Bruce M Walker wrote:
Perusing the site of a non-top-tier (per Kelleth's list) Toronto (Mississauga) based model agency, I stopped at this item in their Booking Conditions page:

"Photographic Testing
  Models will not sign any release whatsoever for use of photos unless arrangements have been made with the agency."

As this runs counter to common advice to photographers to always have models sign a release, I thought I'd ask here if this is an often encountered clause in agency policies.

Or is this just another symptom of why they don't make the top-tier list?

This is standard. An agency makes their money by controlling the way others can use the models likeness. They will not give you a release unless you have made arrangements with the agency, and you would go to the booker for the release rather than the model.

ward wrote:
Pretty standard unless it's a work for hire.

+1

Unpaid testing is very much a 'gentlemans agreement' - no releases, no licenses, no watermarks, no harm no foul.

You don't screw with them and they will continue allowing you to shoot their girls; take the piss and you'll never shoot another of their models again.

Your call.





Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Bruce M Walker wrote:
"Photographic Testing
  Models will not sign any release whatsoever for use of photos unless arrangements have been made with the agency."

It's testing -- it's the photographer-model equivalent of a job interview (with the model being the job candidate).  It is not TF*.  The objective is to figure out whether the photographer & the model have sufficient chemistry to work together on a paying project.  The photographer is not expected to come out of the test with commercially viable images, and if the photographer wishes to exploit the resulting images commercially, he will have to negotiate a follow-up deal with the agency & the model.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

It's testing -- it's the photographer-model equivalent of a job interview (with the model being the job candidate).  It is not TF*.  The objective is to figure out whether the photographer & the model have sufficient chemistry to work together on a paying project.  The photographer is not expected to come out of the test with commercially viable images, and if the photographer wishes to exploit the resulting images commercially, he will have to negotiate a follow-up deal with the agency & the model.

Post of the week and absolutely correct.

NatLight Studios wrote:
At the same time, you might be surprised at how many agency models happily sign a commercial release if they like your work well enough.  Whether they tell their agency or not is anyone's guess. 

Many are also happy to be booked independently of their agency, even if "exclusive".

There was an interesting case in New York where a photographer got a model through an agency.  The terms of the agreement were that the release was negotiated by the agency and then covered by the voucher.

At the shoot, the model and the photographer had a good rapport.  The photographer asked the model to sign a release, which she did.  There was later a challenge and the release was found to be invalid.  The court reasoned that the promise made by the photographer to the agency was enforceable.  It found that the voucher was the controlling document, not the release signed by the model.  The model should not have signed a release.

FYI, I agree with you.  I have worked with many agency models and they have signed releases.  I've never heard of a case like that outside of New York.  I just thought it was interesting.  It is also worth noting since we're from California but not everybody on the site is.

That is what I like about these things ... they are never black and white.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

It's testing -- it's the photographer-model equivalent of a job interview (with the model being the job candidate).  It is not TF*.  The objective is to figure out whether the photographer & the model have sufficient chemistry to work together on a paying project.  The photographer is not expected to come out of the test with commercially viable images, and if the photographer wishes to exploit the resulting images commercially, he will have to negotiate a follow-up deal with the agency & the model.

The perspective lightbulb went on! Thank you for underlining the key word. :-)

Yes, I was thinking TF when in fact it's not that at all, and that makes all the difference. I was also mentally tangling up testing with their policy for directing new faces to photographers, an arrangement that is no doubt subject to completely different terms (and which might well be conducted TF).

Thank you to everyone who commented. Great information; the matter is now clear to me.

Bruce M Walker wrote:
Perusing the site of a non-top-tier (per Kelleth's list) Toronto (Mississauga) based model agency, I stopped at this item in their Booking Conditions page:

"Photographic Testing
  Models will not sign any release whatsoever for use of photos unless arrangements have been made with the agency."

As this runs counter to common advice to photographers to always have models sign a release, I thought I'd ask here if this is an often encountered clause in agency policies.

