Model
Vi Synster
Posts: 301
Jesup, Georgia, US
For models who sell prints of their photos:
Do you set up some sort of payment plan with the photographer who took your photo so they also get some of the funds? If it's not in the initial model release forum, do you get permission from the photographer who shot you to sell the prints?
Photographer
Demeter Photography
Posts: 550
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Ummmm. Well the photographer holds the IP rights so if you are selling you are likely violating the photographers IP and she/he would be in a position to take legal action.
Unless you have some legal document giving you expressly written permission to sell prints, you can't and shouldn't sell prints. The short term gain isn't worth it.
Photographer
Silver Mirage
Posts: 1585
Plainview, Texas, US
In the US the photographer usually owns copyright to photos (unless there is a 'work for hire' agreement or some other agreement in place) so the model cannot legally sell prints without the photographer's permission. To protect yourself get permission in writing and keep it on file.
Whether or not the photographer gets payment or how that is arranged is completely negotiable. But my own advice to avoid anything that involves too much bookkeeping - you don't want to be having to figure payments and send the photographer a check every time you sell a print.
Model
Amber Dawn - Indiana
Posts: 6255
Salem, Indiana, US
You need to firstly contact the Photographers and let them know what you are wanting to do and get their permission and and ask if they want a percent yadda yadda yadda and get it on paper.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
You are getting the correct information. If the photographer has given you ten prints, then you are free to do with those ten prints as you want. That means if he gave you ten you can sell those ten.
If you want to make your own prints from the digital images he has sent you, or to duplicate the prints you have been provided, you are going to have to get a license from the photographer. In other words, you can't make your own prints without consent. In most cases, the photographer will want some kind of consideration for granting you the license. Some photographers may be willing to let you do it for free. In any case, you will need their consent.
Model
S. Stark
Posts: 13614
Los Angeles, California, US
Percentage deals are too much hassle for me.
I make usage rights part of any trade agreement. If a photographer is not paying me with money, we sign a contract that states that I get a certain amount of images, to sell as I wish. Usually, this means images that the photographer doesn't plan to push themselves, though my contract does not keep the photographer from doing so. Photographer maintains copyright, and we share usage.
I usually come away with 5 or 10 stellar images that I can print willy nilly. I have a photo printer.
If you DO want to work out a percentage deal, that needs to be put in writing, signed by both of you, and done BEFORE shooting. Trying to do it after the shoot is less ideal, and may not work out. Not all photographers are open to others selling their work.
Model
Vi Synster
Posts: 301
Jesup, Georgia, US
Thanks for the comments everyone. I ask because sometimes I see some of my favorite models on Facebook advertising that they're selling prints of themselves and I've always wondered what exactly goes into all of that.
Model
Isis22
Posts: 3557
Muncie, Indiana, US
Cree Synster wrote:
Thanks for the comments everyone. I ask because sometimes I see some of my favorite models on Facebook advertising that they're selling prints of themselves and I've always wondered what exactly goes into all of that. Ask the models on Facebook. There is no one set way of doing things. I do agree with everyone that the photographer has the rights to the photos unless you have agreed to otherwise upfront.
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 13562
Washington, Utah, US
Cree Synster wrote:
If it's not in the initial model release forum, do you get permission from the photographer who shot you to sell the prints? The permission will come in the form of what's often called usage rights or a usage license. It's not the same as the model release, which is about the photographer or end users using your likeness.
Personally, I wouldn't do this on a commission basis, but would negotiate usage rights and allow the model to make as much or little as she can. Keeping track of ongoing commissions over time is too much work.
Shandra mentioned usage rights, I just wanted to make it clear usage is not the same thing as a model release.
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
Shandra Stark wrote:
I make usage rights part of any trade agreement. If a photographer is not paying me with money, we sign a contract that states that I get a certain amount of images, to sell as I wish. Usually, this means images that the photographer doesn't plan to push themselves, though my contract does not keep the photographer from doing so. Photographer maintains copyright, and we share usage. I have a lot of respect for Shandra Stark -- she is quite intelligent, talented, and experienced. However, this arrangement she describes above gives me the heebie-jeebies. This can cause several problems:
... What stops the model from underbidding the photographer, who is
trying to license one of the "shared" images?
