, and generally that takes me out of gallery work with one or two exceptions.

If you have a release signed that allows the work to be use for self-promotional rights only, is it still acceptable to put in a gallery? (Speaking of US laws here, as I know other places it isn't relevant and the photographer has all rights regardless).

K I C K H A M wrote:
In general, the releases I am presented and sign for trade shoots are for self promotional uses only.

So far as galleries go, I HAVE stated before that I don't have much experience there. I don't shoot nudes, and generally that takes me out of gallery work with one or two exceptions.

If you have a release signed that allows the work to be use for self-promotional rights only, is it still acceptable to put in a gallery? (Speaking of US laws here, as I know other places it isn't relevant and the photographer has all rights regardless).

commercial use, as defined by law, is a very very limited usage. Commercial usage refers to using an image in order to sell a product or service. Making money off an image is not necessarily a commercial use.

Right of Publicity only extends in CA to commercial usage, which again is usage of the image to sell a product or service. As an example the lookbook we did for Carroll and Company is a commercial use, the editorial we did for LA Weekly is a non commercial use.

Any prints I sell are non commercial usage because i am selling the print and not using the image in the print to advertise a product (such as Crest toothpaste) or service (such as a carpet cleaning company.)

Editorial usage is non commercial, unless it is an advertorial.

Shooting a wedding at a state park is non commercial usage, even though the photographer is getting paid.

Using the wedding photos to advertise David's Bridal Company is a commercial usage.

Star wrote:

commercial use, as defined by law, is a very very limited usage. Commercial usage refers to using an image in order to sell a product or service. Making money off an image is not necessarily a commercial use.

Right of Publicity only extends in CA to commercial usage, which again is usage of the image to sell a product or service. As an example the lookbook we did for Carroll and Company is a commercial use, the editorial we did for LA Weekly is a non commercial use.

Any prints I sell are non commercial usage because i am selling the print and not using the image in the print to advertise a product (such as Crest toothpaste) or service (such as a carpet cleaning company.)

Editorial usage is non commercial, unless it is an advertorial.

Shooting a wedding at a state park is non commercial usage, even though the photographer is getting paid.

Using the wedding photos to advertise David's Bridal Company is a commercial usage.

Thanks Star.