Or is this just another symptom of why they don't make the top-tier list?

Standard Practice

Looknsee Photography wrote:

It's testing -- it's the photographer-model equivalent of a job interview (with the model being the job candidate).  It is not TF*.  The objective is to figure out whether the photographer & the model have sufficient chemistry to work together on a paying project.  The photographer is not expected to come out of the test with commercially viable images, and if the photographer wishes to exploit the resulting images commercially, he will have to negotiate a follow-up deal with the agency & the model.

Um, NO!

That is NOT what 'testing' means in an agency context (although of course that might be what you and some others on this site mean when you use the term).

In an agency context, unpaid 'testing' is where an agency sends a model to a photographer and he/she is allowed to shoot the model for free in return for giving the agency unwatermarked copies of any usable images that result. It's kind of like TF, but not quite. No release is ever signed.

Paid 'testing' in an agency context, is where a model pays a photographer (who has previously done some/plentiful unpaid testing with that agency's models) to shoot a portfolio update for her. This is a commercial arrangement (for the model) in that she's paying for pictures. Again, no release will normally be signed, although the photographer may (should) issue a usage license to the model who is his client in this instance.

Of course, if a commercial photographer has tested with a model then he may be more likely to recommend her to his clients in future if they ask him to source models for a paid job, but testing itself is absolutely not seen as a kind of job interview or tryout by most agencies or photographers. It's just a handy way for agencies to get new pictures of models for free and for photographers who have a relationship with those agencies to have quality models when they need to update their own portfolios or try out new equipment/techniques etc.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

ward wrote:
Pretty standard unless it's a work for hire.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
+1

Unpaid testing is very much a 'gentlemans agreement' - no releases, no licenses, no watermarks, no harm no foul.

You don't screw with them and they will continue allowing you to shoot their girls; take the piss and you'll never shoot another of their models again.

Your call.

Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

+1 as well. Also take into account that if you are shooting new girls, especially ones  from their development board,  that many of them might not be of legal age to sign any sort of agreement anyway.

Bruce M Walker wrote:
Perusing the site of a non-top-tier (per Kelleth's list) Toronto (Mississauga) based model agency, I stopped at this item in their Booking Conditions page:

"Photographic Testing
  Models will not sign any release whatsoever for use of photos unless arrangements have been made with the agency."

As this runs counter to common advice to photographers to always have models sign a release, I thought I'd ask here if this is an often encountered clause in agency policies.

Or is this just another symptom of why they don't make the top-tier list?

It seems you've got your answer which is that it is not unusal for models "testing" to not sign a release.  I'll be honest with you ... I don't "always" have every model sign a release.  The key word is "always!" 

Although it is recommended that releases are signed, it's not always necessary. Things to consider when working with models is the purpose of the shoot, and planned use of the images.  If it's to build each others portfolio, and done in trade or testing, there may not be a need for a release.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
It's testing -- it's the photographer-model equivalent of a job interview (with the model being the job candidate).  It is not TF*.  The objective is to figure out whether the photographer & the model have sufficient chemistry to work together on a paying project.  The photographer is not expected to come out of the test with commercially viable images, and if the photographer wishes to exploit the resulting images commercially, he will have to negotiate a follow-up deal with the agency & the model.

Lmfao!




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Bruce M Walker wrote:
Perusing the site of a non-top-tier (per Kelleth's list) Toronto (Mississauga) based model agency, I stopped at this item in their Booking Conditions page:

"Photographic Testing
  Models will not sign any release whatsoever for use of photos unless arrangements have been made with the agency."

As this runs counter to common advice to photographers to always have models sign a release, I thought I'd ask here if this is an often encountered clause in agency policies.

Or is this just another symptom of why they don't make the top-tier list?

Yes its normal as that is how they and their models make money.