... What happens if the model places the image in a situation that the
photographer doesn't want?
... If the image is used without a license, who pays the lawyer?
... Does this arrangement expire?
... If the photographer gets sued over the image, does the model
participate?
... Can the photographer audit the model's books?
... Can one party sell his/her interest in an image to a 3rd party?
... What happens if one party dies?
... What are the obligations for each party to communicate their
activities, including contacts, changes in address, etc.?
... etc.
No -- I feel that shared copyrights or any arrangement where more than one party can license placements for an image is a nightmare. I would rigorously resist entering into any such an agreement with a model. I just state explicitly that the model can use the images for her on-line modeling portfolios but she can't use the images for pay sites, for licensing, or for selling of prints.
Model
S. Stark
Posts: 13614
Los Angeles, California, US
Looknsee Photography wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Shandra Stark -- she is quite intelligent, talented, and experienced. However, this arrangement she describes above gives me the heebie-jeebies. This can cause several problems:
... What stops the model from underbidding the photographer, who is
trying to license one of the "shared" images?
... What happens if the model places the image in a situation that the
photographer doesn't want?
... If the image is used without a license, who pays the lawyer?
... Does this arrangement expire?
... If the photographer gets sued over the image, does the model
participate?
... Can the photographer audit the model's books?
... Can one party sell his/her interest in an image to a 3rd party?
... What happens if one party dies?
... What are the obligations for each party to communicate their
activities, including contacts, changes in address, etc.?
... etc.
No -- I feel that shared copyrights or any arrangement where more than one party can license placements for an image is a nightmare. I would rigorously resist entering into any such an agreement with a model. I just state explicitly that the model can use the images for her on-line modeling portfolios but she can't use the images for pay sites, for licensing, or for selling of prints. Simple usage is not the same as copyright.
I clearly state, in contracts, my exact usage. Calendars, prints, promotion.
The imagesI am given are images that the photographer has no interest in selling, typically, and me selling prints to some Joe Schmoe photographer I work with while touring, is highly unlikely to interfere with a photographer's sales, should they actually decide to sell them, themselves.
If someone dies, nothing happens. The contract simply says that I am able to print the images for my own gain, without the tedium of giving comission to the photographer.
Never expires. I make prints, and calendars, and get to take home some extra pocket change.
No photographer that I have made such an agreement with, cares that I make an extra few hundred dollars here and there...especially since they are not otherwise paying me for my time, and don't deal in print sales themselves.
It's not like I am trying to sell rights to someone else, or like there is potential for anyone to make or lose thousands of dollars a year selling the occasional art nude print.
My arrangement is not nearly as involved as you're thinking.
All things to be considered, with a more involved arrangement, but none of those are concerns with simple usage, written out in a contract.
I receive a few images from each trade shoot, complete with shared usage, as payment for my time, I lieu of money.
Photographer
Nico Simon Princely
Posts: 1972
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Unless you have licensed the image from the photographer you have no ownership or rights to sell or produce any prints and you are violating the photographers copyright. If the image is registered with the copyright office Statutory damages can be $100,000 alone.
Photographer
Art Silva
Posts: 10064
Santa Barbara, California, US
Licensing should be detailed and limited, and to follow that limitation in writing... because if it gets out of hand and becomes a legal issue, the responsibility ultimately falls on the Photographer/copyright holder. Things can get ugly which is why this sort of arrangement can easily become a nightmare and possible falling out with the model.
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Art Silva wrote:
Licensing should be detailed and limited, and to follow that limitation in writing... because if it gets out of hand and becomes a legal issue, the responsibility ultimately falls on the Photographer/copyright holder. Things can get ugly which is why this sort of arrangement can easily become a nightmare and possible falling out with the model. How?
Only in the MM hobby and jv legal squad world does it get ugly selling/giving a model a print to sell.
In the real world someone pays me or even promotes me on their social media (or both) and they would be more than welcome to use the file for as long as its good. At least at a low level there would be no reason to make it more complex than it needs to be with limits and stuff.
But I'm sure the after school legal squad and all the hobby shooters here will disagree.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Nico Simon Princely wrote:
Unless you have licensed the image from the photographer you have no ownership or rights to sell or produce any prints and you are violating the photographers copyright. If the image is registered with the copyright office Statutory damages can be $100,000 alone. And the photographer is going to have the money to take some small random ass model to court for selling their prints?
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Shandra Stark wrote:
Simple usage is not the same as copyright.
I clearly state, in contracts, my exact usage. Calendars, prints, promotion.
The imagesI am given are images that the photographer has no interest in selling, typically, and me selling prints to some Joe Schmoe photographer I work with while touring, is highly unlikely to interfere with a photographer's sales, should they actually decide to sell them, themselves.
If someone dies, nothing happens. The contract simply says that I am able to print the images for my own gain, without the tedium of giving comission to the photographer.
Never expires. I make prints, and calendars, and get to take home some extra pocket change.
No photographer that I have made such an agreement with, cares that I make an extra few hundred dollars here and there...especially since they are not otherwise paying me for my time, and don't deal in print sales themselves.
It's not like I am trying to sell rights to someone else, or like there is potential for anyone to make or lose thousands of dollars a year selling the occasional art nude print.
My arrangement is not nearly as involved as you're thinking.
All things to be considered, with a more involved arrangement, but none of those are concerns with simple usage, written out in a contract.
I receive a few images from each trade shoot, complete with shared usage, as payment for my time, I lieu of money. Yup.
I would be more than happy to sign that, although I would like to be tagged or linked in social media, but that's about it.
I don't deal with print sales myself, so you're not taking away any money and if you could get me a few clients via social media or my own promotional use of the pics then that pays for my time shooting. Or, I would just charge you my normal rate for a shoot and let you use the images.
Why people make it more complex is beyond me. Maybe if the person was a known A or B list celebrity things would be different, but that's not going to be common and those clients/people aren't going to work with random photographers (most of the time) anyway.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Looks by Robert
Posts: 300
Florence, South Carolina, US
"Simple usage is not the same as copyright." The use of the term "simple usage", implies just that.... the ability to use the image under "fair use" law, it does not imply the ability to profit. That is done by Licensing, and there's nothing simple about either. Usage affects Copyright and value. To simply give someone a license, is not too smart... case in point is Photographer Daniel Arnold, http://whentosaynothing.com/ who posted a few of those "gems" on instagram and made $15,000.00 in one day. source: http://petapixel.com/2014/03/08/photogr … instagram/ so, Photographers, License your images cautiously and wisely.
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Looks by Robert wrote:
"Simple usage is not the same as copyright."
The use of the term "simple usage", implies just that.... the ability to use the image under "fair use" law, it does not imply the ability to profit. That is done by Licensing, and there's nothing simple about either. Usage affects Copyright and value.
To simply give someone a license, is not too smart... case in point is Photographer Daniel Arnold, http://whentosaynothing.com/ who posted a few of those "gems" on instagram and made $15,000.00 in one day.
source: http://petapixel.com/2014/03/08/photogr … instagram/
so, Photographers, License your images cautiously and wisely. He sold 100 prints to his list of 25000 followers and did it by having a sale. Sure, there is some value to his model, but I wouldn't call that normal.
A friend last night said he sold a stock photo as a book cover for a decent amount. Which would be more normal, but it differs from this thread in the same way that your example differs.