They may sign a promotional release, but in any case there shouldn't be issues since that's the whole reason a model is with an agency is to be a model and pose in pics and stuff.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Looknsee Photography wrote:
It's testing -- it's the photographer-model equivalent of a job interview (with the model being the job candidate).  It is not TF*.  The objective is to figure out whether the photographer & the model have sufficient chemistry to work together on a paying project.  The photographer is not expected to come out of the test with commercially viable images, and if the photographer wishes to exploit the resulting images commercially, he will have to negotiate a follow-up deal with the agency & the model.

Um, NO!

That is NOT what 'testing' means in an agency context (although of course that might be what you and some others on this site mean when you use the term).

In an agency context, unpaid 'testing' is where an agency sends a model to a photographer and he/she is allowed to shoot the model for free in return for giving the agency unwatermarked copies of any usable images that result. It's kind of like TF, but not quite. No release is ever signed.

Paid 'testing' in an agency context, is where a model pays a photographer (who has previously done some/plentiful unpaid testing with that agency's models) to shoot a portfolio update for her. This is a commercial arrangement (for the model) in that she's paying for pictures. Again, no release will normally be signed, although the photographer may (should) issue a usage license to the model who is his client in this instance.

Of course, if a commercial photographer has tested with a model then he may be more likely to recommend her to his clients in future if they ask him to source models for a paid job, but testing itself is absolutely not seen as a kind of job interview or tryout by most agencies or photographers. It's just a handy way for agencies to get new pictures of models for free and for photographers who have a relationship with those agencies to have quality models when they need to update their own portfolios or try out new equipment/techniques etc.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

I tend to agree with what our European friend is saying here.   There are certainly situations where a photographer will want to shoot with a model to "give her a try," from an agency's perspective, they are building her portfolio or getting her experience in front of the camera. 

While I see what the other poster is saying, and it is certainly valid, it really isn't the primary reason for test.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
In an agency context, unpaid 'testing' is where an agency sends a model to a photographer and he/she is allowed to shoot the model for free in return for giving the agency unwatermarked copies of any usable images that result. It's kind of like TF, but not quite. No release is ever signed.

Paid 'testing' in an agency context, is where a model pays a photographer (who has previously done some/plentiful unpaid testing with that agency's models) to shoot a portfolio update for her. This is a commercial arrangement (for the model) in that she's paying for pictures. Again, no release will normally be signed, although the photographer may (should) issue a usage license to the model who is his client in this instance.

Of course, if a commercial photographer has tested with a model then he may be more likely to recommend her to his clients in future if they ask him to source models for a paid job, but testing itself is absolutely not seen as a kind of job interview or tryout by most agencies or photographers. It's just a handy way for agencies to get new pictures of models for free and for photographers who have a relationship with those agencies to have quality models when they need to update their own portfolios or try out new equipment/techniques etc.


Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

The plot thickens. Thank you, AIG.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Looknsee Photography wrote:
It's testing -- it's the photographer-model equivalent of a job interview (with the model being the job candidate).  It is not TF*.  The objective is to figure out whether the photographer & the model have sufficient chemistry to work together on a paying project.  The photographer is not expected to come out of the test with commercially viable images, and if the photographer wishes to exploit the resulting images commercially, he will have to negotiate a follow-up deal with the agency & the model.

Um, NO!

That is NOT what 'testing' means in an agency context (although of course that might be what you and some others on this site mean when you use the term).

In an agency context, unpaid 'testing' is where an agency sends a model to a photographer and he/she is allowed to shoot the model for free in return for giving the agency unwatermarked copies of any usable images that result. It's kind of like TF, but not quite. No release is ever signed.

Paid 'testing' in an agency context, is where a model pays a photographer (who has previously done some/plentiful unpaid testing with that agency's models) to shoot a portfolio update for her. This is a commercial arrangement (for the model) in that she's paying for pictures. Again, no release will normally be signed, although the photographer may (should) issue a usage license to the model who is his client in this instance.