The thread is about a specific model asking to sell a few specific images. These may or may not even have value beyond the model. Sure, we can always hold out and hope more money comes later, or we can sell them and get the money now. In the case of a specific model I would be more inclined to sell them now or work out a deal now.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Looks by Robert
Posts: 300
Florence, South Carolina, US
you don't think some of these models have the same number of followers and are making a killing? I think you'd be very surprised at just how much money they DO make.
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Looks by Robert wrote:
you don't think some of these models have the same number of followers and are making a killing? I think you'd be very surprised at just how much money they DO make. I'm sure some do and I hope some do. That would be a discussion with the specific model who would like to use my photo for sale.
if they make a ton of money then they can pay more and afford more, if they don't then they can pay less. Not a big deal either way, and honestly, I think you're over inflating what the images really are worth.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22232
Stamford, Connecticut, US
Looks by Robert wrote:
you don't think some of these models have the same number of followers and are making a killing? I think you'd be very surprised at just how much money they DO make. Fine.
Let's look at it this way. Let's say that I were a "fine art nude" photographer and I wanted to shoot Shandra. Why would she have any need to shoot "Trade" with me? Trade, after all, implies that we'll both be getting something of benefit. Now, I don't know how many photographers she's shot with, but I'm assuming it is not an insignificant number. I'm also assuming that, at this point, she probably has hundreds, if not thousands, of "fine art nudes" of herself. Why would she possibly need more (unless she were selling content)? She might like my work, she might think I'm the cat's pajamas, but that still doesn't change the fact that having more nude photos of herself does her zero good in and of itself.
In this situation, market forces would dictate that she charge me a rate that she's comfortable with. If she really likes my work, she might charge me a bit less, and if she hates my work, she might charge me a bit more. But payment is warranted because that is the only way she's going to get something out of the deal.
But she's come up with a win/win solution for photographers. Due to her established client base, she is able to sell the photos and make her end that way, without taking a direct payment from the photographer. So, I get to shoot her for free (which is presumably what I want) and, if my work is good enough, she can sell the prints to make the session worthwhile to her.
Also, let's look at the product - the prints themselves. Well, for starters, she's not limiting my ability to sell them, but even if she was, it really wouldn't effect me (or most here) that much. The people who are going to buy those photos from her aren't going to buy them from me - and that assumes I could even build out the distribution channel to her client base, which I probably couldn't. In the end, those prints aren't worth anything to me, but they are to her.
So the question before me then becomes, is shooting her worth it for me? I'm sure she's a lovely woman, but in my case, probably not - simply because I don't really shoot that kind of work. But if I did, it very well might be.
If I wanted to use her for one of my PULP! shots, and she were willing to do that in trade for some other shots that she could then sell to her fan base, I would certainly give that some thought. More than likely, if she had the ability to make real money off the sales, I would probably enter into a business relationship of some kind with her (for example, making limited edition darkroom prints that she could sell and I would get a percentage of those proceeds to compensate for the time spent making the prints).
If at the end of the day, you are selling your work to such a level, that you feel that having that work out there in a manner not controlled by you would cause your sales to decline or devalue your existing print prices, then simply pay your models a fair rate, and be done with it.
Photographer
E H
Posts: 847
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Looks by Robert wrote:
you don't think some of these models have the same number of followers and are making a killing? I think you'd be very surprised at just how much money they DO make. Agreed,, and some want a TFP shoot so they can sell, lol. That is why it is all in the release, what you can and cant do legally...
Model
JoJo
Posts: 26560
Clearwater, Florida, US
E H wrote:
Agreed,, and some want a TFP shoot so they can sell, lol. That is why it is all in the release, what you can and cant do legally... Oh, please...
Model release - model's acknowledgement/consent to being photographed
Usage license - permission from the photographer of what, where and how images may be used.
Shoot contract - sets out what can and cannot be done.
Three separate pieces of paper... and they should NEVER be combined.
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 23575
Salem, Oregon, US
there are services like unitprints.com where you post images and your customer can order their prints and you can mark up the price so you get a cut. but i'm not sure if any of those services provide for multiple parties to get a cut. and of course you'd want to consult your photographer about this as well.
if people are making a lot of money this way i haven't heard about it. for our events we put the pics at unitprints.com with no markup (we just add something to our original flat fee to cover it).