Of course, if a commercial photographer has tested with a model then he may be more likely to recommend her to his clients in future if they ask him to source models for a paid job, but testing itself is absolutely not seen as a kind of job interview or tryout by most agencies or photographers. It's just a handy way for agencies to get new pictures of models for free and for photographers who have a relationship with those agencies to have quality models when they need to update their own portfolios or try out new equipment/techniques etc.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

I tend to agree with what our European friend is saying here.   There are certainly situations where a photographer will want to shoot with a model to "give her a try," from an agency's perspective, they are building her portfolio or getting her experience in front of the camera. 

While I see what the other poster is saying, and it is certainly valid, it really isn't the primary reason for test.

Bruce M Walker wrote:
"Photographic Testing
  Models will not sign any release whatsoever for use of photos unless arrangements have been made with the agency."

Looknsee Photography wrote:
It's testing

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Um, NO!  ...  That is NOT what 'testing' means

I think photography suffers from not having "standard" definitions for common practices.  There is no standard definition for "testing" that is in use in all circumstances.

In any case, any party (in this case, the agency) can set whatever terms he/she wants, and the other party can accept, decline, or make a counter offer.  In this case, the agency is being clear.

NatLight Studios wrote:
At the same time, you might be surprised at how many agency models happily sign a commercial release if they like your work well enough.  Whether they tell their agency or not is anyone's guess. 

Many are also happy to be booked independently of their agency, even if "exclusive".

GPS Studio Services wrote:
There was an interesting case in New York where a photographer got a model through an agency.  The terms of the agreement were that the release was negotiated by the agency and then covered by the voucher.

At the shoot, the model and the photographer had a good rapport.  The photographer asked the model to sign a release, which she did.  There was later a challenge and the release was found to be invalid.  The court reasoned that the promise made by the photographer to the agency was enforceable.  It found that the voucher was the controlling document, not the release signed by the model.  The model should not have signed a release.

FYI, I agree with you.  I have worked with many agency models and they have signed releases.  I've never heard of a case like that outside of New York.  I just thought it was interesting.  It is also worth noting since we're from California but not everybody on the site is.

That is what I like about these things ... they are never black and white.

It's good that you mentioned the New York case.  If you remember the same case that I do, it's worth a further mention.  The case that I remember had some unique facts regarding the photographer's explicit agreement with the agency that the model could not sign a release, yet proceeded to have her sign one anyway.  Because of the fairly unique fact context, I don't consider it controlling, whether New York or California.  But, given the wide range of activities by MM members, it is certainly possible that other MM photographers/models could have a sufficiently similar agreement that the narrow ruling in that case might apply. 

By my earlier comments, I did not mean to suggest that agencies don't care what a model signs.  We should be well aware of the admonitions from our England-based Italian friend:  If an agency learns that you are shooting their models and expecting your own release to be signed, they may not be too happy with you.  In some cases, depending on your relationship with the agency, they look the other way because the work you shoot isn't something they book the model for anyway, or the model isn't identifiable in your images, or because you do enough favors for them (or a specific booker) that they still want to send new models to you to get pics they can use.  Other agencies will care, a lot, and cut you off from official contact with their models.  It helps to know which type of agency you are dealing with if you want your own release signed.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Bruce M Walker wrote:
"Photographic Testing
  Models will not sign any release whatsoever for use of photos unless arrangements have been made with the agency."

I think photography suffers from not having "standard" definitions for common practices.  There is no standard definition for "testing" that is in use in all circumstances.

In any case, any party (in this case, the agency) can set whatever terms he/she wants, and the other party can accept, decline, or make a counter offer.  In this case, the agency is being clear.

The problem stems more from a long history of people on the Internet (MM) using terms  that have long-standing standard industry meaning in whatever way they choose to fit their purpose - and then going on forums and insisting their definition is correct (not pointing at anyone in this thread).
Testing in the agency world has meant one thing and one thing only (with the exception of paid vs. non-paid as TIG pointed out). This has been for decades. The benefit of this standardization of term, is that you can walk into virtually any legitimate agency saying you want to test with their girls and they know exactly what you're talking about.

Knowledgeable people from the street world have left MM because of the insistence of many that their made up terms are the correct ones.