Photographer
E H
Posts: 847
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
JoJo wrote:
Oh, please...
Model release - model's acknowledgement/consent to being photographed
Usage license - permission from the photographer of what, where and how images may be used.
Shoot contract - sets out what can and cannot be done.
Three separate pieces of paper... and they should NEVER be combined. Agreed, my bad for not spelling it all out,, my point was some are making good money selling prints of themselves but want TFP with all the rights/usuageto do with what they want,, agreed some photographers try to do it to,, yes I know if they are willing to do it for free then whatever,, I know.
Respect, sadly,, is in the paperwork more then it should need be.
Photographer
Pantaleoni Photographer
Posts: 79
San Diego, California, US
Did you sign a release? (What did it say?) How did you obtain the image? Did the photographer mention - verbally or in writing - any restrictions about the image(s) you have? So: Here be the sermon on a model's release...
PHOTOGRAPHER: Should REQURE it. It should be comprehensive - saying the photographer OWNS the pictures. It should include saying the model has been paid. (Yep, the pictures you have - even if you are not allowed to reproduce them - are payment if that's what you agreed.) Photographer should REQUIRE model to show photo id. (A minor's signature without a parent or guardian's counter/additional signature isn't worth spit.)
MODELS: You should DEMAND a model's release. That release should very explicitly say who owns what. It should say that you have been paid. (Photo you may not reproduce or distribute, cash, a hearty handshake, doesn't matter...)
Here endeth the sermon.... Hope that helps.
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Pantaleoni Photographer wrote:
Did you sign a release? (What did it say?) How did you obtain the image? Did the photographer mention - verbally or in writing - any restrictions about the image(s) you have? So: Here be the sermon on a model's release...
PHOTOGRAPHER: Should REQURE it. It should be comprehensive - saying the photographer OWNS the pictures. It should include saying the model has been paid. (Yep, the pictures you have - even if you are not allowed to reproduce them - are payment if that's what you agreed.) Photographer should REQUIRE model to show photo id. (A minor's signature without a parent or guardian's counter/additional signature isn't worth spit.)
MODELS: You should DEMAND a model's release. That release should very explicitly say who owns what. It should say that you have been paid. (Photo you may not reproduce or distribute, cash, a hearty handshake, doesn't matter...)
Here endeth the sermon.... Hope that helps. lol
Still trying to figure out why a model would need to sign a release to the photographer to sell their own image.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Thomas Art Studio
Posts: 97
Carthage, Tennessee, US
JoJo wrote:
Oh, please...
Model release - model's acknowledgement/consent to being photographed
Usage license - permission from the photographer of what, where and how images may be used.
Shoot contract - sets out what can and cannot be done.
Three separate pieces of paper... and they should NEVER be combined. Well said JoJo
I shoot trade with models for the most part. My standard agreement gives the model 5 high resolution images of their choice per hour and the usage license agreement gives the model the right to have those images printed up and sell them if they want to.
My view is both model and photographer are working together to make the images so why should the agreement make it where they can only use the images for portfolio usage. To me both model and photographer help in creating the image so both should have rights that allow them to use the images to make some money if money was not part of the compensation for the shoot.
However getting back to the OP's question I have seen three ways that the model can legally sell prints from a shoot
1) Model purchases the copyright outright from the photographer, though this is almost always going to be very costly, if the photographer will even sell the copyright.
2) Model purchases prints directly from photographer and then resells the prints. When done correctly both sides can benefit for example photographer sells the prints to the model, model then sells photos for more than she purchased them for. Both have made a profit in the deal and if the model buys in bulk say 50-100 images then both can make a nice profit from it and photographer is guaranteed a profit whether the model ever gets an photo resold.
3) Photographer grants a license that allows the model to have prints made up and allows model to also sell the prints she has made.
|