Rather than arguing - People that don't have the actual experience should just shut up and learn (again not pointing to people in this thread which has been civil).

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
An image with no release has Zero Value. It's a waste of time in my opinion. You can get a great port oh wow and that will buy you a cup of coffee. How many people here have great port but still find it hard to get paid by models?

Clients you still have to go after and bid on job most of the time unless you have established relationships.

Maybe if you did that enough someone might eventually hire you if your work was great but more than likely you'll just keep getting sent models for free test shoots and  they will use you're images in their port to make them money.

So basically the Agency is saving money, the models are making money by getting new jobs and you are working for free. Wow what a great deal! Much like shooting for exposure.

It all depends on you business models I guess if it's worth it to you. But I'd rather find a model on the street or though other means that will sign a release.

Does anyone has have any info proving that it's otherwise beneficial monetarily as many I missed something?

I get paid work all the time based off of both tests and client work displayed in my portfolio. So I'm not sure where you get the zero value thing from...


[Edit] with my portfolio (on my website) I have no need for an ongoing testing relationship with an agency here. Its easier to set things up with models on facebook or here when I want to do a fun shoot. Not that I think a testing relationship is a waste of time, but I think that there needs to be some kind of end goal other than more free tests.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
{snippet}

An image with no release has Zero Value. It's a waste of time in my opinion. You can get a great port oh wow and that will buy you a cup of coffee. How many people here have great port but still find it hard to get paid by models?

Yes it's gonna be harder to get paid directly by models, instead of clients, but having great faces in your book is invaluable. Worth much more than zero in my humble opinion. Are models the only one's you plan on marketing to?

CHAD ALAN wrote:
Yes it's gonna be harder to get paid directly by models, instead of clients, but having great faces in your book is invaluable. Worth much more than zero in my humble opinion. Are models the only one's you plan on marketing to?

No my business model is to make money by selling the images rather than being paid to shoot. At some point I hope to not hire out at all. And at that point will be fine with paying models for their services as well.

So from my perspective/business model and long term goals images I have no release for are worthless to me.

But I do realize that may not be the case with everyone or other business models.

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
I get paid work all the time based off of both tests and client work displayed in my portfolio. So I'm not sure where you get the zero value thing from...


[Edit] with my portfolio (on my website) I have no need for an ongoing testing relationship with an agency here. Its easier to set things up with models on facebook or here when I want to do a fun shoot. Not that I think a testing relationship is a waste of time, but I think that there needs to be some kind of end goal other than more free tests.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

One doesn't generally test just as an avenue for arbitrary "free girls" to shoot. One tests with agencies to limit even their most casual shoots, to agency caliber models (which, if you're serious, is what you need in your portfolio and other collateral - excepting some photographic genres - but if you're shooting fashion, that's what you need).
Also, when you have a history of shooting work from an agency's development board, you can usually pull from their main board from time to time also. Which can be a big deal.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
One doesn't generally test just as an avenue for arbitrary "free girls" to shoot. One tests with agencies to limit even their most casual shoots, to agency caliber models (which, if you're serious, is what you need in your portfolio and other collateral - excepting some photographic genres - but if you're shooting fashion, that's what you need).
Also, when you have a history of shooting work from an agency's development board, you can usually pull from their main board from time to time also. Which can be a big deal.

I disagree, as agency testing is a great way to get "free girls" to shoot, especially if you're starting out, have an eye and vision, and just need some bodies in front of the lens.

Also I disagree, that after a while the need for testing gets less and less.

Also I disagree, around here, if I'm shooting a bonified editorial, I can call up and pull models from agencies, that's what they are for, it doesn't take or require some deep relationship, just a phone call.


I'm sorry, I just don't see agency testing or even being on their recommended list as the end all be all of anything.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
I disagree, as agency testing is a great way to get "free girls" to shoot, especially if you're starting out, have an eye and vision, and just need some bodies in front of the lens.

Also I disagree, that after a while the need for testing gets less and less.

Also I disagree, around here, if I'm shooting a bonified editorial, I can call up and pull models from agencies, that's what they are for, it doesn't take or require some deep relationship, just a phone call.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

I never said that agency testing wasn't a great way to get free girls to shoot. Just that the benefit is more about the caliber of the girl - so the images are actually useful for fashion portfolio usage.

I also never said that the need was progressively less and less - although it is certainly cyclic. I don't always test at the same frequency month-to-month and year-to-year.

Depends - it's a whole lot easier to get a specific girl from an agency's main board to test with maybe editorial submission at no cost, if you have an established testing relationship with that agency.  Now I'm not saying that's the only way - but that's a tried and true way.

P.S. I'm also aware that things may be different for you in Minnesota (where I've never shot), than in the major markets (Two of which I've shot and worked with major fashion agencies in - Chicago and LA)

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Um, NO!

That is NOT what 'testing' means in an agency context (although of course that might be what you and some others on this site mean when you use the term).

In an agency context, unpaid 'testing' is where an agency sends a model to a photographer and he/she is allowed to shoot the model for free in return for giving the agency unwatermarked copies of any usable images that result. It's kind of like TF, but not quite. No release is ever signed.

Paid 'testing' in an agency context, is where a model pays a photographer (who has previously done some/plentiful unpaid testing with that agency's models) to shoot a portfolio update for her. This is a commercial arrangement (for the model) in that she's paying for pictures. Again, no release will normally be signed, although the photographer may (should) issue a usage license to the model who is his client in this instance.

Of course, if a commercial photographer has tested with a model then he may be more likely to recommend her to his clients in future if they ask him to source models for a paid job, but testing itself is absolutely not seen as a kind of job interview or tryout by most agencies or photographers. It's just a handy way for agencies to get new pictures of models for free and for photographers who have a relationship with those agencies to have quality models when they need to update their own portfolios or try out new equipment/techniques etc.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

This right here^^^ You saved me the effort of this very response.

NatLight Studios wrote:

NatLight Studios wrote:
At the same time, you might be surprised at how many agency models happily sign a commercial release if they like your work well enough.  Whether they tell their agency or not is anyone's guess. 

Many are also happy to be booked independently of their agency, even if "exclusive".

It's good that you mentioned the New York case.  If you remember the same case that I do, it's worth a further mention.  The case that I remember had some unique facts regarding the photographer's explicit agreement with the agency that the model could not sign a release, yet proceeded to have her sign one anyway.  Because of the fairly unique fact context, I don't consider it controlling, whether New York or California.  But, given the wide range of activities by MM members, it is certainly possible that other MM photographers/models could have a sufficiently similar agreement that the narrow ruling in that case might apply. 

By my earlier comments, I did not mean to suggest that agencies don't care what a model signs.  We should be well aware of the admonitions from our England-based Italian friend:  If an agency learns that you are shooting their models and expecting your own release to be signed, they may not be too happy with you.  In some cases, depending on your relationship with the agency, they look the other way because the work you shoot isn't something they book the model for anyway, or the model isn't identifiable in your images, or because you do enough favors for them (or a specific booker) that they still want to send new models to you to get pics they can use.  Other agencies will care, a lot, and cut you off from official contact with their models.  It helps to know which type of agency you are dealing with if you want your own release signed.

Yep.

My relationship with the only viable (to my knowledge) local agency is such that i could possibly get away with it a couple of times. I would not push it. And I have a long standing relationship with the agency.

Never say never, but don't push your luck.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

The problem stems more from a long history of people on the Internet (MM) using terms  that have long-standing standard industry meaning in whatever way they choose to fit their purpose - and then going on forums and insisting their definition is correct (not pointing at anyone in this thread).
Testing in the agency world has meant one thing and one thing only (with the exception of paid vs. non-paid as TIG pointed out). This has been for decades. The benefit of this standardization of term, is that you can walk into virtually any legitimate agency saying you want to test with their girls and they know exactly what you're talking about.

Knowledgeable people from the street world have left MM because of the insistence of many that their made up terms are the correct ones.

Rather than arguing - People that don't have the actual experience should just shut up and learn (again not pointing to people in this thread which has been civil).

Quit pointing a finger at me, I said I was not sure. 

However I have heard trade also being used by some agencies. Test = Trade

And I have also heard 'test' meaning just that. 'I want to test some new ideas or equipment, and I want a warm body in front. Probably will not get anything decent but who knows. The model will get some experience posing for a photographer,'.

So it is easy to see how the terms can get mixed up.

And trade for print, was a term in common usage in Toronto in the 60's. Usually for a couple of 11x14's.

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:

I get paid work all the time based off of both tests and client work displayed in my portfolio. So I'm not sure where you get the zero value thing from...


[Edit] with my portfolio (on my website) I have no need for an ongoing testing relationship with an agency here. Its easier to set things up with models on facebook or here when I want to do a fun shoot. Not that I think a testing relationship is a waste of time, but I think that there needs to be some kind of end goal other than more free tests.




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Yes.

But for me as a hobbyist, it does simply mean a goal for more free tests.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

One doesn't generally test just as an avenue for arbitrary "free girls" to shoot. One tests with agencies to limit even their most casual shoots, to agency caliber models (which, if you're serious, is what you need in your portfolio and other collateral - excepting some photographic genres - but if you're shooting fashion, that's what you need).
Also, when you have a history of shooting work from an agency's development board, you can usually pull from their main board from time to time also. Which can be a big deal.

YES!!!

Hearing, "XYZ is back from Milan, do you still want to shoot with her?" is rather nice.

NatLight Studios wrote:
At the same time, you might be surprised at how many agency models happily sign a commercial release if they like your work well enough.  Whether they tell their agency or not is anyone's guess. 

Many are also happy to be booked independently of their agency, even if "exclusive".

GPS Studio Services wrote:
There was an interesting case in New York where a photographer got a model through an agency.  The terms of the agreement were that the release was negotiated by the agency and then covered by the voucher.

At the shoot, the model and the photographer had a good rapport.  The photographer asked the model to sign a release, which she did.  There was later a challenge and the release was found to be invalid.  The court reasoned that the promise made by the photographer to the agency was enforceable.  It found that the voucher was the controlling document, not the release signed by the model.  The model should not have signed a release.

FYI, I agree with you.  I have worked with many agency models and they have signed releases.  I've never heard of a case like that outside of New York.  I just thought it was interesting.  It is also worth noting since we're from California but not everybody on the site is.

That is what I like about these things ... they are never black and white.

NatLight Studios wrote:
It's good that you mentioned the New York case.  If you remember the same case that I do, it's worth a further mention.  The case that I remember had some unique facts regarding the photographer's explicit agreement with the agency that the model could not sign a release, yet proceeded to have her sign one anyway.  Because of the fairly unique fact context, I don't consider it controlling, whether New York or California.  But, given the wide range of activities by MM members, it is certainly possible that other MM photographers/models could have a sufficiently similar agreement that the narrow ruling in that case might apply. 

By my earlier comments, I did not mean to suggest that agencies don't care what a model signs.  We should be well aware of the admonitions from our England-based Italian friend:  If an agency learns that you are shooting their models and expecting your own release to be signed, they may not be too happy with you.  In some cases, depending on your relationship with the agency, they look the other way because the work you shoot isn't something they book the model for anyway, or the model isn't identifiable in your images, or because you do enough favors for them (or a specific booker) that they still want to send new models to you to get pics they can use.  Other agencies will care, a lot, and cut you off from official contact with their models.  It helps to know which type of agency you are dealing with if you want your own release signed.

No doubt, I am not arguing the law, nor am I disagreeing with what you were saying.  I am only pointing out that sometimes things happen that one doesn't expect.  I am sure that the photographer thought he had a valid release.

In any case, your points are well taken.  I think you have it just about right.